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

[keithfullermusic]

i'm like most people here when i say that i simply don't get it.

my only thought is that it is for video. i don't do much video, but i know most (not all) love IS, and you probably aren't doing much video with wide open apertures of 2.8. otherwise, this is just as insanely stupid lens choice. if nothing else, it just pisses off canon users for never getting what they are asking for.

 

[Phenix205]

Had really hoped for a stellar 24-105 4L IS II. Now they produced such an idiotic mutant.

 

[docsmith]

I am dumbstruck....

The only way it makes sense to me is if it comes back really affordable and/or light/compact.....other than that, too much overlap with the 24-105, which is already affordable.

I wonder if it will be non-L. I know that is not the rumor, but that would make some sense to me.

 

[max]

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

either this lens is like 800USD MSRP or its DOA.

 

[picturesbyme]

IF the IQ is great.. IF the build quality is solid.. IF it's under $1000...
then yes... wait.. No.. yes... No.. yes... No.. wait the 24-105 has better reach, the 2.8II will come down eventually so NO but thanks... )

I always said that the camera is just a tool so I couldn't care less what's written on the front of the cam or lens as long as it delivers quality and the price is justifiable but Canon is losing it lately...
Fist the overpriced 5d3 to milk the early adopters.
Then the 24-70 2.8 II, then the 6D and now the 24-70 f4 ..

Another genius idea how to lose more people ....

 

[boateggs]

All I can come up with is they will price this ~$700, crank out a 24-105 IS mk2 and price it at roughly what the 24-70 mk1 was. This "low cost" 24-70 will help form a bottom stepping stone to the mid level 24-105 mk2 and then to the high end 24-70 mk2. I doubt it will have STM as unless the 6d has STM support, none of the full frame options support it. This is all I could come up with

 

[rh81photo]

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

I suspect a combination of 2, 3 and 4: tailored for video in a light and small package, possibly the first L Lens with STM focus(oh gosh!) and an IS supporting the video fraction (you lot know what I mean, not the tight grip Tamron VC but something smoother for handheld video).
I don't suspect superior resolution...that would take away sales from the relativeley new and good 24-105L and the video guys need only so much resolution. It then should at least have good contrast though :-\
My guess for the pricepoint would be 900 to 950 bucks msrp with kit-prices below that at lets say 800..or even less if the IQ is just on the 'almost L' level...but then again Canon hasn't released cheap optics recently anyway. ugh, I don't know. they completeley scramble their lineup with this. at least its a constant aperture lens and not a 3.5-4.5 like in the nikon world.

CR3 definateley brings the band together

 

[funkboy]

All I can come up with is they will price this ~$700, crank out a 24-105 IS mk2 and price it at roughly what the 24-70 mk1 was. This "low cost" 24-70 will help form a bottom stepping stone to the mid level 24-105 mk2 and then to the high end 24-70 mk2.

This is almost exactly what I was just about to post. A new 24-70 f/4 IS had better be a lot smaller/lighter *and* cheaper than the existing 24-105L. Which is possible... (look at e.g. the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX lenses)

At least Canon didn't have any production facilities in the path of Hurricane Sandy, but their US HQ probably got whacked pretty hard.

 

[x-vision]

either this lens is like 800USD MSRP or its DOA.

More like $900 but in principle you are correct.

If priced above $1K, this rumored lens will have the same fate as the 24/28 IS - sitting on the shelves until it gets discounted.

 

[jchong62]

Do you believe this rumor even made sense?

24-70 f/4L IS is nowhere between 24-70mm f/2.8L and 24-105mm f/4L IS.

 

[dhofmann]

Who would buy the 24-70 II when they could get something with the same focal range that's just as sharp, half the weight, more compact, and 2-3 stops more handholdable? Not many people. A few, but not many.

The 24-70 II is like the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS lens. Who buys that one?

If they can get the price of the 24-70mm f/4 IS down below $2,000, it's a sure winner.

 

[Old Ben]

Hi - first time poster but long time lurker.

I have never used the 24-105. Does the lens have any faults, e.g., significant pincushion distortion, that may be corrected by shortening the focal length range?

 

[hendrik-sg]

If the 24 and 28 is cost so much, forget about a 3 digit 24-70. Whats the gain over the 24-105? look at it from Canons point of view: investing developement costs in any product needs to generate a financial flow back, that's economics for beginners.

What might canon get from an "update" of 24-105 to 24-70? Either reduction of production costs or increase in price or most likely both.

What will we get from this update? a better IS which costs Canon nothing, its just better algorithm or more computer power. Further we will get the attributes "new" and "higher price", both means prestige and third we will get less weight which most likely costs Canon less.

So every one is happy? Canon? for sure, Yes i am, i keep my 24-105 which was just calibrated and is nicely sharp. You? I dont know what makes you happy

P.S.: If you want a brighter lens which has no distortion at 24mm the 1.4L has even more prestige

 

[unfocused]

Seems like the perfect kit lens for the 6D. Don't know why this is a surprise. If you are going to offer an "entry-level" full frame camera, you've got to give people a decent and affordable kit lens to go with it.

Yes, it has to be priced under the 24-105. Doing so would enable Canon to offer a 6D with lens combination in the neighborhood of $2,600.

I do question the "L" designation, but that's just marketing anyway. Slap a red ring and $20 worth of weather-sealing on it and call it good.

 

[ahsanford]

either this lens is like 800USD MSRP or its DOA.

More like $900 but in principle you are correct.

If priced above $1K, this rumored lens will have the same fate as the 24/28 IS - sitting on the shelves until it gets discounted.

I have to keep sticking up for the 24/28 IS lenses. My 28 is fantastic, and I'm a still shooter -- to compare them to the old 24/28 non-L lenses is a huge disservice. These have the build quality of the 100L (very very good, but not legendary like the 70-200 or 24-70 Mk I), and the performance is wonderful.

If the 24/28 IS lenses had red rings on them, they'd sell just fine.

 

[BXL]

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).

+1

I also assume that this 24-70/4 IS will fill the gap of the 24-85 USM. Guess that the "L" is just a marketing gag.

 

[cliffwang]

Is Canon a marketing company now?

 

[Marsu42]

This lens will be DOA.

No, it will be cheaper on production, just like 6d. And it will make people buy more 70- teles.Plus the 6d af is made for f4+ lenses.

 

[arn]

Is this a joke?

24-70 f4/L with IS?

Wow. I think Canon has finally lost its marbles.

Everyone wants a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS? OK - why don't you check out this nice new 24-70 f/FOUR with IS instead?!?! ehh?? sexy... no??!

What? Everyone wants a 5D2 with a new sensor and market leading megapixels, dynamic range and NR at low-ISOs? We know it's no D800, but check out this newfangled 5DTHREE instead!!! Ehhh??? sexy... no?? Oh wait... how about this crippled 5D3 we call a 6D!?!?!?! Pretty HOT eh????

f*ck you canon. i'm so sick of your bullsh*t.

Well said... ;D

If the supposed 24-70/4 IS is very small, it actually makes sense and I might be quite interested. Otherwise, no way.

 

[Loswr]

Who would buy the 24-70 II when they could get something with the same focal range that's just as sharp, half the weight, more compact, and 2-3 stops more handholdable? Not many people. A few, but not many.

People who need f/2.8, that's who. Who buys the 85/1.2L with the 85/1.8 available? Lots of people.

The 24-70 II is like the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS lens. Who buys that one?

People who need a sharp f/2.8 but can't afford the 70-200 II.

If they can get the price of the 24-70mm f/4 IS down below $2,000, it's a sure winner.

I bring out the WTF again on this. The 24-105 f/4L IS close to $1000, if the 24-70 f/4L IS is anywhere even close to $2000, it's a sure big fat loser.