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

[luciolepri]

It seems everybody agrees this is a useless
Lens and a waste of effort for Canon. For the same money, I'd get the 24-105.
Now, if the old 24-105 were to be discontinued, I hope they make a 24-105
F2.8L. I don't care how heavy or bulky it would have to be.
I own the 24-70 F2.8L II and As my only Lens, I can't find a better replacement.
I just wish I had the additional 35mm sometimes.

You forgot to add IS.

Many years ago Tamron did it, IS excluded. Total lemon.
Anyway, with good optical performances, that would be a really "do-it-all" lens. 24-90 would be already a good step in that direction, but I don't know how convenient for Canon would be to make such a lens, unless it is extremely expensive. Sorry for the OT...

 

[BagJunkie]

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?

As many others I think you're right. Then I started thinking about the 100-400, a lot of rumors about that lens too; getting a makeover or simply getting discontinued?
Discontinuing the 24-105 (which I love), makes no sense keeping the 100-400 reach. These two lenses are a perfect combo. But then again they still have the 70-300 as a combo with the 24-70f4.

Maybe i need to buy that 100-400 asap unless i want to buy a used one.

 

[gwflauto]

I think the 24-70 f/4L IS is a vey fine lens. I love it. I use it a lot. But when I was offerd that lens in a kit with the 6D, the kit was priced considerably higher than buying camera and lens separately from the same store. After some negotiation they lowered the kit price by several hundred $. Pricing can be funny at times.
The kit is a perfect combination for me. And it is a lot of fun to add more glass.

 

[JohanCruyff]

Maybe Canon will replace its 2005 24-105 with a 24-120 F/4 IS L (hopefully better than its Nikon rival).

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff

 

[sanj]

It seems everybody agrees this is a useless
Lens and a waste of effort for Canon. For the same money, I'd get the 24-105.
Now, if the old 24-105 were to be discontinued, I hope they make a 24-105
F2.8L. I don't care how heavy or bulky it would have to be.
I own the 24-70 F2.8L II and As my only Lens, I can't find a better replacement.
I just wish I had the additional 35mm sometimes.

You forgot to add IS.

Many years ago Tamron did it, IS excluded. Total lemon.
Anyway, with good optical performances, that would be a really "do-it-all" lens. 24-90 would be already a good step in that direction, but I don't know how convenient for Canon would be to make such a lens, unless it is extremely expensive. Sorry for the OT...

Lets not compare lemons with oranges. It is irrelevant what Tamron did.

 

[bholliman]

Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??
(I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)

If the 24-105 has "crappy" wide end performance, so does the 24-70 f/4.0, they are very similar optically.

Your 24-70 2.8 II of course puts both to shame!

Perhaps. I've never used the 24-70 f/4 IS but the MTF charts from Canon are much better at 24mm and the results at Lens Rentals were also better than the 24-105 L.

The 24-105L is widely panned at the wide end due to field curvature and softness around the edges/corners.

OK, I'll concede that the 24-70 f/4.0 gets the edge in edge sharpness and distortion at 24mm. However, by 35mm and 50mm the 24-105 is sharper edge-to-edge. At 70mm the 24-70 is sharper at the edges, but the 24-105 sharper in the center. at 105mm the 24-105 wins going away!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

So, overall sharpness is a wash between the two lenses. The 24-70 is slightly better at both ends and the 24-105 better in the center focal lengths.

Unless you need its near macro capabilities or shoot primarily at 24mm there are no advantages to the considerably more expensive 24-70 f/4.0.

 

[RLPhoto]

All this will do is drive up the 24-105L prices. 8)

 

[wsheldon]

OK, I'll concede that the 24-70 f/4.0 gets the edge in edge sharpness and distortion at 24mm. However, by 35mm and 50mm the 24-105 is sharper edge-to-edge. At 70mm the 24-70 is sharper at the edges, but the 24-105 sharper in the center. at 105mm the 24-105 wins going away!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

So, overall sharpness is a wash between the two lenses. The 24-70 is slightly better at both ends and the 24-105 better in the center focal lengths.

Unless you need its near macro capabilities or shoot primarily at 24mm there are no advantages to the considerably more expensive 24-70 f/4.0.

Don't forget about the significant focus-shift problem when stopping down observed by Photozone (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1) and confirmed by others. That may negate some of the benefits of the 'macro mode' and cause other headaches with inconsistent focus across focal lengths. AF is done with the lens wide open, so if the focus shifts when the lens stops down to varying degrees that could be very frustrating at short distances with limited DOF.

 

[bholliman]

Don't forget about the significant focus-shift problem when stopping down observed by Photozone (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1) and confirmed by others. That may negate some of the benefits of the 'macro mode' and cause other headaches with inconsistent focus across focal lengths. AF is done with the lens wide open, so if the focus shifts when the lens stops down to varying degrees that could be very frustrating at short distances with limited DOF.

Thanks for the reference, I had missed that.

Significant issue, making it that much easier to avoid this overpriced lens in favor of the 24-105 - as long as Canon doesn't discontinue it...

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Many years ago Tamron did it, IS excluded. Total lemon.

You mean the 28-75 2.8?
That was an amazing lens! Sharper than the 24-105L for like 1/4 the price. AF was VERY slow and no IS of course though.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??
(I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)

If the 24-105 has "crappy" wide end performance, so does the 24-70 f/4.0, they are very similar optically.

Your 24-70 2.8 II of course puts both to shame!

Perhaps. I've never used the 24-70 f/4 IS but the MTF charts from Canon are much better at 24mm and the results at Lens Rentals were also better than the 24-105 L.

The 24-105L is widely panned at the wide end due to field curvature and softness around the edges/corners.

OK, I'll concede that the 24-70 f/4.0 gets the edge in edge sharpness and distortion at 24mm. However, by 35mm and 50mm the 24-105 is sharper edge-to-edge. At 70mm the 24-70 is sharper at the edges, but the 24-105 sharper in the center. at 105mm the 24-105 wins going away!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

So, overall sharpness is a wash between the two lenses. The 24-70 is slightly better at both ends and the 24-105 better in the center focal lengths.

Unless you need its near macro capabilities or shoot primarily at 24mm there are no advantages to the considerably more expensive 24-70 f/4.0.

Maybe. I don't always find TDP matches what I've seen though. I trust Lens Rentals (where they also test like 50 copies of each lens) and Photozone more, although TDP has gotten better in recent years. One thing that can make results vary is whether a site refocuses for edges or not (and if not it makes the alignment problem very tricky; as for real world sometimes it tells the much truer picture and sometimes not) and how close the test target is.

24mm and near was always a very key zone for me with a general wide/standard zoom though since the long end is already handled superbly by 70-200/300 type lenses and getting something sharp near 24mm on FF was always a holy grail for zooms. That was always the real trick. Many could handle the other parts decently enough. The 24-70 II 2.8 finally does it at the wide end. It sounds like the 24-70 f/4 IS may more or less do it. If you don't care about 24mm, I'd just as soon stick with a cheap, light, fast 50mm and a 70-200/300 myself.

But yeah I guess it depends how much you care about the wide end or not.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

OK, I'll concede that the 24-70 f/4.0 gets the edge in edge sharpness and distortion at 24mm. However, by 35mm and 50mm the 24-105 is sharper edge-to-edge. At 70mm the 24-70 is sharper at the edges, but the 24-105 sharper in the center. at 105mm the 24-105 wins going away!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

So, overall sharpness is a wash between the two lenses. The 24-70 is slightly better at both ends and the 24-105 better in the center focal lengths.

Unless you need its near macro capabilities or shoot primarily at 24mm there are no advantages to the considerably more expensive 24-70 f/4.0.

Don't forget about the significant focus-shift problem when stopping down observed by Photozone (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1) and confirmed by others. That may negate some of the benefits of the 'macro mode' and cause other headaches with inconsistent focus across focal lengths. AF is done with the lens wide open, so if the focus shifts when the lens stops down to varying degrees that could be very frustrating at short distances with limited DOF.

Even the 24-70 II 2.8 does a decent amount of focus shift anywhere near MFD. I was shooting some Christmas tree ornaments up close and I'd focus in liveview and it would look perfect and then boom the shot would be OOF! FInally I stopped it down while liveview focusing and then the shots remained in focus.

 

[MLfan3]

we always had the 24-70f4LIS kit here in japan.
and there are two EOS6D kits here :the 24-70f4LIS kit and the 24-105f4LIS kit.
the 24-70mmf4LIS kit is about 43000yen(roughly 430USD) more expensive than the 24-105mm f4LIS kit.
I have been debating which kit to buy for a long time, I've decided to get the 6D for its extreme high ISO capability combined with the -3 EV lowlight AF but not sure about which std lens to get with it.
I also consider just a 6D body alone +EF35mmf2ISUSM but it is cheaper to get the kit than the body alone.
the 5D3 is a great body but the 5D3 kit is just a bit too expensive , especially for a dual mount user like me.
if I decide I can live with only Canon kit , then I will get the 5D3 in addition to the 6D, though for now , I think I want to keep my Nikon and Fuji systems intact in addition to the Canon.

BTW, Canon says the 24-70mmf4LISUSM lens got some special tough coating to protect the front element of the lens and this is why the lens does not need any filter to protect the front element of the lens.
If this is true , I will get that lens with the 6D.

 

[luciolepri]

Many years ago Tamron did it, IS excluded. Total lemon.

You mean the 28-75 2.8?
That was an amazing lens! Sharper than the 24-105L for like 1/4 the price. AF was VERY slow and no IS of course though.

No, i meant the 28-105/2,8. It was very expensive and very bad. It got in and out fo Tamron's lineup in a flash.

 

[luciolepri]

BTW, Canon says the 24-70mmf4LISUSM lens got some special tough coating to protect the front element of the lens and this is why the lens does not need any filter to protect the front element of the lens.
If this is true , I will get that lens with the 6D.

I've never used any filter to protect the front element of my lenses, unless in critical situations (sand, rain...) and never damaged a single lens. The lens coating is much more resistant than many people think and L lens are already weather sealed, so I can't imagine this feature to be crucial. Also because in critical situations I would use a protective filter anyway.

 

[Lemon]

we always had the 24-70f4LIS kit here in japan.
and there are two EOS6D kits here :the 24-70f4LIS kit and the 24-105f4LIS kit.
the 24-70mmf4LIS kit is about 43000yen(roughly 430USD) more expensive than the 24-105mm f4LIS kit.
I have been debating which kit to buy for a long time, I've decided to get the 6D for its extreme high ISO capability combined with the -3 EV lowlight AF but not sure about which std lens to get with it.
I also consider just a 6D body alone +EF35mmf2ISUSM but it is cheaper to get the kit than the body alone.
the 5D3 is a great body but the 5D3 kit is just a bit too expensive , especially for a dual mount user like me.
if I decide I can live with only Canon kit , then I will get the 5D3 in addition to the 6D, though for now , I think I want to keep my Nikon and Fuji systems intact in addition to the Canon.

BTW, Canon says the 24-70mmf4LISUSM lens got some special tough coating to protect the front element of the lens and this is why the lens does not need any filter to protect the front element of the lens.
If this is true , I will get that lens with the 6D.

Difference between those two kits is more like 35.000 yen at the moment. Also, body alone is cheaper than the kit, unless you mean buying body and lens separately compared to kit. 6D body starts at around 146.000 yen, 24-105 kit at 211.000 yen.

I don`t use front filters to protect my lenses. If you get a cheap filter it will lower your picture quality, and an expensive filter is not really much cheaper than replacing the front element of your lens.

I don`t really like the feel of the 6D, it feels cheaper and more "plasticy" in my hands compared to my 40D. But in the end it`s the internals that count.
I also didn`t feel like spending 125.000 yen extra for the 5D Mk III, as the 6D should be good enough for my purposes.

 

[Zv]

we always had the 24-70f4LIS kit here in japan.
and there are two EOS6D kits here :the 24-70f4LIS kit and the 24-105f4LIS kit.
the 24-70mmf4LIS kit is about 43000yen(roughly 430USD) more expensive than the 24-105mm f4LIS kit.
I have been debating which kit to buy for a long time, I've decided to get the 6D for its extreme high ISO capability combined with the -3 EV lowlight AF but not sure about which std lens to get with it.
I also consider just a 6D body alone +EF35mmf2ISUSM but it is cheaper to get the kit than the body alone.
the 5D3 is a great body but the 5D3 kit is just a bit too expensive , especially for a dual mount user like me.
if I decide I can live with only Canon kit , then I will get the 5D3 in addition to the 6D, though for now , I think I want to keep my Nikon and Fuji systems intact in addition to the Canon.

BTW, Canon says the 24-70mmf4LISUSM lens got some special tough coating to protect the front element of the lens and this is why the lens does not need any filter to protect the front element of the lens.
If this is true , I will get that lens with the 6D.

Difference between those two kits is more like 35.000 yen at the moment. Also, body alone is cheaper than the kit, unless you mean buying body and lens separately compared to kit. 6D body starts at around 146.000 yen, 24-105 kit at 211.000 yen.

I don`t use front filters to protect my lenses. If you get a cheap filter it will lower your picture quality, and an expensive filter is not really much cheaper than replacing the front element of your lens.

I don`t really like the feel of the 6D, it feels cheaper and more "plasticy" in my hands compared to my 40D. But in the end it`s the internals that count.
I also didn`t feel like spending 125.000 yen extra for the 5D Mk III, as the 6D should be good enough for my purposes.

Can you tell me where in Japan you saw the 6D for 146,000 yen? I've only seen it go down to about 150,000 - 155,000 on amazon.jp

 

[dsciel]

<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/eos-5d-mark-iii-w24-70-f4l-is-kit-coming-soon/\"></glusone></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>

Any updates? really want to see how they will price the new kits.......

 

[neuroanatomist]

New date fot the 5DIII + 24-70mm f/4L IS is now November...

 

[Dylan777]

Congrats Neuro ;D ;D