Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
Ray2021 said:
I'm not sure about not moving a $2500-2800 lens. I think the standard zoom 2.8 IS is a bit of a holy grail kind of lens that -- if absolutely top quality -- will sell for $3k, and sell well. I sure as hell won't buy it, but many would. I'd also throw an F/2 standard zoom in that same holy grail bucket, but I'd imagine it would weigh 4 tons.
Upvote
0
C
Canon-F1
Guest
RLPhoto said:And just like that 18-55mm kit lens, You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras. :
because it sells as kit lens.... :
if canon sees this new lens as a kit lens for the 6D and coming entry level FF cameras it will make sense.
Upvote
0
Also, can someone speak to why the EF-S folks have a $1000 17-55 F/2.8 IS and EF folks are left wanting?
Is making such a lens for a crop that much more technically feasible or inexpensive? (Or is the 17-55 not a good lens? I've never tried it.)
Is making such a lens for a crop that much more technically feasible or inexpensive? (Or is the 17-55 not a good lens? I've never tried it.)
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
it makes total sense why people are pissed. NO ONE is asking for this lens - NO ONE. Sure, it might be good for video, and sure, it might be a good low priced option. But as far as I can tell the 24-105 already does this and more.
It just indicates to consumers that Canon doesn't give a rat's @ss what people want - they are just going down their own path. people have been begging for the new 24-70 with IS for YEARS, and this is Canon's response?
If they are getting rid of the 24-105, then ok - this makes sense. However, if they are still offering both I don't get it.
Upvote
0
max said:blonigan16 said:RLPhoto said:Yes, It will be cheaper in production, Just like the 18-55mm kit lens. And just like that 18-55mm kit lens, You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras. :
I've been looking for a replacement for my 18-55 and this lens seems somewhat ideal as it fits between the 10-22 and the 70-200 if you have a crop body. I do agree with you otherwise though, I can't see many other reasons for someone to consider this lens other than mine.
why not get a 24-105mm?
Sorry I forgot to mention I'd be considering this lens only if it was cheaper than the 24-105. I'm hoping this costs somewhere between 700-850 and has some kind of other advantage over the 24-105 other than price.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Only if it is cheap and small will it compete against the 24-105mm f/4 (unless of course they discontinue the 24-105mm).
Upvote
0
RLPhoto said:Marsu42 said:RLPhoto said:You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras. :
I see this one as a cheaper plasticy (like 100L) 6d kit, lighter weight, smaller size and latest IS vs 24-105. Many people will prefer it and put the $$$ saved into a 70- tele.
Yeah but the 24-105L is already sharp for around 800$ used. This lens would have to be 599$ for it to fly and knowing canon lately, I seriously doubt that.
My guess. DOA.
I agree, however i also thought the 40mm pancake looked weak on paper however for the size, price point and image quality it delivered in spades!
now mentioning that little bad boy I cant see much value in a 24-70 f4 vs the 40mm pancake other than IS
its certainly a wierd offering considering the 50mm line so desperately needs an update
its gonna have to be cheap, sub $500 to fly IMO
Upvote
0
wickidwombat said:RLPhoto said:Marsu42 said:RLPhoto said:You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras. :
I see this one as a cheaper plasticy (like 100L) 6d kit, lighter weight, smaller size and latest IS vs 24-105. Many people will prefer it and put the $$$ saved into a 70- tele.
Yeah but the 24-105L is already sharp for around 800$ used. This lens would have to be 599$ for it to fly and knowing canon lately, I seriously doubt that.
My guess. DOA.
I agree, however i also thought the 40mm pancake looked weak on paper however for the size, price point and image quality it delivered in spades!
now mentioning that little bad boy I cant see much value in a 24-70 f4 vs the 40mm pancake other than IS
its certainly a wierd offering considering the 50mm line so desperately needs an update
its gonna have to be cheap, sub $500 to fly IMO
+1 on the 40 prime as an example of what looks 'meh' on paper (at announcement time) being potentially far more value in actual use. I'm really hoping Canon is speaking to end user benefit somewhere other than the 'horsepower specs' of aperture, length and IS. Crossing my fingers on small size/weight and cost, but I doubt either will be stellar.
+5 on speaking to the 50 prime. The 50 F/1.4 remains a staple for me (despite a host of L lenses I own), and it's from 1993! A bread and butter lens like that should be on a five year refresh cycle.
Upvote
0
the potential advantage of course over the 24-105L is that less coverage within one lens should mean better performance. 24-105 range is quite demanding of a zoom to perform equally well at both wide and telephoto ends. i'd expect to see better handling of lens distortion amongst other things. 24-70 range also obviously has no cross over with the 70-200 which i've always liked. i like things tidy
however...i too have held off in the past from buying a 24-105L due to it being 'only' f4. so for me I'd still prefer the 24-70 2.8 ...or of course better yet 2.8 IS.
however...i too have held off in the past from buying a 24-105L due to it being 'only' f4. so for me I'd still prefer the 24-70 2.8 ...or of course better yet 2.8 IS.
Upvote
0
Obviously - a fullframe equivalent would be 27-88mm. That reach is well covered for FF by the 24-70's and the 24-105, especially if you consider that the depth of field of the [email protected] roughly equals f/4 on FF. And if you'd really want 17mm, you'd be buying a 16-35 for your 2.8 or else the 17-40. The 24-70/2.8 I and the 16-35 I (and the 24-105) were both in the 17-55 price category, the mark II's outperform all of the above and are priced accordingly. Factor in build and weathersealing, and you'd almost think the 17-55 is the overpriced oneahsanford said:
Enniehoo, the 24-70/4. Sub-$500 is not going to happen - this L IS-zoom is just no way going to be cheaper than the 2.8 IS primes. So 'cheap' would still mean it needs to compete with the 24-105 and 2nd-hand 24-70/2.8 I's. Doesn't make sense. A high resolution one with IS might make more sense. The only alternative I see is a parfocal STM lens for video, but I'm not sure they'd try to outfit an L with STM already, on the off chance it'll happily sit being a dud next to the DO lenses*. STM will need to prove itself first.
No, I say the new kid's going to perform really good, and it's going to cost a bundle. And it'll probably sell like hotcakes to those who need the best, and even better to those who want the best.
*) Yeahyeahyeah, I'm sure the DO's are good, even very good, they're just not the real deal, what with the weird bokeh
Upvote
0
Dylan777 said:
There will be reasonable explanations for it:
1. STM motor
2. Better focusing with newer bodies
3. Next generation IS
4. Better coatings
5. Less distortion at 24mm
And a sentence: "Specially dedicated for photo enthusiast covering focals above 70mm with their 70-200 zooms, this newly developed best in it's class lens is better optimized through it's whole focal range."
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
