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

[stewy]

An f4 version huh! I'm curious as to how it will compare to my 24-105L. If its noticeably better then I'll switch, if not, what's the point. Ideally I'd want the 24-70L with IS.

 

[Jesse]

Only reason I don't own the 24-105 is because it's too slow....

 

[Loswr]

24-70mm f/4L IS?

WTF? Just.....WTF?!?

 

[Orangutan]

Pure speculation here, but this could be a video-oriented lens. It will likely be parfocal, possibly with an internal zoom mechanism. To do this out to 105mm would make it a lot more expensive, heavy, and not necessarily more marketable to the video crowd.

Again, this is just a guess.

 

[IWLP]

Once again, Canon delivers a lens that nobody asked for. Unless this thing is so sharp it gives me paper cuts just by looking at it, my 24-105 f/4L shall stay in my bag.

 

[jhanken]

Perhaps it's an STM lens? We assume is USM, but perhaps this is targeted primarily at video?

Sorry, those two reasons don't undo how nuts this looks at first glance.

Agreed. My 24-105 f/4 L sits on my 5D by default, I find that about 65% of my shots are at 105mm, about 30% are in between 24-30mm, and the rest around 50mm.

Chopping off the extra reach with compensating larger aperture for a normal kit lens probably only makes sense if they are trying to reduce breathing and make a more cine-ish lens.

 

[x-vision]

24-70mm f/4L IS?

WTF? Just.....WTF?!?

Two words: compact size.

The 24-105L is smaller than the 24-70L but it's still not a compact lens.

Canon needs a smaller (and cheaper?) kit lens for the smallish 6D.
A compact, high quality 24-70mm f/4L IS would be a very good fit.

Depending on price, I'd be very interested in such a lens - and potentially the 6D too.

 

[stewy]

My current lens strategy is to go with the cheaper f4 lens. They aren't very fast, but they are still very good. If I need faster I usually need really fast or really shallow DOF. For this I resort to a prime lens that gets me 1.4 or faster. However, these days I've been thinking of dropping going even faster as a base, from f4 to 2.8, I like my 100mm L.

 

[Stevo2008]

My guess is this will go as a kit lens with Canon 6D. Priced similar to recently announced Nikkor 24-85mm F3.5-4.5G ED VR lens.

 

[bbasiaga]

Hm...hard to price this. I'd say $1k ish maybe, like the 24-105, but trading reach for sharpness.

Or I could see it at the $1600 mark where the old MK1 was at. You get IS and sharpness but lose speed compared to the ultra sharp V2 F2.8....

What if its a non-L? At the $900 mark to be popular with the new entry level FF crowd?

People say 'no one asked for this' but what they really mean is 'no one on the internet forums asked for this'. Canon seems to have a lens for every niche (ultra wide zoom excepted)...I'm sure they've got a target crowd for this lens. Video may well be it, as suggested above. It will also have the more accurrate focus system/feedback/position sensor....a plus for users of the new bodies compared to the 24-105.

-Brian

 

[PackLight]

I wonder how many copies of this 24-70mm I will have to go through before I find a good one.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I'm trying to wrap my head around such a lens, but I'm really having trouble doing so.

Is this supposed to replace the 24-105? Is the loss of reach (and no gain in aperture) balanced out by a corresponding increase in IQ?

I guess I would understand if it were a non-L version priced under $1K (a budget version of the $2300 24-70 2.8 ) but otherwise I'm just not too sure.

 

[AtSea]

This is dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

My only hope is that it takes the still high used prices of the original 24-70 down from $1000-$1200 to at least $800. I doubt it would have that effect, as the entire advantage of the 24-70 over the newer, lighter, and very sharp 24-105 zoom (which does rest at that $800 resale value)was the 2.8. Take away the quicker speed of the aperture and you have a lens that means a whole of nothing to a whole lot of people.

And say what you will about a cheaper version of the 24-70 - At F/4, I can't see it being cheaper than the 24-105, and there are very few people that complain about sharpness from that lens.

 

[ahsanford]

So, theories we'ved spitballed about this are:

1) Canon is fully '70-200'-ing their 24-70 lenses into a lineup of (eventually) four offerings.
2) This is tailored for video -- STM, parfocal, etc.
3) It will be very small / very light in comparison to prior 24-70 lenses.
4) This is a 'value L' in the vein of 17-40, 70-200 F/4 non-IS. Cheap L glass for everyone.

I'll offer a fifth -- perhaps these new 24-70s are just a leap above in resolution for the impending high MP body? One would think the new 24-70 F/2.8 performance would speak to this, but I've seen:

• One stellar review (from Roger Cicala)
• One 'I got one good copy and one bad copy' from The Digital Picture
• One so-so review (from Photozone) on the resolution front.

So I'm not certain about this theory.

But golly gee, the speculation is awfully fun. Nothing like a CR3 to bring the band back together. ;D

 

[deletemyaccount]

I was really hoping for this lens to be 2.8 with IS.

 

[max]

the 24-105mm f/4 IS has quite good resolution, its only 800 USD on kit packages.
The 24-70mm f/4 IS does the same thing but has less reach. I don't think many people will need this lens.

If they were the same price, and being the resolution of the 24-105mm IS enough for most people, I doubt this lens will sell decently well, unless it is cheaper.

This lens is just nonsense.

Its either a 24-70mm 2.8 IS, or upgrade the 24-105mm f/4 IS.

 

[pierceography]

24-70mm f/4L IS?

WTF? Just.....WTF?!?

+1

If Canon is trying to duplicate the redundancy of the 70-200 lineup, they're really going to need to re-evaluate their price points. $2,300 for a non-IS lens is already too high, regardless of the IQ. What are they going to do with an IS version of the 2.8 mk2? I'd like to see Canon introduce an IS version of the mk2 at the current price, and drop the non-IS back down to mk1 range. IMHO. That certainly won't happen though.

And who needs an f/4 when the 24-105mm already fills that need?

I really hope this winds up being a CR0.

Criminy.

 

[Bob Howland]

Pure speculation here, but this could be a video-oriented lens. It will likely be parfocal, possibly with an internal zoom mechanism. To do this out to 105mm would make it a lot more expensive, heavy, and not necessarily more marketable to the video crowd.

Again, this is just a guess.

Hmm, that actually makes sense. Maybe it's an STM lens.

 

[well_dunno]

This does seem silly, can't see why anyone would want this over the tamron f2.8 vc.

I imagine superior IQ would be the selling point for the f/4 IS but I cannot see that happening if Canon puts a price tag north of the Tammy ???

70-200 F/4 $629 (<-- an absolute bargain like the 17-40L is)
70-200 F/4 IS $1,099
70-200 F/2.8 $1,299
70-200 F/28 IS II $2,099

Extrapolating this to the 24-70, this might look like:

24-70 F/4 $1,099?
24-70 F/4 IS $1,999?
24-70 F/2.8 (II) $2,299 (<--- this one exists for sale today)
24-70 F/2.8 IS $3k+? Rare stamps? Left testicle?

Was thinking exactly the same - if the current 70-200 pricing is a measure, the f/4 IS would cost way above the Tamron. Not sure what kind of IQ would make up for the smaller aperture + the price differrence... Interesting out of a marketing point of view though, we will see what Canon marketeers have thought this time ;D

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Unless...you know, I've picked up an old, used 24-85. It isn't the sharpest lens but man, the SIZE is wonderful. If this new 24-70 is just as compact, they make the aperture constant, add in IS, and keep the price $800 or below, it could be an attractive option for those wishing to travel light. While the 24-105 is not a HUGE lens, it's definitely substantial on all but the biggest bodies (5D/1D series).