24-70 F/4L IS - Why I will Buy/Not Buy this lens.

[keithfullermusic]

i just don't see a point in buying a lens in the low telephoto range at f/4 - especially when its well over $1,000.  IS is great, but I love shooting at 1.4-2.8, so this sort of thing is about as useless as it gets FOR ME (not everyone).

[hawaiisunsetphoto]

I won't be buying it.  Staying with the Tamron right now.  Might consider the 2.8 IS version some time after that's released, whenever that will be.....

[tron]

No way. Useless! In that range I have the 24-105 f/4L, the 35mm 1.4L the TS-E24mm L II, 50  1.8 version 1, 85mm 1.8 (OK that is a little more than 70...)

[sagittariansrock]

I have the 24-105L  and the 24-70L version one. Unless tests were to reveal for this lens to have amazing optics, I'm not interested.  I will probably buy the 24-70L II in a few years.  Or maybe the III with IS   

It'll be version I if it has IS.

[Danielle]

I said other.

I don't understand why everyone seems to go 'ooooohhhh' about that focal range. Isn't it boring? Useful to some, undeniably but really? Seriously???

F4 is too slow to me and that focal range I personally am better off with a couple of primes. And the f2.8 version I think is ridiculous priced, the mark ii I mean. I haven't tried it but in that range I think tamron cornered the realistic end with price and aperture size.

[Radiating]

I will buy it if it has JAW DROPPING sharpness. Otherwise it's a dud.

[brad-man]

Well I have bla bla bla lenses and I just don't need this range in this aperture 'cause it's all about me Well goody! However for someone owning only ef-s lenses and moving to full frame, this would just about be the perfect single lens solution...

[mb66energy]

If IQ is brilliant, it would be a candidate for buying.

The EF 18-55 is an awful lens in terms of haptics - optically it is o.k.
I tend to see 70mm as a useful standard focal length, I love the 40mm
on APS-C bodies which equals to 64 in terms of 35mm equiv.

The 24-70 4.0 is light weight and might be my first IS equipped
lens. Additionally it bears a very interesting macro mode.
On APS-C: a 38-110mm equiv range is very versatile FOR ME
and on FF (if I change to that format) it is a good general purpose
lens.
If I go full frame it might replace the EF-S 10-22, the EF 2.8 24, the
EF-S macro and the EF-S 18-55 and makes choosing a lens set
much easier.

Combined with the 2.0 100 it will be a fine two piece set of lenses
delivering high apertures where it counts: on the tele range.

[RLPhoto]

Now after seeing the sample pics from canon. This lens is even more DOA.

[robbymack]

cant see how you'd want this over the cheaper tamron which gives you f2.8

[AprilForever]

cant see how you'd want this over the cheaper tamron which gives you f2.8

My point exactly. The loss of 35mm at the long end translates into a WHOLE lot of loss. Canon, if you are listening, don't make me look to Sigma for landscape...

Or, worse still, get a D800 with 24-120 and 14-24...

[GMCPhotographics]

The 24-105L has a longer range, but it's not so good at 24mm. In fact at 24mm it's not very good at all.
The MFD charts for the 24-70L look much better.
The 24-70L is a lot smaller and maybe a better choice for travelling. It also combos with a 70-200 f4 L IS very well too.