Canon 24-70mm F4L IS

[dave]

OK, OK.

I know that we are dealing with hypotheticals but lets go with some assumptions:

- Image quality is somewhere 10-15% either side of the 24-70 f/2.8L II. I have to say this because of the variation in the 24-70L II. It is possible that a single 24-70L f/4 IS could be both 10% better and worse than the 24-70mm f/2.8L.
- In particular the distortion from the 24-105 is eased, especially at the wide end
- The lens has 4-5 stop IS

 

[Drizzt321]

Well, I probably wouldn't buy one anyway, but if this is about $600-800 new (with real L build quality, even if not weather sealing) it'd be a great kit lens for the 6D.

If it has vastly improved image quality/sharpness over the 24-105, I may perhaps consider it, although probably just save up for the 24-70L v2, since I often shoot bands and live events where f/2.8 lets me decrease my shutter speed to help capture moments with less blur.

 

[dave]

The seems to all of a sudden be quite a choice in the standard zoom range. I wonder how much longer people will keep being able to sell their 24-70 original 2.8's for $1400-1700 as you see here in Australia.

I added a bit to suit your response, Drizzt. Apologies for the intial omission.

 

[Drizzt321]

@dave

I think it's more for those of us with the 24-105, we're all going "meh, this lens does nothing for me." Those with the 24-70 f/2.8 (either version) look at it with disdain/envy since it's f/4 and they need f/2.8, and it has IS which many of them would love.

Nearly all of us are a bit confused, because unless it's quite a bit cheaper than the 24-105 for something like a 6D bundle, why should Canon go ahead with yet another lens that seems less useful than one they already have that they've been making for years and many, many people are happy with. If indeed it is quite a bit cheaper, even if it's around the same IQ as the 24-105, it makes a lot of sense. If it's a bit cheaper or about the same, and much better IQ than the 24-105, maybe we have a new FF kit lens and the 24-105 is going away without an update :'( Either way, I think it really depends on the price this will be as to how well it will be received.

 

[dave]

@dave

I think it's more for those of us with the 24-105, we're all going "meh, this lens does nothing for me." Those with the 24-70 f/2.8 (either version) look at it with disdain/envy since it's f/4 and they need f/2.8, and it has IS which many of them would love.

Nearly all of us are a bit confused, because unless it's quite a bit cheaper than the 24-105 for something like a 6D bundle, why should Canon go ahead with yet another lens that seems less useful than one they already have that they've been making for years and many, many people are happy with. If indeed it is quite a bit cheaper, even if it's around the same IQ as the 24-105, it makes a lot of sense. If it's a bit cheaper or about the same, and much better IQ than the 24-105, maybe we have a new FF kit lens and the 24-105 is going away without an update :'( Either way, I think it really depends on the price this will be as to how well it will be received.

Sounds pretty reasonable. Just like the 70-200mm range you pay such a whack for that extra stop of light.

I would have thought, though, that we could expect better IQ than the 24-105. I'd be surprised if it was not quite a bit better.

 

[Drizzt321]

So

@dave

I think it's more for those of us with the 24-105, we're all going "meh, this lens does nothing for me." Those with the 24-70 f/2.8 (either version) look at it with disdain/envy since it's f/4 and they need f/2.8, and it has IS which many of them would love.

Nearly all of us are a bit confused, because unless it's quite a bit cheaper than the 24-105 for something like a 6D bundle, why should Canon go ahead with yet another lens that seems less useful than one they already have that they've been making for years and many, many people are happy with. If indeed it is quite a bit cheaper, even if it's around the same IQ as the 24-105, it makes a lot of sense. If it's a bit cheaper or about the same, and much better IQ than the 24-105, maybe we have a new FF kit lens and the 24-105 is going away without an update :'( Either way, I think it really depends on the price this will be as to how well it will be received.

Sounds pretty reasonable. Just like the 70-200mm range you pay such a whack for that extra stop of light.

Oh, I'm happy to pay for the f/2.8, it just seems strange since they have the 24-105 which is generally held as a fairly decent lens, and give it the same f/4 w/IS. As someone pointed out in the other thread, perhaps it's to get a much higher IQ lens that can handle a high MPx sensor that we keep hearing rumors about. If it's about the same price as the 24-105, that certainly starts making some sense since it's be easier to design a high quality at 24-70 rather than 24-105.

I think I'll go sit this one out for now, until we get some more details of pricing, and some actual real-world images & reviews.

 

[Menace]

I have a 24-105 f4 IS currently, I do not see myself trading it for 24-70 f4 IS even if the IQ is a little bit better - if it's a lot better IQ, then it will be close to the price of 24-70 f2.8 II minus the extra stop!

I'll take the extra stop thank you.

My two cents

Cheers

 

[boateggs]

The poll said to give more info if I choose "Id be interested..." I would not buy this lens by its self but if it was in a kit it could be interesting. I think it will be about $100 more than the Nikon offering, so ~$700.

I also think that the 24-105 will get mk2 status in the near future and will increase in price by about 40% (because they can) allowing the 24-70/4 to be more attractive. Im still more interested in the 24-105 due to the range overlap with a 70-200/300 so I can have less worry about needing to change my lens (I will get the 6d as long as the highish ISO performance is good and will miss my 15-85)