Canon USA to Start Selling 5D Mark III + EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS Kits Next Month

[ahsanford]

That tells me the 24-105 is not dead yet.

Despite all of the griping we've heard ever since the introduction of the 24-70/4, there has never been any indication from Canon that the 24-70/4 would replace the 24-105/4. They are different lenses and it makes good sense to keep both in the product line. Canon offers many similar products that overlap but don't replace each other. I would sooner expect a version II of the popular 24-105/4 than its discontinuation.

I'm not convinced of this. They've flooded the market with so many that they cannot keep the price up. I see the 24-105 being obsoleted, but not necessarily with this 24-70 kit announcement.

- A

 

[Sporgon]

I was disappointed with the 24-70 f/4 IS as well.

Go and try one. In a couple of years time people will be raving about this lens. It's the 70-300L all over again.

 

[ahsanford]

I was disappointed with the 24-70 f/4 IS as well.

Go and try one. In a couple of years time people will be raving about this lens. It's the 70-300L all over again.

Agree 100%. When I compare it to the 24-70 F/2.8L I that it replaced in my bag, it was a no brainer. Trading one stop for all of those upsides -- sharper, lighter, IS, and macro -- was a great value proposition to me.

Also, it's a shade shorter, which gets me under the max length requirement of 6" to get it into some stadiums where I live.

- A

 

[mackguyver]

I was disappointed with the 24-70 f/4 IS as well.

Go and try one. In a couple of years time people will be raving about this lens. It's the 70-300L all over again.

Agree 100%. When I compare it to the 24-70 F/2.8L I that it replaced in my bag, it was a no brainer. Trading one stop for all of those upsides -- sharper, lighter, IS, and macro -- was a great value proposition to me.

Also, it's a shade shorter, which gets me under the max length requirement of 6" to get it into some stadiums where I live.

- A

Okay, okay, I'll give it a chance . I guess my expectations were just set too high given the initial price, but maybe the "white box" versions will make it more affordable in the near future.

 

[Sporgon]

I was disappointed with the 24-70 f/4 IS as well.

Go and try one. In a couple of years time people will be raving about this lens. It's the 70-300L all over again.

Agree 100%. When I compare it to the 24-70 F/2.8L I that it replaced in my bag, it was a no brainer. Trading one stop for all of those upsides -- sharper, lighter, IS, and macro -- was a great value proposition to me.

Also, it's a shade shorter, which gets me under the max length requirement of 6" to get it into some stadiums where I live.

- A

Okay, okay, I'll give it a chance . I guess my expectations were just set too high given the initial price, but maybe the "white box" versions will make it more affordable in the near future.

It is poor value compared with the current prices of the 24-105, I agree. I think of that lens as a 28-105 with 24mm tagged on. But even in the other ranges the new lens is superior, significantly so across the frame.

I am guessing that Canon made it a 24-70 as opposed to 24-105 because they cannot meet the desired optical standard at the greater range for a feasible price. ( It will be interesting to see what the Sigma is like in practice ).

I should point out that I am a 24-105 fan and enjoy its great flexibility, but in some critical situations it can disappoint where the new lens does not.

 

[Ruined]

Personally I would not buy the 24-70 f/4 IS because it will be come redundant once the inevitable 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out. The 24-105 f/4 IS remains useful though in addition to the 24-70 f/2.8 with the larger range in focal length.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I was disappointed with the 24-70 f/4 IS as well.

Go and try one. In a couple of years time people will be raving about this lens. It's the 70-300L all over again.

Yeah that's what I've been saying. I won't be surprised if it is the 70-300L all over again. I learned my lesson on the 70-300L. When I heard the price and all I thought it was absurd and how could I ever replace my magical 70-200 f/4 IS with it, no way it could be close, how could they not include the tripod ring for the price, etc.

Well, a year later I tried the 70-300L and yeah it was the 70-200 f/4 IS that was the one that got sold.
(although, OK, I still hold to my tripod ring comments though)

I do think it will only become the 70-300L all over again if it keeps turning up on those $1025 deals though.

(also I do have to say the 24-70 II is not getting knocked by me here, that is one awesome lens, best in class across all makers, best AF too when used with a 5D3/1DX with their high precision engine ability)

 

[Ruined]

But like the 24-105 vs 24-70 f/2.8, the 70-300 has some advantages over the 70-200 f/2.8, namely an extra 100mm in focal length.

The problem I have with the 24-70 f/4 is that it will duplicate the inevitable 24-70 f/2.8 IS which patents were filed for a while back. The 24-105 at least though would still have a spot in my kit for that extra range when needed.

 

[Zv]

But like the 24-105 vs 24-70 f/2.8, the 70-300 has some advantages over the 70-200 f/2.8, namely an extra 100mm in focal length.

The problem I have with the 24-70 f/4 is that it will duplicate the inevitable 24-70 f/2.8 IS which patents were filed for a while back. The 24-105 at least though would still have a spot in my kit for that extra range when needed.

I would be very surprised if Canon ever brought out an IS version of the 24-70L 2.8II. I think the f/4 version was intended to fill that IS void but I think in a sense they kinda failed. I'm not saying the f/4 isn't sharp, I'm sure it is but not close enough to the f/2.8 IMO as we thought it was gonna be, like the little brother of the 2.8. Instead it seems to marginally improve on the 24-105, which isn't hard! If it had been as sharp or close as the 2.8 and without the gimicky macro Canon could have even charged $1500 and I would have likely paid it.

You see the 2.8 shouldn't need IS in theory. Canon's latest generation of pro cameras are able to shoot fairly clean shots at high ISO and the next gen will likely improve on that. Now, for those who NEED the IS there was the 24-105L but this needed an update so the 24-70 f/4 was born. Those who use IS will likely be using the lens for creating more dof for landscapes etc at sunrise or sunset, or traveling with it, which I think is what this smaller and lighter lens was intended for. Note how Canon improved the 24mm end especially over the 24-105.

The 2.8 is more of a studio / pro lens and likely those folk will use a tripod anyway.