Opinion: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

[Lee Jay]

Second, I have worked in photo retail and own a lens rental company and I can honestly say that no one ever bought or rented an 24-105 f/4L IS over a 24-70 f/2.8L because of the additional 35mm of range.

I did.  I bought it for the additional range AND IS.  If either had been missing, I would have bought something else.  Having IS missing in the 24-70/2.8 means I'm not interested in the least.

The only reason I'd buy a 24-70/4 now despite its limited range is if I had enough pixels to crop to 105.

[symmar22]

Amen, finally a replacement to the embarrassing prehistoric EF 35mm.

I am afraid it will cost 3 times the price though.

[Chuck Alaimo]

So with the new 24, 28 and now 35 being f/2.8 or f/2 IS lens, I would expect to see a 50 IS at f/2 that will replace the old 1.4.  This would leave the cheap 1.8, a new IS, and the L--I don't see a 4th 50 in the line up so the 1.4 will go. 

I see no way that Canon would make a 50 1.4 IS lens because it would cut into 1.2L sales.   I predict we will see it Q1 2013.

I'd rather it go the other way....just upgrade the 1.4....leave it at 1.4, no IS better optics and keep it just shy of $500, then ditch the 1.8 and you IS needing folks can get your 2.0 IS for $900.  I have a 1.4 50, got it for extreme DOF.  If you take that away, no need for it...

[K-amps]

Worth noting - the 24-70/4 IS is almost a true macro lens.

If those specs are true, a 0.7x max mag of the 24-70/4 is pretty darn close to a true 1:1 macro, and much higher than any other non-macro lens in the lineup (the 24-105 is 0.3x, 24-70 is 0.29x, 24-70 II is 0.21x).  It's even higher than the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro.  The use of H-IS would be consistent with that high max mag (the only other lens that has it is the 100L Macro, but PowerShots also have H-IS since they have very close MFDs).

So, this lens is a combination general purpose zoom and near-macro lens, something nonexistent in the current lineup. For people who like to shoot close ups (flowers, jewelry, etc.) this is like getting two lenses in one.

I just updated the post to include the 0.2m MFD, that's a pretty big deal.

It is THIS attribute that may make me buy it. A tiny Macro zoom lens! That covers the gap I am missing in the 40-70mm area.. I suspect the optics of this guy could be better than the 24-105...

 Now if all this could come in a F2.8, it was a no brainer, but this product certainly has great appeal & Value at the sub $1k price level.

[DB]

Good to see the 35mm f/2 getting a revamp with IS to boot! The old one was so flimsy looking that I opted for the 50mm 1.4 instead, although on a crop body I'd have preferred 35mm. The new one should sell well on both APS-C and FF bodies.

Canon have really pushed the 24-105 as the de facto walk-around lens for several years now (always see it at Photokina on new bodies etc.), so it is hard to see them discontinue it, but somehow I think they will, because as I said in a related thread last week they're moving towards:

24-70mm f/4 USM
24-70mm f/4L IS USM
24-70mm f/2.8 II USM
24-70mm f/2.8 IS USM ??

If this is the case, then we could see (eventually) a 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 materialize as the trinity of zooms

[mrmarks]

The IS in these two lenses will be useful for videos

[pharp]

The 24-105 is good, but not stellar, maybe they've improved the optics? This is also significantly smaller/lighter than the 24-70 ii, and a little than the 24-105 - maybe they were looking for something to match the 6D? Cheaper? If true - all good.

Also, maybe Canon was listening to me? Ha Ha 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9767.0;topicseen

Test, next I want a FF 30MP camera in a 7D sized body, 12fps, 30AF points, accepts EF-S lenses for $1500 by summer 2013 - Canon?

[robbymack]

When this puppy comes out it will be a hard choice between the 24-70f4 IS the 24-105, and the tamron 24-70 2.8 vc as they will all be around the same price. If you can get over the backwards zoom of the Tammy that's probably the lens of choice in this price range.

[Dylan777]

When this puppy comes out it will be a hard choice between the 24-70f4 IS the 24-105, and the tamron 24-70 2.8 vc as they will all be around the same price. If you can get over the backwards zoom of the Tammy that's probably the lens of choice in this price range.

I'm guessing...the price tag 24-70 f4 IS is $1599?

[robbymack]

When this puppy comes out it will be a hard choice between the 24-70f4 IS the 24-105, and the tamron 24-70 2.8 vc as they will all be around the same price. If you can get over the backwards zoom of the Tammy that's probably the lens of choice in this price range.

I'm guessing...the price tag 24-70 f4 IS is $1599?

I wouldnt be surprised by that pricing, but if this is the kit lens going forward I'd expect it closer to $1200 like the 24-105 and about $800 in the kit. So it won't make munch sense for anyone to pick up this lens in its own. The 24-105 is likely on its way out, which is too bad, it's maybe the most perfect travel/general use lens on the market.

[pharp]

The 24-105 is likely on its way out, which is too bad, it's maybe the most perfect travel/general use lens on the market.

I wouldn't worry about it, so many were made, they'll be available on the used market for yeaarrrs.

[spinworkxroy]

Canon is confusing me..
Why would they make the 24-70 f4?
The 24-105 has no rivals…and if they ever discontinue that, it would be a waste..they should improve it and release a ver 2.

The 24-70 f4 is supposed to be a 6D kit and if it's alot better than the 24-105, then why would anyone buy a 5D3 kit with the 25-105 then? 
Whatever the price, the 2.8 version is at least 2x more expensive…i hope this brings down the price of the 2.8 version.

I really can't understand Canon's logic with this new lens…then maybe the new 5D3 will also come with this kit and it will be more expensive than the 24-105kit Good enough reason to make more $$

[Zv]

The 24-70 f4 IS will be lighter, smaller, have closer MFD, hybrid IS, macro and probably better IQ than the 24-105 due to a shorter focal range. For those who don't require the range or have a 70-200 its no choice at all. Might even sell my 17-55 to fund it!

The 24-105 is a victim of it's own succes. Far too economic! Canon will put and end to that!

[MK5GTI]

i like the 24-105L range as well, since it cover the classic portrait range, 85mm, 90mm, 100mm as well, the 24-70 fell short in this regard on a FF.

if the $8xx price is right, hopefully white box coming out from 6D kit will sell for less in the 2nd hand market.

[Iceman75]

I seriously like the extra reach of the 35mm, which translates into the subject being nearly twice as large in the frame over 70mm...

Same here... I was thinking a let whether to get the (old) 24-70/2,8 or the 24-105/4. I did not buy a new one and the prize tag on the used marked was pretty much the same these days (+/-50€).
There were 3 reasons for the 24-105
1) smaller (ok, the 24-70/4 will be even smaller a bit)
2) IS (ok, the new one will have that one, too)
3) the range

I am using the lens on both - 7D and 5D2 - I definitly would not want to miss the extra 35mm - no way going back to a shorter lens. And for sure I will not run around with the bulky 70-200 in order to get the extra 35mm. Whith this lens I do like 80% of my shots. And ven if I took a 70-200 with me - I love the little overlapping... this means that you don't need to switch lenses more often than necessary. I learned this when I used the combination 7D + 10-22 + 24-105. I got mad, having the switch like every 5 minutes when I was on holiday...
With some overlapping focal range I probably would have saved like 50% of lens swaps...