Canon Makes the EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS Official

[insanitybeard]

Except that many users have been calling for an updated 35 f2 for a long time now- both for full frame and crop. It looks like a great lens. The problem is the price. Don't judge everybody by your own standards.

Those who have been wanting an upgrade want one for a reasonable price. This is almost as much as the 35mm f/1.4L!!! Same with the 50mm f/1.4. I'm really afraid that Canon is going to put IS in it and charge $800 putting it way out of what most people want/need for a non-L lens. If they want to put IS and make an astonishing L lens for a ridiculous price than go for it. But the point of non-L lenses is to give good quality at a lower price and canon has abandoned this price point.

Exactly, which is why I said the problem is the price in my original post- the Canon US website is listing the 35 f2 IS at estimated retail price of $849, so there is confirmation of your fears. Great lens, but over 2.5x the cost of the original.

 

[Autocall]

Oh my God..
What a boring bunch of lenses..
I wouldn't even put them in my bag should they be distributed for free..

Except that many users have been calling for an updated 35 f2 for a long time now- both for full frame and crop. It looks like a great lens. The problem is the price. Don't judge everybody by your own standards.

Well, maybe you're right and maybe I've been a little bit rude. But come on, f/4 !!?
frankly, why would I want to ignore the cheaper 24/105mm f4? just for the sake of half an inch of space saved in my bag?
And yes, I can understand the need for a 'portrait' 35mm lens for cropped bodies.. but come on, why F/2 ? Issuing an f/1.4 at the same price would have been a non boring annoucement.. Maybe..
Or maybe Im only a little bit disappointed because I was REALLY waiting for the 14-24mm f/2.8. This would have been a really exciting annoucement. Definitely

 

[pdirestajr]

How about some new non-L primes without IS!! I'll happily pay 4-500 for the 35 f/2 with USM and no IS.

 

[bchernicoff]

Personally, all this does is reinforce my decision to wait for a sale on the Tamron 2.8 VC.

Probably time for a road trip up to B&H to play with one.

 

[syder]

So basically Canon discontinued the 24-70 F2.8 MKI and replaced it with a model twice the price and then brought out an F4 at roughly the same price point as the old F2.8.

Ridiculous. The Second hand market is the place to be atm, I will be trying to pick up a 24-70 MKI.

So you lose 1 stop by going from f2.8-f4 and then gain up to four stops with the hybrid IS. For handheld video in particular that is potentially a trade-off well worth making. Especially when you consider the high iso performance of the 5diii.

That the lens is almost a macro lens too makes it an interesting proposition. Particularly for run and gun documentary shooting where changing lens can be a right pain, having a lens with excellent stabilisation and which covers wide - short tele and macro could be very tempting.

It would be nice if the lens was cheaper, but for a lot of people it would replace buying the the 24-105 and and 100 non-L which makes it seem more reasonable

 

[MrFotoFool]

I LOVE my 24-105L - best general zoom I have ever had (and quite sharp, even on corners). It is hard to imagine anyone choosing the new 24-70 over this one, unless the new one was a lot cheaper, which of course it is not. Also, with the new high ISO capabilities of modern DSLR's, image stabilization is not as necessary a feature as it once was. Sure it is nice, but you can get by. I just picked up the non-IS 70-200 2.8 (to replace a broken Sigma) because it is a thousand bucks cheaper than the IS version. I wonder if Canon will follow this model with any other lenses - keeping an older non-IS at a cheap price alongside a new IS at a much higher price?

 

[pharp]

When I was growing up - Nikon was the expensive one - AND WE LIKED IT!

$850 for a 35 f/2? Really?

 

[insanitybeard]

Oh my God..
What a boring bunch of lenses..
I wouldn't even put them in my bag should they be distributed for free..

Except that many users have been calling for an updated 35 f2 for a long time now- both for full frame and crop. It looks like a great lens. The problem is the price. Don't judge everybody by your own standards.

Well, maybe you're right and maybe I've been a little bit rude. But come on, f/4 !!?
frankly, why would I want to ignore the cheaper 24/105mm f4? just for the sake of half an inch of space saved in my bag?
And yes, I can understand the need for a 'portrait' 35mm lens for cropped bodies.. but come on, why F/2 ? Issuing an f/1.4 at the same price would have been a non boring annoucement.. Maybe..
Or maybe Im only a little bit disappointed because I was REALLY waiting for the 14-24mm f/2.8. This would have been a really exciting annoucement. Definitely

Issue a 35 1.4 non-L at the same price? Wouldn't that just serve to undercut sales of the 35L? Never gonna happen with Canon. Just to clarify, I was talking specifically about the 35 f2. I realise that prior to this not many here were crying out for a 24-70 f4.

 

[flanker]

So basically Canon discontinued the 24-70 F2.8 MKI and replaced it with a model twice the price and then brought out an F4 at roughly the same price point as the old F2.8.

Ridiculous. The Second hand market is the place to be atm, I will be trying to pick up a 24-70 MKI.

So you lose 1 stop by going from f2.8-f4 and then gain up to four stops with the hybrid IS. For handheld video in particular that is potentially a trade-off well worth making. Especially when you consider the high iso performance of the 5diii.

That the lens is almost a macro lens too makes it an interesting proposition. Particularly for run and gun documentary shooting where changing lens can be a right pain, having a lens with excellent stabilisation and which covers wide - short tele and macro could be very tempting.

It would be nice if the lens was cheaper, but for a lot of people it would replace buying the the 24-105 and and 100 non-L which makes it seem more reasonable

I agree. I like it quite much. But the price discouraged me absolutelly.
Canon catched up Nikon in all. But Nikon is now on the rise with their price politics. So, winning. My opinion.

 

[Loswr]

I realise that prior to this not many here were crying out for a 24-70 f4.

Not many? Were there any? :

 

[insanitybeard]

I realise that prior to this not many here were crying out for a 24-70 f4.

Not many? Were there any? :

Ok.... I was being diplomatic..... I try to be!

 

[pharp]

I realise that prior to this not many here were crying out for a 24-70 f4.

Not many? Were there any? :

Ok.... I was being diplomatic..... I try to be!

Maybe not crying, but ..
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9767.msg176647#msg176647

Did anyone ask for a 40mm pancake? We'll take what they give us and LIKE IT!

 

[insanitybeard]

I realise that prior to this not many here were crying out for a 24-70 f4.

Not many? Were there any? :

Ok.... I was being diplomatic..... I try to be!

Maybe not crying, but ..
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9767.msg176647#msg176647
Did anyone ask for a 40mm pancake - we'll take what they give us and LIKE IT!

Indeed, the only problem is there was mention of 'affordable' in that thread, something that the new 24-70 f4 certainly isn't!

 

[pharp]

I realise that prior to this not many here were crying out for a 24-70 f4.

Not many? Were there any? :

Ok.... I was being diplomatic..... I try to be!

Maybe not crying, but ..
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9767.msg176647#msg176647
Did anyone ask for a 40mm pancake - we'll take what they give us and LIKE IT!

Indeed, the only problem is there was mention of 'affordable' in that thread, something that the new 24-70 f4 certainly isn't!

Good point! I'm surprised there was no IS STM on the 8-15mm?

 

[insanitybeard]

I realise that prior to this not many here were crying out for a 24-70 f4.

Not many? Were there any? :

Ok.... I was being diplomatic..... I try to be!

Maybe not crying, but ..
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9767.msg176647#msg176647
Did anyone ask for a 40mm pancake - we'll take what they give us and LIKE IT!

Indeed, the only problem is there was mention of 'affordable' in that thread, something that the new 24-70 f4 certainly isn't!

Good point! I'm surprised there was no IS STM on the 8-15mm?

;D

 

[symmar22]

Is there any way to get the MTF charts for these lenses at the moment?

It's up on canon usa

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_4l_is_usm


And here is a quick link to the 24-105 for comparison:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_105mm_f_4l_is_usm

The new lens does look a bit better, although at the tele end the comparsion is between 105 and 70.

And if you care to take a peek at the competition: it appears to blow the nikkor kit lens out of the water:

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2204/AF-S-NIKKOR-24-85mm-f%252F3.5-4.5G-ED-VR.html#!

...just going by mtf's, anyway. But at the price it should.

I'm sure Canon's 24-70mm will beat Nikon's 24-85mm.

1500$ versus 600$, would be a shame if id doesn't.

 

[Axilrod]

$850 for a 35 f/2? Really?

The Zeiss 35mm f/2 is $1100+ and lacks IS. If this thing performs as well as that I'd say it's a great deal. I think it'll be popular with APS-C video shooters.

 

[syder]

I LOVE my 24-105L - best general zoom I have ever had (and quite sharp, even on corners). It is hard to imagine anyone choosing the new 24-70 over this one, unless the new one was a lot cheaper, which of course it is not.

Except the new 24-70 is almost a macro (0.7x) lens. Which for many people makes it a more versatile lens than the extra reach. 105mm doesn't mean you don't need a tele lens. 0.7x magnification and hybrid IS does mean that many people wont have to buy/carry around a separate macro lens.

Also, with the new high ISO capabilities of modern DSLR's, image stabilization is not as necessary a feature as it once was. Sure it is nice, but you can get by.

IS is really useful for video. The hybrid IS system apparently is far better than the IS system found on the 24-105mm or the Tamron 24-70.

 

[rj79in]

The 24-70 f/4 IS is for $1,500 while the 24-70 f/2.8 II non IS is for $2,300. Wonder what would be the price of the 24-70 f/2.8 IS if such a lens were to ever be produced by Canon?

BTW I don't think Canon would be expecting too many 24-105 users to ditch their existing lens for the 24-70 f/4 and if this is not the kit lens with the 6D / 5DM3 then who will buy it? I'm sure I'm missing something 'cause Canon's marketing geniuses must have done their research!

 

[gilmorephoto]

When the rumor piped up for the 24-70mm f/4L at $899, I was definitely interested . . . excited even! At $1500, I'll continue to save up for the 2.8L. If kit rejects [white boxes] hit the market at around $900, then I'll take another look, especially if the performance is a good as the MTF charts suggest.

(This used to be a cheaper occupation/hobby, no? )