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

[AmbientLight]

I admit I am getting confused here. I planned on selling my 24-105 to a friend to get a new 24-70 Mark II, but now I am caught in between waiting for a possible 24-70 f2.8 IS and not wanting to replace my 24-105 with a 24-70 f4 IS and maybe, just maybe, purchasing a second 24-105 just in case it gets eliminated from the lineup. This is annoying. The only thing for sure is that this 24-70 f4L IS is not for me. :-\

 

[K-amps]

I admit I am getting confused here. I planned on selling my 24-105 to a friend to get a new 24-70 Mark II, but now I am caught in between waiting for a possible 24-70 f2.8 IS and not wanting to replace my 24-105 with a 24-70 f4 IS and maybe, just maybe, purchasing a second 24-105 just in case it gets eliminated from the lineup. This is annoying. The only thing for sure is that this 24-70 f4L IS is not for me. :-\

If it makes it any easier for you... I got a 24-70 f2.8 mk.ii and was not blown away by the IQ (compared to the mighty 70-200 mk.ii). It was nice and F2.8... and AF was fast... but I Paid more for it than the tele, it has no IS, the lens elements were not 100% aligned (asymmetric vignetting)... so unless they sold it for $1500-1700, I wont miss it much. I have a 17-40 and a 70-200, there is not a whol lot between 40mm and 70 than a nice 50mm prime could not cover...

 

[7enderbender]

I don't get it. What would I do with such a lens? I see some value in the 24-105 due to the flexible focal length. For that I'm willing to put up with f/4 and IS under certain circumstances. Yes, IS to me is a negative not a plus. Same for 24-70? No way. Nothing gained there.

 

[7enderbender]

my guess will be filters smaller than 77mm
maybe 67mm? all plastic construction

I doubt it'll be an all plastic construction simply because of its L designation.

From Wikipedia:
Most L series lenses share a number of common characteristics:
- Tough build, made to withstand trials in the field (some incorporating dust and moisture resistant rubber seals).
- At least one fluorite or ultra-low dispersion glass element, combined with super-low dispersion glass and ground aspherical elements.
- Non-rotating front elements, which are optimal for some filters (e.g. circular polarizers).
- Relatively large apertures compared to other Canon lenses in the same focal lengths.
- Ring-type USM (ultrasonic motor) and full-time manual focusing.

You must have missed the 100 f2.8L IS Macro and 24-70 f2.8L II both are engineering plastics....

Yep. Wikipedia is wrong about this. Most L lenses in fact are plastic. I may be wrong but of the more recent lenses I think only the original 24-70 had a metal barrel (and then some plastic parts in key areas anyway) - and probably some of the big white tele lenses and zooms I'd think.
But as much as I like my 50L and 135L: plastic and I treat them like raw eggs. Even the filter threads are plastic on all lenses these days. Those feel and handle better than my rather flimsy 24-105, but still. Non of this compares to the feel and sturdiness of my old FD lenses.

 

[Marsu42]

Non of this compares to the feel and sturdiness of my old FD lenses.

I found the LensRentals review of the 24-70ii most interesting concerning the "sturdiness" because Roger pointed out that the mk1 might be metal, but at the same time it's more fragile than the mk2 because the older lens is much more prone to decentering when taking a hit.

So when not always thinking of the worst-case scenario (lens or body falls from a skyscraper and is overrun by a truck) a newer plastic construction might outmatch an older/cheaper metal one in real world usage. But I'd still like my 100L to be metal

 

[plutonium10]

I somewhat doubt Canon will kill the 24-105 completely. Maybe they'll replace it with a 24-120 or something, while the 24-70 becomes the lens for more size- and weight-conscious shooters. When I travel, I take my 70-300L with me to capture wildlife photos, as well as a 15-85mm walk-around lens. If I had a full frame camera, I would gladly trade a 70-105mm overlap for lighter weight and smaller size to reduce the overall bulk of my backpack.

 

[RLPhoto]

Thats too bad about this new lens. I just got my 24-105L for 750$.

Score. 8)

 

[tron]

maybe, just maybe, purchasing a second 24-105 just in case it gets eliminated from the lineup.

You look like you do not want to part with 24-105 so I would suggest to keep it until you make up your mind...

 

[SJTstudios]

Since all canons new lenses are the sharpest, I may invest in one. This what I think canon has in mind...

"rumored" canon 14-24 l 2.8 + 24-70 2.8 ii + 70-200 2.8 is ii - this is the pro setup.

Some f4 wide angle (ex. 12-24 f4) + 24-70 f4 is + canon 70-200 f4 is -enthusiast setup

This means...
-a new f4 wide angle
-maybe a new 70-200 f4 is ii
-maybe a 70-200 2.8 is iii

Maybe canon is using special glass, for the 24-105, they had to compromise on glass quality, I think since everyone wants a 24-70, they'll give a budget one, with good glass.

This could be a competitor for the tamron 24-70 vc, so people have to decide, tamron 2.8, or canon sharpness and build quality. With the Iso capabilities of canon dslrs, f4 won't be an issue, this is probably going to be launched with the 6d.

 

[KyleSTL]

"rumored" canon 14-24 l 2.8 + 24-70 2.8 ii + 70-200 2.8 is ii - this is the pro setup.

Some f4 wide angle (ex. 12-24 f4) + 24-70 f4 is + canon 70-200 f4 is -enthusiast setup

I think the f/2.8 wide angle will be 14-24mm, but I think the f/4 will be 16-35 IS to directly compete in all aspects with the Nikon lens. That will make it wider than the current f/4, sharper (as pretty much all lenses have been over their predecessors) and likely more expensive. Hopefully, Canon will come out with cheaper variable aperture [or non-IS] UWA to replace the long-extinct 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for the lower end of the budget (~$500), as well. Think about this (as a beginner):

Canon 6D + '24-70mm f/4 IS' = $2600 (same price as Nikon D600 kit)
Canon '18-35mm f/4' or '16-35mm non-IS' = $500
Canon 70-200mm f/4 USM = $630
TOTAL = $3730

Pretty sweet [theoretical] package for <$4000, right? Not that 2 of the three lenses even exist, but it is certainly possible.

 

[ahsanford]

"rumored" canon 14-24 l 2.8 + 24-70 2.8 ii + 70-200 2.8 is ii - this is the pro setup.

Some f4 wide angle (ex. 12-24 f4) + 24-70 f4 is + canon 70-200 f4 is -enthusiast setup

I think the f/2.8 wide angle will be 14-24mm, but I think the f/4 will be 16-35 IS to directly compete in all aspects with the Nikon lens. That will make it wider than the current f/4, sharper (as pretty much all lenses have been over their predecessors) and likely more expensive. Hopefully, Canon will come out with cheaper variable aperture [or non-IS] UWA to replace the long-extinct 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for the lower end of the budget (~$500), as well. Think about this (as a beginner):

Canon 6D + '24-70mm f/4 IS' = $2600 (same price as Nikon D600 kit)
Canon '18-35mm f/4' or '16-35mm non-IS' = $500
Canon 70-200mm f/4 USM = $630
TOTAL = $3730

Pretty sweet [theoretical] package for <$4000, right? Not that 2 of the three lenses even exist, but it is certainly possible.

There already is a value/budget F/4 ultrawide L -- the 17-40 F/4L. It's super popular -- I'd guess one of the most frequently standalone bought (i.e. non-kit) L lenses due to its price, length and good IQ.

So I'd say no new ultrawide is needed on the cheap end, IMHO. But this thread (hell, this whole forum) has been screaming for the higher end ultrawide with the 14-24.

 

[plutonium10]

I would agree that the 17-40 has good optical quality, but perhaps not as excellent as the average L lens. Not good enough to be a worthwhile upgrade to my 15-85, except for the build quality and weather sealing. Now if there was a new 14-24 or 16-35 lens with f4 and excellent optical quality at a reasonable price I would sell my 15-85 and buy it as well as a 24-70 IS

 

[flanker]

24-70 f/4 from Canon makes sence.

In terms law of physics, the dimension of front element can be similar to EF 24-85 f/3,5-4,5. The whole lens and its optical formula can be close to 24-85, too or it can be even smaller.

The 24-70 f/2,8 mkII or 24-105 f/4 can be expensive kit lens for 5DmkIII. But they are too expensive to relative cheap 6D body. Canon needs cheaper kit standard zoom for 6D. So the Kit 6D + something can have relative lower price opposite to 24-70 f/2,8 or 24-105 f/4. More people will buy 6D kit with this lens then.

Orientation to video (like EF 24 IS, EF 28 IS, EF 40 STM etc.) is good reason, too.

 

[RLPhoto]

Congratulations! At the MSRP of 1500$ for the 24-70 f/4L IS. This lens is now

DOA.

 

[Marsu42]

Congratulations! At the MSRP of 1500$ for the 24-70 f/4L IS. This lens is now

DOA.

I agree if purchased separately, but the theory was all along that this price will be just a marketing joke to be able to sell heavily "discounted" kits with the 6d making the new camera body more attractive.

 

[RLPhoto]

Congratulations! At the MSRP of 1500$ for the 24-70 f/4L IS. This lens is now

DOA.

I agree if purchased separately, but the theory was all along that this price will be just a marketing joke to be able to sell heavily "discounted" kits with the 6d making the new camera body more attractive.

I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. The 5D3+24-105L kit was still around the combined MSRP price when sold originally.

I could buy a 24-105L and 100mm 2.8L Macro used for just the price of the absurd 24-70 F/4L

 

[wickidwombat]

Congratulations! At the MSRP of 1500$ for the 24-70 f/4L IS. This lens is now

DOA.

yeah cant really argue with that logic

I'm wondering at this rate if i should pick up another 24-105L now just in case they ever get discontinued
mines gets used alot and if it ever breaks I would have nothing to replace it with

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Congratulations! At the MSRP of 1500$ for the 24-70 f/4L IS. This lens is now

DOA.

I agree if purchased separately, but the theory was all along that this price will be just a marketing joke to be able to sell heavily "discounted" kits with the 6d making the new camera body more attractive.

That's the scenario that makes sense to me.

It's a good FF kit lens, in the sense that it goes from wide to short tele, has IS & USM, and allows a taste of macro without buying a macro lens, but I don't see it selling well as anything else. E.g. someone who shoots macro would buy a macro lens, and someone who doesn't (like me) wouldn't care for 0.7x max magnification and IS being hybrid.

I hope Canon wouldn't EOL the 24-105mm - I like it, my copy shows sign of age, and I find 70mm a bit short. If it's upgraded for a reasonable price, I might buy it.

 

[AmbientLight]

I'm wondering at this rate if i should pick up another 24-105L now just in case they ever get discontinued
mines gets used alot and if it ever breaks I would have nothing to replace it with

I fully agree with that logic. Canon may be actually increasing 24-105mm sales, because of introduction of that vastly underwhelming 24-70 f4. Why in hell would I care about lens size over usability?

The potential prospect of not being able to purchase a new 24-105mm any longer bothers me quite a lot!

 

[Marsu42]

Why in hell would I care about lens size over usability?

The newer IS system and near-macro capabilty is a big usability plus, many people might want to trade in the 70-105 zoom range if they have a 70- tele zoom anyway (and most will sooner or later). So as with the 6d, this zoom is ideal for traveling, maybe in combination with a physically short 70-300L

It's just and again the price tag that clouds the sky and the assumption that Canon does not want to give people the choice but wants to engineer them into buying more expensive gear than they'd like. And imho it's still the aftermath of the 5d3 price shock, Canon simply being greedy and thus alienating their former loyal customers.