EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<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/2013/06/eos-5d-mark-iii-w24-70-f4l-is-kit-coming-soon/"></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/2013/06/eos-5d-mark-iii-w24-70-f4l-is-kit-coming-soon/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Is the EF 24-105 f/4L IS Going Away?

</strong>The EF 24-70 f/4L IS will soon be kitted with the EOS 5D Mark III. I’m also hoping we’ll see it with the EOS 6D as well.</p>
<p>The release date for the new kit(s) is June 13, 2013.</p>
<p>As of writing this, we have no pricing. Expect to see some “white box” discounts on the EF 24-70 f/4L IS soon.</p>
<p>I haven’t heard anything in regards to the EF 24-105 f/4L IS getting discontinued, so I’d expect to see that lens in kits for some time to come.</p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA24704U.html?kbid=64393">EF 24-70 f/4L IS $1199</a></em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[jeff92k7]

I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens. It's more expensive than the 24-105, has less focal length range, and is comparable in optical quality. Why? Just why? If you want noticeably better optical quality, then go for the 24-70 f2.8. Otherwise, you're better off with the 24-105 for less money.

If you're right and Canon is going to discontinue the 24-105, then will they bring something to replace it or do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens. ... do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?

Actually, I think you get the point of the 24-70mm f/4L IS lens (in conjunction with discontinuing the 24-105L) just perfectly...

 

[sanj]

I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens. ... do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?

Actually, I think you get the point of the 24-70mm f/4L IS lens (in conjunction with discontinuing the 24-105L) just perfectly...

Sic!

 

[Jan Jasinski]

The 6D already comes with the 24-70 f/4L as a kit at Vistek in Canada:

http://vistek.ca/store/DigitalSLRs/266307/canon-eos-6d-w-ef-2470mm-f40l-usm-kit.aspx

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 6D already comes with the 24-70 f/4L as a kit at Vistek in Canada:

http://vistek.ca/store/DigitalSLRs/266307/canon-eos-6d-w-ef-2470mm-f40l-usm-kit.aspx

Good catch. Henry's too. It does appear to be a Canon kit, based on having a unique Canon item code.

 

[preppyak]

Pretty clever way to boost the price of the 5dIII kit back up...unfortunately for Canon, it just likely means fewer kit sales. Will be nice to see the 24-70 f/4 price plummet though, in case I ever go full-frame. It's a nice full-frame equivalent to something like the Sigma 17-70 macro combo.

 

[iowapipe]

I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens. It's more expensive than the 24-105, has less focal length range, and is comparable in optical quality. Why? Just why? If you want noticeably better optical quality, then go for the 24-70 f2.8. Otherwise, you're better off with the 24-105 for less money.

If you're right and Canon is going to discontinue the 24-105, then will they bring something to replace it or do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?

And I also think you hit the nail on the head. The 24-105 is a fine lens to carry around that covers a nice range for many activities and casual snapping. I added one over a year ago and find it often on my camera unless I know I have a particular need. Typically the focal lengths I tend to shot at are the 35-42mm, and 85-95mm ranges. (with it open to 24 a good amount of time also)
It is very convenient to not carry 2 or 3 lenses even though it seems I would be happy with the 35 and 100mm primes most of the time. I've rented the 24-70 f/2.8 II to try it out, lovely lens. I just found myself wanting a little more at the long end fairly often, and the $$... geesh.
Faced with the discontinuance of the lens, I might opt for a non-canon 24-70, and think about the 100 macro also. ( I already own the 70-200 f/4, and don't want the weight of the f/2.8 )

 

[Sporgon]

I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens. It's more expensive than the 24-105, has less focal length range, and is comparable in optical quality. Why? Just why? If you want noticeably better optical quality, then go for the 24-70 f2.8. Otherwise, you're better off with the 24-105 for less money.

If you're right and Canon is going to discontinue the 24-105, then will they bring something to replace it or do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?

Because it is optically superior to the 24-105, in fact it's way ahead of even our very good copy of the 24-105.

Agreed at the present time it looks over priced against the longer zoom, but that lens has been around since 2005, and at the time of its introduction was the same higher price.

We got ours as an official kit in England, but our local professional dealer in Leeds, North of England seemed to be the only retailer offering it.

 

[jarrieta]

When I was at the Canon store in the Philippines last Sunday, they were selling the 6D kit with the 24-70 f/4.

 

[Haydn1971]

Actually, I think you get the point of the 24-70mm f/4L IS lens (in conjunction with discontinuing the 24-105L) just perfectly...

Makes perfect business sense, the 24-70mm f4 IS when sold as the same kit camera will probably yield at least a similar or more probably better return over the 24-105mm kit, through improved material use, manufacturing processes, streamlined optic production and different less costly electronics and internal parts - perfect for the shareholders. Makes even more sense when you consider many users will be more encouraged to buy a second longer reach lens, or even go for the recently patented 28-200mm lens as an all in one or even alternative kit option. I can't see the 24-70 costing more to make than the now aging 24-105 (8 years is a long time for a kit lens - even if it is a L kit), Canon are simply just charging what they feel they can sell the lens for.

 

[luciolepri]

I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens. It's more expensive than the 24-105, has less focal length range, and is comparable in optical quality. Why? Just why? If you want noticeably better optical quality, then go for the 24-70 f2.8. Otherwise, you're better off with the 24-105 for less money.

If you're right and Canon is going to discontinue the 24-105, then will they bring something to replace it or do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?

I actually can't imagine any other reason why Canon is producing such a lens, but I can't believe they're gonna remove a 24-105 from their lineup. Maybe the 24-70/4 was just a "hiccup". It happens. But, most of all, who the hell and why bought the 24-70/4, seeing the 24-105 is still out!?!?

 

[blonigan16]

You can buy the 6D 24-70 f/4L Kit over here in Switzerland for CHF3050.- ($3230)

https://www.digitec.ch/ProdukteDetails2.aspx?Reiter=Bilder&Artikel=257606

 

[discojuggernaut]

Hybrid IS, sharp MTF, small size, and close MFD/Macro mode make this a tempting lens if it gets down to a reasonable price point (for me it would be $850-$900). Bonus points if it doesn't distort on the wide end.

Seems it would make an awesome club photography lens to mix flash and long exposure ambient, having the IS to be able to hold the background still for a while.

 

[CTJohn]

I love my 24-105L, it's a great walk around lens, and gives me a lot of flexibility. I'd really hate to be stuck at 70mm on the long side, especially since I bought a 6D. I haven't used the 24-70, but can't imagine the image upgrade would be enough to make me want to give up 70-105 coverage and have to lug around a second lens.

 

[gmrza]

Hybrid IS, sharp MTF, small size, and close MFD/Macro mode make this a tempting lens if it gets down to a reasonable price point (for me it would be $850-$900). Bonus points if it doesn't distort on the wide end.

Seems it would make an awesome club photography lens to mix flash and long exposure ambient, having the IS to be able to hold the background still for a while.

It could be a harbinger of higher resolution sensors in the future - the resolving power of the 24-105 is not up there with the 24-70s or the 70-200s.

That said, it is still an awesome lens, and existing copies may well appreciate in value if it is discontinued.

 

[Vivid Color]

I'm glad I got the 24-105L with my 6D. I too like the extra reach.

 

[luciolepri]

Hybrid IS, sharp MTF, small size, and close MFD/Macro mode make this a tempting lens if it gets down to a reasonable price point (for me it would be $850-$900). Bonus points if it doesn't distort on the wide end.

Seems it would make an awesome club photography lens to mix flash and long exposure ambient, having the IS to be able to hold the background still for a while.

I used both lenses and in my experience sharpness differences are very marginal (as you can see from Canon official MTF too) distortion at 24mm is still high and IS is not better than the 24-105 one. The only real advantages of the 24-70/4 are the smaller size, the lighter weight and most of all the shortest MFD, but they can't compensate, in my opinion, the shortest focal range and the much higher price. At first, I even thought I had a defective copy, but as you can see from online tests my impressions are widely confirmed...

 

[Act444]

I love my 24-105L, it's a great walk around lens, and gives me a lot of flexibility. I'd really hate to be stuck at 70mm on the long side, especially since I bought a 6D. I haven't used the 24-70, but can't imagine the image upgrade would be enough to make me want to give up 70-105 coverage and have to lug around a second lens.

I took test shots with the 24-70 at the store...and in short, compared to the 24-105, while I do see improvement at 24mm, it has a noticeable weak spot- right at 50mm. You give, you take as well...

If it delivered the performance of the 2.8 II version with one less stop and a lower price, that would be super appealing and a reason to choose it over the 24-105. Unfortunately, it cannot match. The only extra thing it offers is the "gimmick" macro mode...

I guess it depends on your style of photography...but as far as travel flexibility goes, I can't think of a better "compromise" package than the 24-105.

 

[SpecialGregg]

Maybe they're just not selling enough of them since there's no significant benefit over the 24-105, and they feel throwing them in kits is a good way to get rid of them ;-)