Opinion: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

[mrmarks]

The IS in these two lenses will be useful for videos

 

[pharp]

The 24-105 is good, but not stellar, maybe they've improved the optics? This is also significantly smaller/lighter than the 24-70 ii, and a little than the 24-105 - maybe they were looking for something to match the 6D? Cheaper? If true - all good.

Also, maybe Canon was listening to me? Ha Ha ;D
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9767.0;topicseen

Test, next I want a FF 30MP camera in a 7D sized body, 12fps, 30AF points, accepts EF-S lenses for $1500 by summer 2013 - Canon?

 

[robbymack]

When this puppy comes out it will be a hard choice between the 24-70f4 IS the 24-105, and the tamron 24-70 2.8 vc as they will all be around the same price. If you can get over the backwards zoom of the Tammy that's probably the lens of choice in this price range.

 

[Dylan777]

When this puppy comes out it will be a hard choice between the 24-70f4 IS the 24-105, and the tamron 24-70 2.8 vc as they will all be around the same price. If you can get over the backwards zoom of the Tammy that's probably the lens of choice in this price range.

I'm guessing...the price tag 24-70 f4 IS is $1599?

 

[robbymack]

When this puppy comes out it will be a hard choice between the 24-70f4 IS the 24-105, and the tamron 24-70 2.8 vc as they will all be around the same price. If you can get over the backwards zoom of the Tammy that's probably the lens of choice in this price range.

I'm guessing...the price tag 24-70 f4 IS is $1599?

I wouldnt be surprised by that pricing, but if this is the kit lens going forward I'd expect it closer to $1200 like the 24-105 and about $800 in the kit. So it won't make munch sense for anyone to pick up this lens in its own. The 24-105 is likely on its way out, which is too bad, it's maybe the most perfect travel/general use lens on the market.

 

[pharp]

The 24-105 is likely on its way out, which is too bad, it's maybe the most perfect travel/general use lens on the market.

I wouldn't worry about it, so many were made, they'll be available on the used market for yeaarrrs.

 

[spinworkxroy]

Canon is confusing me..
Why would they make the 24-70 f4?
The 24-105 has no rivals…and if they ever discontinue that, it would be a waste..they should improve it and release a ver 2.

The 24-70 f4 is supposed to be a 6D kit and if it's alot better than the 24-105, then why would anyone buy a 5D3 kit with the 25-105 then?
Whatever the price, the 2.8 version is at least 2x more expensive…i hope this brings down the price of the 2.8 version.

I really can't understand Canon's logic with this new lens…then maybe the new 5D3 will also come with this kit and it will be more expensive than the 24-105kit Good enough reason to make more $$

 

[Zv]

The 24-70 f4 IS will be lighter, smaller, have closer MFD, hybrid IS, macro and probably better IQ than the 24-105 due to a shorter focal range. For those who don't require the range or have a 70-200 its no choice at all. Might even sell my 17-55 to fund it!

The 24-105 is a victim of it's own succes. Far too economic! Canon will put and end to that!

 

[MK5GTI]

i like the 24-105L range as well, since it cover the classic portrait range, 85mm, 90mm, 100mm as well, the 24-70 fell short in this regard on a FF.

if the $8xx price is right, hopefully white box coming out from 6D kit will sell for less in the 2nd hand market.

 

[Iceman75]

I seriously like the extra reach of the 35mm, which translates into the subject being nearly twice as large in the frame over 70mm...

Same here... I was thinking a let whether to get the (old) 24-70/2,8 or the 24-105/4. I did not buy a new one and the prize tag on the used marked was pretty much the same these days (+/-50€).
There were 3 reasons for the 24-105
1) smaller (ok, the 24-70/4 will be even smaller a bit)
2) IS (ok, the new one will have that one, too)
3) the range

I am using the lens on both - 7D and 5D2 - I definitly would not want to miss the extra 35mm - no way going back to a shorter lens. And for sure I will not run around with the bulky 70-200 in order to get the extra 35mm. Whith this lens I do like 80% of my shots. And ven if I took a 70-200 with me - I love the little overlapping... this means that you don't need to switch lenses more often than necessary. I learned this when I used the combination 7D + 10-22 + 24-105. I got mad, having the switch like every 5 minutes when I was on holiday...
With some overlapping focal range I probably would have saved like 50% of lens swaps...

 

[Stevo2008]

The 24-105 is a victim of it's own succes. Far too economic! Canon will put and end to that!

My guess is 24-105 will be replaced with a 24-120 f4 or f3.5-5.6 in a year or two.

 

[bchernicoff]

Here's a comparison at 70mm f/4 of the 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 L IS. Gimme that kind of quality across the 24-70 range and I would gladly trade the extra 35mm of reach.

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[Quackator]

Another voice for renting the 24-105. I have had a hard time fighting for a decision
about buying either the EF 2.8/24-70 L OR the EF 4.0/24-105 IS L.
I rented both several times, and sort of hated both.

The 24-70 had no IS, not enough reach on the long end and the bigger diameter
made it harder to handle. Also, the rented sample was badly decentered one time.

The 24-105 had the reach, had IS, was nicer to handle, was more compact.
But it didn't offer the max aperture, and was badly prone to suffer from backlight.

In the end handling, reach and IS were the key reasons to finally buy the 24-105.
With a grumpy feeling about the lack of speed and the weak backlight performance.

So.... without the reach I am not a fan of the 4.0/24-70. I would have preferred a
2.8/24-70 with IS. Also I think that my next 35mm will be the Samyang/Rokinon
T1.5/35mm rather than the new 2.0/35mm.

 

[FLOYD]

I have a C70-200 f / 4 L IS which is very sharp even at 18mpx APS-C and the new 24-70 f / 4 L IS will be as sharp as the 70-200 it will be very interesting option.

 

[K-amps]

Pricing at $850 for the 24-70 f4 is wishful thinking.... :

This thing might be closer to $1700.

Have you guys not seen recent Lens pricing? They want to make more money and the 24-105 is perhaps their best selling EF lens... if they can migrate the users to a 2x priced 24-70 F4L then they will do it. The new lens should have better resolution and contrast compared to the 24-105 which would remain as the budget general purpose till it disappears or becomes the replacement for the 28-135mm

"Eventually" the price of the 24-70 F4L may drop a bit, but not for a while... They will Milk it!

 

[ablearcher]

I guess I'll pass with both of these... My 24-105L is my primary workhorse for studio shoots and the extra 35mm saves me a TON of time unless I work with two bodies. On 7D the 24-105 is pretty much everything I need for most of my studio work flow. I would also miss the extra 35mm for my "walk-arounds". I would, however, consider an upgraded MKII of the 24-105L - that would be a logical upgrade (for me). These days 24-105L can be had for less than $800. I wonder what kind of price Canon will put on the new 24-70 to make it attractive.

I'm happy with the 35L I have, so the new 35 2.0 is not really attractive for me... Again, it'll be interesting to see the price tag.

However, if priced right (compared to existing 24-105L and 35L), these two lenses could get a lot of interest from those who are just getting into the L territory along with 6D purchase.

 

[Iceman75]

I'd love if Canon made a 24-105/2,8L IS... I think I would even pay 3k for it...

 

[Iceman75]

BTW... the 35/2 IS sounds nice... only depends on the price tag. Since I am not too happy with my Sigma 30/1,4 this could become my lightweight Crop-"50mm" lens - the 35/1,4L is way too bulky

 

[Jay Khaos]

I like the 24-105 f4, although I think it completely makes sense that they transition to the 24-70 focal length as the standard. I use mainly primes... don't own a 24-70 i or ii. But it makes a more solid case for owning BOTH a 24-70 AND 70-200, I think. Like someone mentioned earlier, it would make more sense that Canon would focus on a 4-lens lineup at this focal range to match the 70-200 options.

Also... for a 24-105 to be f2.8 (with IS), wouldnt it have to be like twice the size??? probably a white lens..

 

[Act444]

I'd be curious to see how the new 35/2 compares with the current 35L in terms of IQ at f/2 and higher. It's already significantly smaller, lighter and has IS (with loss of 1 stop). Since the 35L has no weather sealing/is not significantly better built its only advantage would be the 1.4 (a very good one, as I love the look). Because of this I'd assume the 35L is due for an update soon at a price point probably closer to $2k...