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

[schmidtfilme]

This... Thats not low budget at all, especially when Nikon is offering a Camera Kit that is very competitive for around $2500 dollars(or less.) I'd say the 24-70 should be better than the Nikon 24-85, but the D600 has better specs than the 6D....and the Nikon kit is $1000 dollars less than Canon!
The recent pricing of Canon items has been a major kick in the balls to their customers.

To me ist looks like Canon wants to adress its recent earnings by raising prices....not sure if thats smart.

[sanj]

Is it not an assumption that this lens will replace the 24-105?

[87vr6]

I pre-ordered mine from Adorama. I rented the 24-70 II back in september. I shoot a 5D3, while I loved the IQ, I missed having the IS from my previous 24-105 in many situations, leading me to comtemplate buying a 24 IS+24-70II (I really do need IS for a lot of my shooting), but this lens will allow me to buy one and be done with it. Can't wait... Hopefully I have it before Feb...

Nothing will ever beat the 24-105's price for entry into the L-lens club.

No?
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_171804_-1

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_187467_-8

Both of those look cheaper than a 24-105....
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_158203_-8

Just saying.

[traveller]

£1500 for an f/4 standard zoom!!! Seriously, this lens should be pretty simple and cheap to manufacture (L-class enhancements notwithstanding).  I expect that its street price will fall closer to the £1200 mark, but for me that is still 50% over-priced; even DPReview seem pretty incredulous. 

This lens can be as sharp as it likes, I am still not interested.  For me, the whole point of accepting the compromise of an f/4 lens is versatility and it lacks both versatility (24-105L) and speed (24-70 L II).  Sorry, but a crappy semi-macro mode doesn't do it for me. 

Canon would have been better served updating the 24-105L or I suspect, for the consumer market, the 28-135 IS.  No doubt this lens will be good at what it does, but if being a good lightweight travel lens is all that is, then I would suggest a full frame DSLR is the wrong choice of system for most of the target audience.  Here's looking forwards to the new 70-200 f/4L IS II; price £1700! 

[Nassen0f]

WTF 1500 bucks?!? 

How the hell can they pair this to the 6D and make sense of it?

i would rather save a little more for the 2.8 then, and since that will never happen, Thanks canon, for dissapointing me again...

i would have understood 800 or maybe even 900, less and less money is gonna go into lenses in the next cupple of years it seems. And Canon is whining "We cant even make a billion anymore" Pfff, no wonder... Shame on you Canon, Shame on you!

I get that a lens can be expensive to make and so on, but lots of other companys sell their items at a loss in the start just to have the price low and get more sold, then they start earning money when the process is larger and easier. But it seems that Canon wants a 500 dollar premium just to call it a L lens..

[neuroanatomist]

WTF 1500 bucks?!?

Me: "WTF?"

Canon: "...a maximum magnification of 0.7x – reducing the need for photographers to carry a dedicated macro lens.  So, what you short-sighted complainers fail to understand is that while you may think this lens seems expensive, if you add up the cost of the 24-105L and 100L Macro, this lens is significantly cheaper, and thus it's a real bargain!"

Me: "WTM-F'nF?!?"

[EchoLocation]

WTF 1500 bucks?!?

Me: "WTF?"

Canon: "...a maximum magnification of 0.7x – reducing the need for photographers to carry a dedicated macro lens.  So, what you short-sighted complainers fail to understand is that while you may think this lens seems expensive, if you add up the cost of the 24-105L and 100L Macro, this lens is significantly cheaper, and thus it's a real bargain!"

Me: "WTM-F'nF?!?"

Neuro, I have a lot of respect for you, but this lens is ridiculously overpriced. Maybe some people expect to pay $1500 for an f4 lens, but I think that's absurd.
The Canon 24-70 2.8 II should have been $1800 or less, and this F4 lens should be no more than $1200 starting price.
This Macro thing should be a perk for people paying 1000 dollars for a lens, not a reason to double the price of the current 24-105(which was on sale for $750 just a few weeks ago.) I don't believe this lens takes the place of the 100L.

[EchoLocation]

Bunch of self-entitled whiners. People keep forgetting electronics are usually expensive when they first come out and the prices eventually drop. You do not need to buy these lenses right now or ever if you don't want to.

I'm not whining at all. The truth is, If this lens was 700 dollars I still wouldn't buy it. I already switched to Nikon a few months ago and this only makes the decision I made that much better. I'm simply laughing at how ridiculously out of touch Canon's prices have been over the past couple 18 months.

[Etienne]

Generally I am uninterested in an f4 lens, but 0.7 macro and hybrid IS on a standard zoom is unique and useful, especially in a small package.

I'll wait on the tests, and the price if it's packaged with a 6D. A 6D plus 24-70 f/4 kit at $2900 might be quite a good deal.

[Canon-F1]

A 6D plus 24-70 f/4 kit at $2900 might be quite a good deal.

 i don´t think so.

[Etienne]

The 35 f/2 IS is very interesting to me. Priced a bit high, but I can see getting a lot of use out of it.

[kevl]

I don't believe this lens takes the place of the 100L.

Exactly. It may be much better than you would normally get with a 24-70 but it isn't going to replace an actual macro lens. Like someone else said above this feature is a perk for someone paying $1,000 for a lens, not an incentive to pay $1500. A used 100L macro will server the buyer MUCH MUCH better.

This may seem like bashing, but if your photography work includes macro shots and you don't have a bag that can hold your macro lens then what are you thinking??

This lens seems like a prosumer type lens that is simply over priced. Would it be good at video for pros? Sure... but before I paid a premium for this lens I would put the money into a stabilizer and fly all of my lenses instead of paying for IS in this one lens.

Just my thoughts but here's another lens that will make me look at products other than canon, and used canon lenses. 

Kev

[albron00]

Nikon's enthusiastic D600 kit lens 24-85mm F3.5-4.5G ED VR sells  for about £410 / €500.

[Eimajm]

How glad am I that just bought a 24-105 F4 last month at half the price of the new 24-70 F4.

[RLPhoto]

Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS retail price - 1500$

DOA.