Canon USA to Start Selling 5D Mark III + EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS Kits Next Month

[ahsanford]

RIP the 24-105 F/4L IS?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=8193

I own the 24-70 F/4L IS and it is brilliant.  Sharp, (relatively) light, weathersealed and 0.7x macro.  It's the perfect hiking lens for me.

- A

[Eli]

Pretty pricey for a kit..

[preppyak]

Pretty pricey for a kit..

MSRP for the 5dIII w/ 24-105 is $3999...so, this is right in line with the expected pricing. It'll drop fast.

What this really means is we'll be seeing the 24-70 f/4 for <$1000 un-kitted relatively soon

[ahsanford]

What this really means is we'll be seeing the 24-70 f/4 for <$1000 un-kitted relatively soon

Bingo. 

I scored mine for $1025 on Adorama's eBay storefront when it was selling for $1499 everywhere else.  It's a peach of a lens.  Folks will gripe at the (presumed though not announced) demise of the 24-105, but the 24-70 is a better lens for my needs.  More folks should check it out.  It's analogous to those who opt for the F/4 70-200 over the F/2.8.  You'll get excellent images with both, but the 2.8 can fight in a few more battlegrounds -- portraiture, freezing motion for sports, etc.  I'm just not in those battlegrounds at that focal length, so I'll gladly shed the weight and use the F/4.
 
My only downside is that the new 24-70 F/4, though sharper than the 24-105 (esp at 24mm) and 24-70 F/2.8 Mk I (by a great deal across the board), is not in the same sharpness league as the 24-70 F/2.8 II.

- A

[pharp]

Odd, I had always assumed this was meant to be the kit lens for the smaller 6D - it is available elsewhere. Eventually.

[ahsanford]

Roger from LR wrote a terrific resolution summary comparing many 24-70/105 lenses here:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

- A

[LetTheRightLensIn]

What this really means is we'll be seeing the 24-70 f/4 for <$1000 un-kitted relatively soon

Bingo. 

I scored mine for $1025 on Adorama's eBay storefront when it was selling for $1499 everywhere else.  It's a peach of a lens.  Folks will gripe at the (presumed though not announced) demise of the 24-105, but the 24-70 is a better lens for my needs.  More folks should check it out.  It's analogous to those who opt for the F/4 70-200 over the F/2.8.  You'll get excellent images with both, but the 2.8 can fight in a few more battlegrounds -- portraiture, freezing motion for sports, etc.  I'm just not in those battlegrounds at that focal length, so I'll gladly shed the weight and use the F/4.
 
My only downside is that the new 24-70 F/4, though sharper than the 24-105 (esp at 24mm) and 24-70 F/2.8 Mk I (by a great deal across the board), is not in the same sharpness league as the 24-70 F/2.8 II.

- A

agree to all that, Adorama deal, better than 24-105 very very much so near 24mm, but sadly not quite a match for the 24-70 II (other than FF edges right near 70mm where I've found the 24-70 f/4 IS to actually be better than all 24-70 II I've seen, FF edges right near 70mm is the one weak spot of the 24-70 II, it's not bad there but not quite a match for the 24-70 f/4 IS or the 70-300L/70-200 II,70-200 f/4 IS; center frame at 70mm is beats and even easily so in many cases all of those even when it is at f/2.8 and the others at f/4, other maybe the 70-200 II where it might be close depending upon the copy).

it's way smaller and lighter than that new sigma

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd much prefer the 24-105mmL for way less, they often pop up for $650.  The longer focal length range makes up for the very tiny difference in MTF.  I have the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II.

[ahsanford]

I'd much prefer the 24-105mmL for way less, they often pop up for $650.  The longer focal length range makes up for the very tiny difference in MTF.  I have the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II.

I am weirdo who is in love with the 0.7x macro opportunity with this lens.  Yes, handheld macro work without a flash at that working distance is not remotely ideal, but for touristy/walkabout/hiking events, it's been a real pleasure to use.

It will never replace my 100L macro, but it's handy.  Almost like finding out your shortstop has experience playing catcher.   

- A

[sanj]

Do cameras come with only one kit lens? I mean is it possible that 5d3 is available with either lens as kit? Or has the kit with 24-105 discontinued?
24-105 is a very useful range to me.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'd much prefer the 24-105mmL for way less, they often pop up for $650.  The longer focal length range makes up for the very tiny difference in MTF.  I have the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II.

You sound like someone who has has never actually tried the 24-70 f/4 IS. I've tried all three (24-105,24-70 f/4 IS, 24-70 II, more than one copy of each too) and the 24-70 f/4 IS is much closer to the 24-70 II at 24mm than to the 24-105, the difference is not very tiny at all, much sharper edges and corners, much less distortion, much less prone to smearing purple fringing all over branches against bright white clouds, much less lateral CA (and as already mentioned much less longitudinal CA, although as not as much less as the near APO 24-70 II).

I could never tolerate the 24-105 for 24mm finely detailed edge to edge landscapes on FF but have no problems with the 24-70 f/4 IS at all (nor the 24 1.4 II or 24 T&S II or 24-70 II). The 70-105 can be covered at much higher quality (and with more more extra focal length as well) with a 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L (although it's a personal thing, for me the switch over at 70mm is fine, but I suppose there could be some for whom it would be bothersome).

Granted now that the 24-105L is only $650 or so, it's not bad for the price (I always thought it was an optical rip for the old $850-1250 price), but that still doesn't mean it's not more than a very tiny difference compared to the 24-70 f/4 IS, at least not if you care about the wide end, only at 50mm IMO are they similar at all (the weak point of the 24-70 f/4 IS is right around 50mm, it gets stronger below and above that focal length).

24-70 f/4 IS is also smaller and lighter than the 24-105 and has much more macro ability and a bit more effective IS.

[ahsanford]

I'd much prefer the 24-105mmL for way less, they often pop up for $650.  The longer focal length range makes up for the very tiny difference in MTF.  I have the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II.

You sound like someone who has has never actually tried the 24-70 f/4 IS. I've tried all three (24-105,24-70 f/4 IS, 24-70 II, more than one copy of each too) and the 24-70 f/4 IS is much closer to the 24-70 II at 24mm than to the 24-105, the difference is not very tiny at all, much sharper edges and corners, much less distortion, much less prone to smearing purple fringing all over branches against bright white clouds, much less lateral CA (and as already mentioned much less longitudinal CA, although as not as much less as the near APO 24-70 II).

I could never tolerate the 24-105 for 24mm finely detailed edge to edge landscapes on FF but have no problems with the 24-70 f/4 IS at all (nor the 24 1.4 II or 24 T&S II or 24-70 II). The 70-105 can be covered at much higher quality (and with more more extra focal length as well) with a 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L (although it's a personal thing, for me the switch over at 70mm is fine, but I suppose there could be some for whom it would be bothersome).

Granted now that the 24-105L is only $650 or so, it's not bad for the price (I always thought it was an optical rip for the old $850-1250 price), but that still doesn't mean it's not more than a very tiny difference compared to the 24-70 f/4 IS, at least not if you care about the wide end, only at 50mm IMO are they similar at all (the weak point of the 24-70 f/4 IS is right around 50mm, it gets stronger below and above that focal length).

24-70 f/4 IS is also smaller and lighter than the 24-105 and has much more macro ability and a bit more effective IS.

Every thing you said is dead on.  However, for some folks, the convenience of the longer zoom trumps what they believe to be a small hit to IQ.  (I am not one of them, but there are many many 24-105 fans in this forum)

I prefer the combination of "almost best-in-class" IQ + IS + Macro + low weight + weathersealing.  The F/4 IS is a great lens for me.

- A

[sanj]

I am amongst the people who prefer the additional range.

And I just got a mail from Canon saying this kit is in addition to 24-105. That tells me the 24-105 is not dead yet.

[Zv]

Interesting. A few months ago there weren't that many 24-40/4 fans but now it seems it's gathering quite a following. Also, if they discontinue the 24-105L it might even (temporarily) increase demand for it, meaning I could sell it for a bit more than I paid! Bonus! 

After using my 24-105L on vacation recently I noticed I had it at 24mm for most of the time. And the odd time a butterfly flew and landed within range I sure coulda used a bit of macro. Then again I love the extra 35mm reach, for portraits it makes a huge difference. It also means not needing to carry a 2nd or 3rd lens while traveling. For sharp 24mm or wider I use my 17-40L anyway so it's not a problem.

I'm interested in how that new Sigma is going to perform at the wide end. It could be the answer a lot of people are looking for. 

[zlatko]

That tells me the 24-105 is not dead yet.

Despite all of the griping we've heard ever since the introduction of the 24-70/4, there has never been any indication from Canon that the 24-70/4 would replace the 24-105/4.  They are different lenses and it makes good sense to keep both in the product line.  Canon offers many similar products that overlap but don't replace each other.  I would sooner expect a version II of the popular 24-105/4 than its discontinuation.