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

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/canon-ef-24-70-f4l-is-coming-cr3/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/canon-ef-24-70-f4l-is-coming-cr3/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>A new zoom

</strong>A new EF 24-70 f/4L IS is on the horizon. It appears something was lost in translation in regards to yesterday’s rumor.  While a prototype of the 2.8 version in IS form exists, the f/4L version is what will be coming to market.</p>
<p>No announcement date is known. Remember <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/new-lenses-coming-cr3/" target="_blank">we reported on the EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake</a> 4 months before it was announced. I do not have a solid announcement date, so it could be a while off.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[triggermike]

Hmmm, what does this do to the 24-105L . . .

 

[mortadella]

Does this mean the end of the 24-105L?

Or will this lens be similarly priced to the new 24-70 2.8L II with similarly stellar resolution, therefore keeping the 24-105L the kit lens and affordable FF walk-around?

 

[Timothy_Bruce]

I don´t think so. It could be the same as with the 16-35 and 17-40 coexistence.

 

[RLPhoto]

Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk.2?

This lens will be DOA.

 

[2n10]

Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk.2?

This lens will be DOA.

Their evil plan is to drive all of the moaners and groaners nuts.

I doubt it will be DOA if the price is significantly less than the 2.8 is.

 

[thewallbanger]

Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk.2?

This lens will be DOA.

This. Couldn't agree more. Someone is making absurd lens decisions at Canon. (24mm IS and 28mm IS?!?)

 

[blonigan16]

Does anyone have any idea on how this will be priced? I can't see this lens having any particular advantage over the 24-105. Seems like kind of an irrelevant lens unless its cheaper than the 24-105..

 

[Drizzt321]

Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk.2?

This lens will be DOA.

This. Couldn't agree more. Someone is making absurd lens decisions at Canon. (24mm IS and 28mm IS?!?)

Yea, doesn't make me want to buy it. If it was f/2.8, even if it was only around the 24-70 mk1 or 24-105 quality, I'd be very interested. As an f/4, not really all that interested.

 

[zim]

ah ha so I got it spot on yesterday

I bagsy the cred on that ;D

Maybe they think the f4 brigade will go for two lenses instead of the one 24-105 like a poor mans version of the ideal pro zooms. Roll on the 14-24s

 

[EYEONE]

Should be nice and compact at least.

 

[ahsanford]

24-70 F/4 IS?

CR3?

Crap.

Let me get in line to scratch my head at this:

1) The 24-105 F/4L IS is old-ish but certainly not ancient -- The Digital Picture has it listed as being from 2005. Surely there are more valuable older lenses to update, like the 35L (1998), the 50 F/1.4 (1993), and so on.

2) If the argument is to be made that the standard zoom market will get price-pointed to hell (like the 70-200) with the combinations of 2.8 & 4, IS and non-IS, where is the flagship?! The 2.8 IS is what everyone has been asking for. Financially, I fail to see why this new lens would be attractive. Who will pay decent money for the more vanilla versions without the Bismarck do-everything version tenting up the price?

3) If Canon is in love with big ticket items, why not make the 2.8 IS everyone wants? Some folks would pay $3k for that, as nuts as that sounds.


Devil's advocate attempts to have this make sense:

If this is an attempt to '17-40' the standard zoom into a value-oriented L lens (say $700 or so), this makes some sense. But all of Canon's pricing of late would imply that this new one won't be reasonably priced.

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.

- A

 

[well_dunno]

??? I imagine the idea is the same as having 70-200 in f/2.8 and f/4 versions - there was not any 70-300 f/4 IS (eh that would compare to 24-105 in the context, wouldn't it?) when they came up with those though... I guess IQ will be its strong side...

Cheers!

 

[Daniel Flather]

Maybe?

24-70 f4
24-70 IS f4
24-70 f2.8
24-70 IS f2.8

 

[ahsanford]

Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk.2?

This lens will be DOA.

This. Couldn't agree more. Someone is making absurd lens decisions at Canon. (24mm IS and 28mm IS?!?)

Respectfully disagree. Different needs for different shooters.

The 24/28 IS lenses (I own the 28) are the most handholdable low-light lenses they make. That 28 is a peach. Small, light, internally focusing, and sharper than a stopped down 35L. I just can't shoot moving things as well as the 1.4 wide angles can, but that's not my need. So the 24/28 IS lenses were ideal for me, and I thank Canon for offering them. I just wish they sported the red ring for resale reasons.

 

[Canon 14-24]

So for the remainder of 2012 Q4 possible product announcements, we have possibly 1 more D-slr and this 24-70 f/4 is lens? I hope this is another lost in translation and it was actually meant to be a new/updated ultra wide angle zoom L lens! 16-35 f/4 IS or 17-40 f/4 IS?

 

[Jesse]

Canon needs to announce a 14-24mm already so everyone can breathe and stop complaining for a bit.

 

[robbymack]

This does seem silly, can't see why anyone would want this over the tamron f2.8 vc. I assume it will become the new kits lens and the 24-105 will fade into obscurity. Which i guess may make some sense especially if canons marketing shows a lot of folks don't buy a 70-200, 70-300, or 100-400 if they already have the 24-105 and are happy. Could be a plan to sell a few more 70-200's etc.

 

[ahsanford]

Maybe?

24-70 f4
24-70 IS f4
24-70 f2.8
24-70 IS f2.8

I was saying the same thing in my post (we must have been writing simultaneously) -- this is worth sizing up. Looking at B&H (incl. rebates):

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?

And if such estimates are even close, who would buy the first two on that list when the 24-105 F/4 IS is widely available in the $950 range? (actually less, given all the kit+body lens resellers). I'm not buying it.

So I'm going to dismiss the four price points and think that this must be either a value or size/weight sell. This new F/4L IS needs to be very small/light or value priced like the 17-40 or 70-200 F/4 NON-IS to make sense.

...or Canon really is nuts.

 

[Daniel Flather]

Canon needs to announce a 14-24mm already so everyone can breathe and stop complaining for a bit.

Yes, and price it above the 14L so I can then justify buying the 14L.