I continue to be intrigued with the new 24-70L F/4L IS. I don't own it yet, and I won't bite at the current price. That said, I'm poking around at early data and reviews.
Despite a few near universal opinions on this forum:
- Yes, we all wanted to see a 24-70 F/2.8L IS announced instead. (Minus points if you link the Tamron sarcastically)
- Yes, the current asking price for the new 24-70L F/4L IS is unreasonable.
- Yes, 24-105 F/4L IS is already available -- with more length and lower cost!
I'd like to put those comments on the "I understand, but we're not talking about that here" parking lot. Otherwise this thread will spiral into 'why did Canon do this instead of what I wanted' territory. Please don't go there, thx.
I still am intrigued by a few points on this lens:
- 70% max magnification from a standard zoom in L quality? That's really ducked under a lot of people's radars. This is a formidable on-demand macro option. I often leave my 100L macro at home, especially when I am traveling, and tubes are a pain in my hands, so this is an attractive feature for me.
- Smaller, lighter, etc. I am carrying primes much more often than my pickle jar 24-70 F2.8L Mk I these days.
- Better IQ. I am confident that the new 24-70 F/4L IS will trump the 24-105 F/4L IS, but I am waiting for more data on how it stacks up to my 24-70 F2.8L Mk I.
Or another way to put it, isn't this new lens just a 24-105 minus length, but plus smaller size/weight plus better IQ plus 0.7x Macro?
I am not proposing that it is a good call right now, given its price, but given how little I shoot macro and how heavy my 24-70 F2.8L Mk I is, this lens could conceivably do an 8/10 job at replacing both. I certainly wouldn't argue to pitch better lenses for this, but this could be a killer travel / vacation / 'fight all battles' lens call.
Thoughts? Does anyone here have one and could share their usage experience?