EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon

[clicstudio]

It seems everybody agrees this is a useless
Lens and a waste of effort for Canon. For the same money, I'd get the 24-105.
Now, if the old 24-105 were to be discontinued, I hope they make a 24-105
F2.8L. I don't care how heavy or bulky it would have to be.
I own the 24-70 F2.8L II and As my only Lens, I can't find a better replacement.
I just wish I had the additional 35mm sometimes.

[Dylan777]

Perfect set for 3,4,5ti shooters to jump into FF world.

[sanj]

I love my 24-105L, it's a great walk around lens, and gives me a lot of flexibility.  I'd really hate to be stuck at 70mm on the long side, especially since I bought a 6D.  I haven't used the 24-70, but can't imagine the image upgrade would be enough to make me want to give up 70-105 coverage and have to lug around a second lens.

Agree agree agree

[sanj]

It seems everybody agrees this is a useless
Lens and a waste of effort for Canon. For the same money, I'd get the 24-105.
Now, if the old 24-105 were to be discontinued, I hope they make a 24-105
F2.8L. I don't care how heavy or bulky it would have to be.
I own the 24-70 F2.8L II and As my only Lens, I can't find a better replacement.
I just wish I had the additional 35mm sometimes.

You forgot to add IS.

[Sporgon]

This really is the 70-300L all over again - a lens that is now proving itself IQ wise - yet at it's introduction was met with howls of derision. The reviewers stated it wasn't as good as the 70-200 and only marginally better than the non L - all rubbish in practice.

Guys: this 24-70 f4 is better than the 24-105 in every way - apart from reach and price. The price wil undoubtably come down.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

But, most of all, who the hell and why bought the 24-70/4, seeing the 24-105 is still out!?!?

Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??

In my opinion, if you consider "crappy" the performances of the 24-105, you need at least a 24-70/2,8 II to see a real difference. But distortion at 24mm is evident anyway, so if you need a good 24mm the only reasonable choices are the primes. I can't consider the 24-70/4 anything but useless. Unless weight, dimensions and MFD are crucial.
Anyway, I have to say that I work 99% of the times in the video field, where resolution differences are less evident, I never used the 24-70/4 for pictures, so maybe I'm missing something...

Yeah video is a lot different than stills.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??
(I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)

If the 24-105 has "crappy" wide end performance, so does the 24-70 f/4.0, they are very similar optically. 

Your 24-70 2.8 II of course puts both to shame!

Perhaps. I've never used the 24-70 f/4 IS but the MTF charts from Canon are much better at 24mm and the results at Lens Rentals were also better than the 24-105 L.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I bought my 6D with the 24-70 kit lens in Feb. here in Canada and I don't regret it.  The macro is so quick and easy to use and is great for a holiday person who likes to get shots of small things and I love the lens.  F4 is fine with the high ISO of the 6D.  The macro mode is a gimmick just like WiFi. 

I have a DSLR for about 5 years, and have never bought a macro lens, because it doesn't interest me. I do like having more focal length on my kit lens.

[verysimplejason]

I bought my 6D with the 24-70 kit lens in Feb. here in Canada and I don't regret it.  The macro is so quick and easy to use and is great for a holiday person who likes to get shots of small things and I love the lens.  F4 is fine with the high ISO of the 6D.  The macro mode is a gimmick just like WiFi. 

I have a DSLR for about 5 years, and have never bought a macro lens, because it doesn't interest me. I do like having more focal length on my kit lens.

Then I guess, the kit's not for you.  There are other kits that includes 24-105 or 24-70 F2.8.  I think people complaints are unwarranted since other choices still remain.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I bought my 6D with the 24-70 kit lens in Feb. here in Canada and I don't regret it.  The macro is so quick and easy to use and is great for a holiday person who likes to get shots of small things and I love the lens.  F4 is fine with the high ISO of the 6D.  The macro mode is a gimmick just like WiFi. 

I have a DSLR for about 5 years, and have never bought a macro lens, because it doesn't interest me. I do like having more focal length on my kit lens.

Then I guess, the kit's not for you.  There are other kits that includes 24-105 or 24-70 F2.8.  I think people complaints are unwarranted since other choices still remain.

Indeed - as long as the 24-105mm is not discontinued, I have no issues with Canon selling whatever other kits.

[luciolepri]

It seems everybody agrees this is a useless
Lens and a waste of effort for Canon. For the same money, I'd get the 24-105.
Now, if the old 24-105 were to be discontinued, I hope they make a 24-105
F2.8L. I don't care how heavy or bulky it would have to be.
I own the 24-70 F2.8L II and As my only Lens, I can't find a better replacement.
I just wish I had the additional 35mm sometimes.

You forgot to add IS.

Many years ago Tamron did it, IS excluded. Total lemon.
Anyway, with good optical performances, that would be a really "do-it-all" lens. 24-90 would be already a good step in that direction, but I don't know how convenient for Canon would be to make such a lens, unless it is extremely expensive. Sorry for the OT...

[BagJunkie]

I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens.  It's more expensive than the 24-105, has less focal length range, and is comparable in optical quality.  Why?  Just why?   If you want noticeably better optical quality, then go for the 24-70 f2.8.  Otherwise, you're better off with the 24-105 for less money.

If you're right and Canon is going to discontinue the 24-105, then will they bring something to replace it or do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?

As many others I think you're right. Then I started thinking about the 100-400, a lot of rumors about that lens too; getting a makeover or simply getting discontinued?
Discontinuing the 24-105 (which I love), makes no sense keeping the 100-400 reach. These two lenses are a perfect combo. But then again they still have the 70-300 as a combo with the 24-70f4.

Maybe i need to buy that 100-400 asap unless i want to buy a used one.

[gwflauto]

I think the 24-70 f/4L IS is a vey fine lens. I love it. I use it a lot. But when I was offerd that lens in a kit with the 6D, the kit was priced considerably higher than buying camera and lens separately from the same store. After some negotiation they lowered the kit price by several hundred $. Pricing can be funny at times.
The kit is a perfect combination for me. And it is a lot of fun to add more glass.

[JohanCruyff]

Maybe Canon will replace its 2005 24-105 with a 24-120 F/4 IS L (hopefully better than its Nikon rival).
 
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff
 

[sanj]

It seems everybody agrees this is a useless
Lens and a waste of effort for Canon. For the same money, I'd get the 24-105.
Now, if the old 24-105 were to be discontinued, I hope they make a 24-105
F2.8L. I don't care how heavy or bulky it would have to be.
I own the 24-70 F2.8L II and As my only Lens, I can't find a better replacement.
I just wish I had the additional 35mm sometimes.

You forgot to add IS.

Many years ago Tamron did it, IS excluded. Total lemon.
Anyway, with good optical performances, that would be a really "do-it-all" lens. 24-90 would be already a good step in that direction, but I don't know how convenient for Canon would be to make such a lens, unless it is extremely expensive. Sorry for the OT...

Lets not compare lemons with oranges. It is irrelevant what Tamron did.