Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]

[dhofmann]

It's a ploy by Canon to extract the most amount of money possible out of its customers:

First, the 24-70L f/2.8 USM II, because the v1 has a known user base, and the II is an obvious upgrade path for v1 users.

Then, the 24-70L f/4.0 IS USM, because some of the II users need IS, compactness, and light weight more than f/2.8.

Then, the 24-70L f/2.8 IS USM, as the new top end lens in this focal range. People who bought the above two lenses who want the strengths of both will buy this lens. Expect this lens to be announced in a few months, after the f/4 IS lens sales start to drop off.

And then finally, the 24-70L f/4.0 USM, for people who can't afford any of the above but still want a quality lens in this focal range. Like the f/2.8 IS USM, it will be announced after sales of the f/4.0 IS USM drop off so as not to cannibalize any sales.

Canon is quite the crafty company!

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

It really has to be either much cheaper or much better than 24-105. The third option is 24-105's end of life and price and IQ of 24-70 f4 on the same level as 24-105. If the last option would be true, then many people would hate Canon even more and finally found a reason to switch to N.

Sure I'd be pissed - I use the long end of the 24-105mm often. While the difference in the long end between the Canon 24-105mm and the Nikon 24-120mm is small, the difference between 70mm and 120mm isn't.

 

[weekendshooter]

guysguysguys, everyone relax!

If this rumor does turn out to be true, it's gotta be a new kit lens for the 6D, most likely in response to Nikon's 24-85 VR. This would make it very light, easy to handle on a lighter FF body, and quite cheap.

I've played with the 24-85 and while I don't think the IQ passes muster, the size and weight are simply superb. It's about the same as my 85/1.8G and handles very very well on a D600, whereas the existing 24-70/2.8 would feel like a front-heavy hog.

Canon is not trying to sway any of you to give up your 24-70/2.8's in favor of this lens, they're just recognizing that the 24-105 isn't the ideal lens for the next generation of entry-level FF bodies. Assuming the IQ doesn't suffer as much as on Nikon's version (and the L designation implies it won't), it'll make a great addition to the Canon lineup. Take it for what it is, not as a replacement for any existing lens, and all will be well, I promise

 

[Jakontil]

With the retra range, i'd stick with my 24-105 IS for sure

 

[ahsanford]

Gang,

This is a fascinating thread. I've never seen so many people deadset on what they think this new lens is, and what it means for future offerings.

My ongoing list (from all of you) of what this lens might have been made for (besides making Canon money):

1) Video focused, or perhaps more specifically, a still lens that has been modernized to better support DSLR video (STM)

2) Value focused, an inexpensive L lens in the vein of the 17-40, 70-200 F/4, etc. There has also been chatter on this point that it might be non-L akin to Nikon's 24-85 or Canon's non-L 28-135 -- a reasonably priced standard zoom option.

3) Form factor focused -- a lighter and shorter lens than the large/heavy 2.8 standard zooms. There were a few comments re: smaller sizer allowing -- much like the 70-200 F/4 glass -- smaller / more common filter diameters than their 2.8 counterparts.

4) The new kit FF lens (either just for the 6D or all FF bodies), and in the vein of the (much cheaper) 18-55 EF-S, this becomes the standard length zoom that no one actually buys by itself. In that sense, this new lens isn't competing with the higher end 2.8 zooms -- it's just another lens with a red ring out there. That red ring, some folks astutely noted, may become the tantalizing extra that draws people into FF with Canon's 6D rather than into FF with Nikon's D600.

5) Far better IQ than the 24-105 IS. This plays part and parcel with the notion that this 'family' of new 24-70s is intended for the upcoming high MP bodies we shall see down the road.

6) This new lens will replace the 24-105, eliminating the 70-105 overlap that current lens has. This is a deliberate move by Canon to sell more 70-200 glass. (I have poked a few holes in this theory, but it's as plausible as anything else on this list).

...and it obviously could be a combination of a few of the above points. Time will tell.

And for those calling this a rumor, this is a CR3, and I have faith in our moderators in that call.

Excellent discussion, all.

- A

 

[zim]

guysguysguys, everyone relax!

If this rumor does turn out to be true, it's gotta be a new kit lens for the 6D, most likely in response to Nikon's 24-85 VR. This would make it very light, easy to handle on a lighter FF body, and quite cheap.

I've played with the 24-85 and while I don't think the IQ passes muster, the size and weight are simply superb. It's about the same as my 85/1.8G and handles very very well on a D600, whereas the existing 24-70/2.8 would feel like a front-heavy hog.

Canon is not trying to sway any of you to give up your 24-70/2.8's in favor of this lens, they're just recognizing that the 24-105 isn't the ideal lens for the next generation of entry-level FF bodies. Assuming the IQ doesn't suffer as much as on Nikon's version (and the L designation implies it won't), it'll make a great addition to the Canon lineup. Take it for what it is, not as a replacement for any existing lens, and all will be well, I promise

+1 well said

 

[tron]

So many opinions about this ... so called lens! What are we going to do should this rumor turn CR0 suddenly ? ;D ;D

Seriously now, CR3 or not, it is still hard to believe it...

 

[Axilrod]

Geez some of you are having ridiculous reactions to this. A few things to keep in mind before you speak:

1) Just because the lens doesn't seem appealing to you doesn't mean it won't appeal to others.
2) Someone said why didn't they update this lens or that lens instead. Just because Canon is releasing this doesn't mean that something else won't get released, they are a giant company, surely they can make more than one lens at a time.

I swear Canon can't release anything without catching a bunch of crap, if they announce something that you don't like just don't buy it and move on.

 

[tron]

Geez some of you are having ridiculous reactions to this. A few things to keep in mind before you speak:

1) Just because the lens doesn't seem appealing to you doesn't mean it won't appeal to others.
2) Someone said why didn't they update this lens or that lens instead. Just because Canon is releasing this doesn't mean that something else won't get released, they are a giant company, surely they can make more than one lens at a time.

I swear Canon can't release anything without catching a bunch of crap, if they announce something that you don't like just don't buy it and move on.

Feel free to tell us whether you like it or not instead of judging our reactions...
Unless we are not allowed to express our opinions :

 

[Cfunkexplosion]

I kind of find this thread to be a bit odd. It's like walking into an ice cream parlor and hearing patrons complaining that they have vanilla, French vanilla and vanilla with peanut butter.

Different needs, tastes, budgets. Really don't see how more options hurt anything, and I doubt that Canon is unable to refresh other lenses because they developed another f/4 zoom. They will update the 35, 135, etc. when they decide to.

 

[shinjuku-thief]

The point I'm trying to make is that if Canon intends to replace or supplement the 24-105 f4L IS (kit) lens with a new 24-70 f4L IS (kit) lens, that in itself won't make a lot of difference to me and, I suspect, probably not to many others who already own the 24-105.

I don't think that owners of the 24-105L are the target market for this lens. It will be mostly for people new to FF, such as 6D purchasers. It will cost less to manufacture than the 24-105 and probably sell for around the same price circa $800-900, I reckon.

 

[tron]

It really has to be either much cheaper or much better than 24-105. The third option is 24-105's end of life and price and IQ of 24-70 f4 on the same level as 24-105. If the last option would be true, then many people would hate Canon even more and finally found a reason to switch to N.

Sure I'd be pissed - I use the long end of the 24-105mm often. While the difference in the long end between the Canon 24-105mm and the Nikon 24-120mm is small, the difference between 70mm and 120mm isn't.

It isn't logical. A 24-70 f/4L IS is a subset of the 24-105 (We cannot know of IQ and 1stop better IS is no big deal). 24-105 cannot go eol.

 

[marekjoz]

It really has to be either much cheaper or much better than 24-105. The third option is 24-105's end of life and price and IQ of 24-70 f4 on the same level as 24-105. If the last option would be true, then many people would hate Canon even more and finally found a reason to switch to N.

Sure I'd be pissed - I use the long end of the 24-105mm often. While the difference in the long end between the Canon 24-105mm and the Nikon 24-120mm is small, the difference between 70mm and 120mm isn't.

It isn't logical. A 24-70 f/4L IS is a subset of the 24-105 (We cannot know of IQ and 1stop better IS is no big deal). 24-105 cannot go eol.

What is not logical? EOL of 24-105? From Canon or users' point of view?

 

[tron]

It really has to be either much cheaper or much better than 24-105. The third option is 24-105's end of life and price and IQ of 24-70 f4 on the same level as 24-105. If the last option would be true, then many people would hate Canon even more and finally found a reason to switch to N.

Sure I'd be pissed - I use the long end of the 24-105mm often. While the difference in the long end between the Canon 24-105mm and the Nikon 24-120mm is small, the difference between 70mm and 120mm isn't.

It isn't logical. A 24-70 f/4L IS is a subset of the 24-105 (We cannot know of IQ and 1stop better IS is no big deal). 24-105 cannot go eol.

What is not logical? EOL of 24-105? From Canon or users' point of view?

User's point of view!

 

[marekjoz]

It really has to be either much cheaper or much better than 24-105. The third option is 24-105's end of life and price and IQ of 24-70 f4 on the same level as 24-105. If the last option would be true, then many people would hate Canon even more and finally found a reason to switch to N.

Sure I'd be pissed - I use the long end of the 24-105mm often. While the difference in the long end between the Canon 24-105mm and the Nikon 24-120mm is small, the difference between 70mm and 120mm isn't.

It isn't logical. A 24-70 f/4L IS is a subset of the 24-105 (We cannot know of IQ and 1stop better IS is no big deal). 24-105 cannot go eol.

What is not logical? EOL of 24-105? From Canon or users' point of view?

User's point of view!

Most users will agree. The question is if Canon managers responsible for company income are more users or more loyal employees Even if they are wining after their working time as the users, when they make those decisions they are in the office, unfortunately

 

[DB]

Guys like it or loathe it, Canon sees the future in smaller/lighter FF DSLR bodies, that implies lighter lenses (more plasticky, shorter etc.)

 

[wickidwombat]

my guess will be filters smaller than 77mm
maybe 67mm? all plastic construction

I doubt it'll be an all plastic construction simply because of its L designation.

From Wikipedia:
Most L series lenses share a number of common characteristics:
- Tough build, made to withstand trials in the field (some incorporating dust and moisture resistant rubber seals).
- At least one fluorite or ultra-low dispersion glass element, combined with super-low dispersion glass and ground aspherical elements.
- Non-rotating front elements, which are optimal for some filters (e.g. circular polarizers).
- Relatively large apertures compared to other Canon lenses in the same focal lengths.
- Ring-type USM (ultrasonic motor) and full-time manual focusing.

You must have missed the 100 f2.8L IS Macro and 24-70 f2.8L II both are engineering plastics....

 

[drummstikk]

6) This new lens will replace the 24-105, eliminating the 70-105 overlap that current lens has. This is a deliberate move by Canon to sell more 70-200 glass. (I have poked a few holes in this theory, but it's as plausible as anything else on this list).

Eliminating the 24-105 would certainly be a consumer hostile move. The focal length overlap certainly did not stop me from getting a 70-200. The overlap is extremely useful in my work. There are some jobs I do pretty much entirely with the 24-105, whereas if I had the 24-70 (one of the least interesting focal ranges I can imagine - my opinion only), I'd do a lot of switching between the two lenses.

Someone earlier called the 24-105 "slow." Could not disagree more. I use it all the time for basketball in gyms with permanently mounted studio flashes or with my own flashes temporarily mounted. On the 7D, I have ideal reach all the way from right under the goal to three-point land. The f/4.0 max aperture does make manual focus difficult or near impossible, but fortunately, I get a near 100% AF hit rate.

I'd look at this rumored 24-70 as a secondary lens, possibly for remote mounted use or when more compactness is desired, such as for recreational shooting, especially if it addresses the 24-105's minor optical shortcomings (distortion/curvature at edges).

 

[tron]

Eliminating the 24-105 would certainly be a consumer hostile move. The focal length overlap certainly did not stop me from getting a 70-200. The overlap is extremely useful in my work.

+1 Very true! The same here. I have both 24-105 and 70-200 lenses.

 

[bdunbar79]

Just like the 24 and 28 IS lenses, I feel this will be geared toward a video audience.