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

[RLPhoto]

My opinion on the 24-70L f/4 is that for 1500$, it's exactly how I originally imagined it. DOA.

This lens should have been a affordable FF lens for users not needing 2.8 or the extra reach of the 24-105L. It proved to be neither of those things.

 

[DB]

My opinion on the 24-70L f/4 is that for 1500$, it's exactly how I originally imagined it. DOA.

This lens should have been a affordable FF lens for users not needing 2.8 or the extra reach of the 24-105L. It proved to be neither of those things.

What do you want? Canon to sell it for $500 and make a LOSS then go BUST :

"it proved to be neither" - that's past tense! Affordability is subjective...depends on the consumer, plus this lens is not out yet

Go back 6 months on CR and read how many contributors said @ $3.5k the 5D3 was DOA vs D800 and then look at the CR commentators that said 24-70mm mk II @ $2.3k was DOA.....several months on and they're in the kit bags of many CR bloggers. LOL

 

[symmar22]

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 $$

Smaller + Lighter, that's the way Canon is moving

Well that's all relative, the 24-70mm will be 10% lighter than the 24-105mm for 25% focal loss, the ratio is not very favorable to the new one. 35mm f2 IS is 335g when the old 35mm EF was 210g, that's a 50% weight increase, so far for the smaller + lighter.

We are not even talking about price here the new 24-70mm being 50% more expensive than the 24-105mm.

The 35mm f2 EF "old" is sold in Europe for 245 Euro, the 35mm IS is announced at 850 Euro, thats more than 3 times the price !!! Thats the most expensive IS + USM upgrade ever sold. For the price, the lens HAS to be a killer.

To add about the macro function, it's to see in real life :

1 - The macro function is a step back to zooms from the 1980s, where you had to lock the zoom on the longest focal before you can focus closer.

2 - Macro performance is not only about focusing closer, it's as well about field curvature (among other). Let's wait and see how flat is the field, since in my experience, strong field curvature on zoom can ruin macro capabilities.

 

[DB]

The new 24-70mm f/4L IS is targeted at 6D owners - Canon mentioned this in the lens press release. The top of the range 24-70 f/2.8L II is aimed squarely at 1DX + 5D3 shooters. So the weight is important @ 600g on a 760g body, should keep the balance right

 

[RLPhoto]

My opinion on the 24-70L f/4 is that for 1500$, it's exactly how I originally imagined it. DOA.

This lens should have been a affordable FF lens for users not needing 2.8 or the extra reach of the 24-105L. It proved to be neither of those things.

What do you want? Canon to sell it for $500 and make a LOSS then go BUST :

"it proved to be neither" - that's past tense! Affordability is subjective...depends on the consumer, plus this lens is not out yet

Go back 6 months on CR and read how many contributors said @ $3.5k the 5D3 was DOA vs D800 and then look at the CR commentators that said 24-70mm mk II @ $2.3k was DOA.....several months on and they're in the kit bags of many CR bloggers. LOL

Well, I just picked up a new 24-105L for 750$. That alone says enough about the value for money of this lens. I could buy a 24-105L and a 100mm 2.8L macro for almost the price of the 24-70 F/4L.

Yes. Past Tense because it you cannot change it now that its been released. Its not cheap, its has a shorter reach and the 24-105L is already sharp.

The 5D3 is too expensive and many agree. I didn't pay full price for mine, I paid 3000$. The Fire sale on evil bay from adorama for 2799$ also says otherwise.

24-70 2.8L II is a work horse professional lens. We need speed and you pay premium for that but F/4? For 1500$? Bah!