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

[JoeDavid]

I was interested in this lens until I took a close look at the MTF charts of it versus the 24-70/2.8L II. Canon made it a more dificult comparison because the vertical scales are a little different between the 4 graphs. At $1500USD, I'd expect the f4 version to be closer to the f2.8 in image quality and that doesn't appear to be the case. Compared to the f2.8L II, image quality falls of near the corners for a full frame sensor. It would probably be a great crop sensor lens though...

 

[x-vision]

I'd like to move to FF and the 6D + 24-70/4L combo is very appealing because of its compact size and high image quality.

But this combo needs to sell for less than $3000 for me to consider it.
It also needs to have a more advanced AF system - not the prehistoric AF on the current 6D.

So, it seems that until the new 24-70/4L gets cheaper and until the 6D gets updated with a better AF, Canon won't have my money.

Your move, Canon 8).

 

[EchoLocation]

The correct answer to this poll is too slow and too expensive.
$1500 for an f4 is outrageous and If this is the new pricing strategy for DSLR's, I'm going to take a good hard look at the RX1 or Leica.

I will buy this lens because my collection of L lenses will not be complete without it.

I hope this is a joke, Although this does seem like the best reason for one to buy this lens.

until the new 24-70/4L gets cheaper and until the 6D gets updated with a better AF, Canon won't have my money.

Your move, Canon 8).

"until the 6D gets updated"? IT'S NOT EVEN RELEASED YET!!!!
If I was you, i'd start looking at cameras like the 5DIII or D600/D700.

 

[fr8oc]

I will wait and see what the reviews are in the real world usage. I am building my lens kit and at this point I'm not sure if I will spend this much for the 24-70 f/4.0 or just go big and get the f/2.8. For a walk around lens I think I will just go ahead and grab a 24-105 f/4.0 while they are cheap and available.

 

[Loswr]

$1500 for an f4 is outrageous...

Guess I was foolish to spend $13K on an f/4 lens.

I will buy this lens because my collection of L lenses will not be complete without it.

I hope this is a joke, Although this does seem like the best reason for one to buy this lens.

Egad, I hope it wasn't a joke. It pleases me to find someone who shares my passion.

Anyone know where I can get a nice, wall-mounted locking glass case for the 600/4L IS II, so I can display it and keep the dust off?

 

[jhenderson0107]

Anyone know where I can get a nice, wall-mounted locking glass case for the 600/4L IS II, so I can display it and keep the dust off?

I can build you one http://serialobsessor.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/wood-shop-tour/.

 

[dr croubie]

I'll admit that i was first in line to crap all over the 6D, it was exactly the same as the 5D2 just in a shinier new case and a few useless trinkets added on, for much the same price as what it replaced. I did, and will continue to, question anyone who buys the 6D as to why they don't buy a 5D2 instead for $500 less (even if you're a rebel user and need to invest in CF cards for the 5D2, they're not $500), unless you have a very valid reason for needing an inbuilt *** and have a total phobia of buying a used 5D2.

This lens, however, is different. I'm still not sure if it's replacing the 24-105L for a start, methinks the 24-105 might continue on for at least as long as it will take for the new lens to come down to the 24-105's current pricing.
But think about if you are one of those who are stepping up from a rebel (or even a 7D, which I eventually will do), you're (probably) not going to have a FF-kit-zoom (i've currently only got the EFs 15-85). When you add in the 0.7x MM figures and the Hybrid IS, this lens looks like a bargain compared to the $2200 24-105+100L Macro combo, plus it's smaller and lighter to boot.
The IQ will probably beat the 24-105, probably not the 100L, and all you're really missing out on is 70-105mm and 0.7-1.0x MM.
Not a big deal for your casual shooter to whom this is aimed (again, if you're reading this forum, then you're not the 'casual shooter to whom this is aimed'. if you're reading this, then by definition you're the 1% of gear-heads, you're not joe consumer).

OK, the price is a bit high for now, and I can't afford it either (neither can i afford a 5D2, even used). But the price should settle at the $1200-or-less mark fairly soon enough.
I predict this lens will be a big seller. Kit this with the 6D and it will account for more reason to buy the 6D than the body (imho).


ps, remember the 70-300L? "Why would I get that? it's variable-aperture and slow, and it's the same price as the 100-400L, i'd rather get the extra reach, whinge whinge etc". What lens sells better, and is generally more acclaimed, out of those two now?

 

[AG]

Personally I'm buying this lens because it wont make much difference being f4 for video work. I already have a 70-200 f4 IS so this will partner up with that perfectly.

It also means that my 24-105 is freed up so i can use that on my other camera as either a B camera or for production stills.

But i also have to add a BUT in there, and that being the price is still too high.

Canons pricing seems to just keep going up and up.

 

[Stewbyyy]

It's too slow for my liking... IS isn't for me, I'm all about freezing the action as I mainly photograph events/concerts. I don't like my 300mm F/4, I feel very limited with the F/4 aperture, it's the slowest lens I own. If I had a full frame body then my opinion would probably be different, as the ISO performance on the APS-C cameras just isn't good enough for an F/4 lens for me :/

If I did just want a walk around lens for funsies then I think this fits perfectly. I can see this being a great lens, just not the lens for me. The macro feature is really cool though, that is something I really really like.

 

[wickidwombat]

hmmm lets see
I have the 24-105L paid $800 or so for it new a few years ago now and its still a trooper just keeps on going, I recently got the best version 1 24-70 f2.8L i've ever used for $800 used and I have the 100 f2.8L IS Macro maybe it cost $900 so all three of those lenses cost me what the new 24-70 L II would cost
I definately have no use for a 24-70 f4 even if it does do semi macro

If the 24-70 f4 was a cheap and great IQ lens like the shorty forty I could see it being a success
but with it being stratospheric priced i'm with RL on this its going to be an epic fail until it becomes more reasonably priced

 

[JBeckwith]

No chance I'm buying it. I have the 24-105 so no need for the overlap.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

I'm all for IQ but I think something like a 17-70 range would have been really nice for an F4 "standard" lens to be an alternative to those who have a 24-105 already. I mean, isn't that what the 24-105 was all about to begin with? The standard lens with the most focal lengths. 17-70 would have been great, even for crop cameras! I wouldn't have minded the extra weight and the slow speed but I disagree with overlapping this lens over the 24-105 instead of diversifying the focal range. The 24-105 is already acceptable in the weight department compared to other L lenses... Just my two cents. But, the damage is done already. One thing I did wanted fixed on the 24-105 was the distortion on the wide end, and if they fixed that with the new 24-70 lenses then I can only see more reason to try one out or even buy one after seeing enough good sample shots and good reviews.

 

[bbasiaga]

I JUST got my 24-105 a few months ago for less than $800 used. If I had known this was coming, i would have waited. The better optical performance and new style IS would have swayed me. But as it is, I will be hanging on to my 24-105. It really is a good lens, despite the rep it gets here on the forums (or at least it did, until people started using it as a reason to pan the new 24-70 F4 .

-Brian

 

[verysimplejason]

I'll buy this when price drops around $800 and if IQ and macro mode is very good. Sometimes, I want to bring only one lens and this might fit the bill.

 

[Dylan777]

I was interested in this lens until I took a close look at the MTF charts of it versus the 24-70/2.8L II. Canon made it a more dificult comparison because the vertical scales are a little different between the 4 graphs. At $1500USD, I'd expect the f4 version to be closer to the f2.8 in image quality and that doesn't appear to be the case. Compared to the f2.8L II, image quality falls of near the corners for a full frame sensor. It would probably be a great crop sensor lens though...

+1....alot of people didn't see that at all. I'm glad you catched that one. I coudn't be happier with mine f2.8 II.

 

[caMARYnon]

Since 5D3 appeared with its surprises (not all pleasant for me),I decided that I will never treat Canon's new products with enthusiasm or pesimism before these being properly tested. I am excited for 0.7x close-up (24-105 is very bad in close-up aplications) and I think I could loose 35mm for near macro capability.
The price is in the line of Canon last year products, no suprise here: the new 1k is 1,5k in lenses price. Maybe a new 100-400 at 3.5k will be a bargain next year
But in fact even Nikon increased prices at new lenses (see 70-200 f4).

 

[PackLight]

$1500 for an f4 is outrageous...

Guess I was foolish to spend $13K on an f/4 lens.

I will buy this lens because my collection of L lenses will not be complete without it.

I hope this is a joke, Although this does seem like the best reason for one to buy this lens.

Egad, I hope it wasn't a joke. It pleases me to find someone who shares my passion.

Anyone know where I can get a nice, wall-mounted locking glass case for the 600/4L IS II, so I can display it and keep the dust off?

No case is neccessary.

Nice lenses should be displayed like Bling. I would suggest a Black Rapid strap for comfort while you wear it.

 

[Loswr]

No case is neccessary.

Nice lenses should be displayed like Bling. I would suggest a Black Rapid strap for comfort while you wear it.

LOL. Way ahead of you - I got a special BR strap just for the 600 II.

(Actually, I'm serious! BR has a 'left handed' version of their strap, and for the life of me I couldn't see the utility of it since, right or left handed, you've got to hold the camera in your right hand to press the shutter button, so having it hang on the left side of the body seems illogical to me. But with a heavy supertele, if makes a lot of sense to hang that on the left side, since when you bring it up to shoot you want to lift it by the lens foot, not the camera body, and that means lifting it up with the left hand then grabbing the body with the free right hand. But...I digress...)

 

[7enderbender]

I have the 24-105 and it's ok for what it is. Not more not less just ok. And my complaint is not "sharpness' or any of that. I don't like that it's f/4 - though of course I understand why that is. And I don't like IS and I don't like the build quality of it. I can't think of one single reason why I'd want basically that same lens as a 24-70. You couldn't pay me to use it let alone ask me to buy something like this. I wish I had bought the original 24-70 2.8 two years ago.

 

[iaind]

You need option on poll

I already have 24-105