Camera Labs

So Canon Rumors has stated that there is an EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM planned for release sometime in the next year or so.
I am having trouble understanding why this lens would come out.
Canon just released an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM II.
Canon also has an EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM that is well respected.

So this new lens would be extremely similar to the 24-105mm on paper, but end at 70mm rather than 105mm.
Either it would be a lot cheaper than the 24-105mm or it would have to have a lot better image quality than the 24-105mm.
However, the 24-105mm is not terribly expensive for an L lens, and if they make the image quality too good, then it would cut into the sales for the 24-70mm f/2.8L II.

Then again, Canon has 4 different 70-200mm lenses, so maybe there is a market for more variety in the 24-70mm range.

Would anyone be interested in an EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM over the current offerings?
If so, why?

_________________
Canon 5DIII, Rebel XTi/400D
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DO, 85mm f/1.8
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX Macro
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon 430EX II
Opteka 13mm, 21mm, and 31mm extension tubes
Vivitar 50mm f/1.8 for OM System

I can't figure this one out either, it's just too close to the 24-105L. I don't think we need to look towards the 24-70 II since this obviously will be below that...

If it replaces the 24-105, that's a focal length downgrade. Why not make a 25-105L II?

Could it go under the 24-105L? I'm not sure there's enough space to push price and quality while keeping it L level. If the 24-70/4 was not L that would make more sense.

I suspect one possible reason is to refresh lenses to make them better ready for use in video AF and on sensor phase detection for a longer term mirrorless strategy. But that doesn't preclude doing something with a 24-105...

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Some theories I have been reading about have stated that the main purpose for this lens would be a lower cost kit lens for the 6D.
Also if it had STM rather than USM, it would be slightly better for video.

But yeah, if it was not a L, I could wrap my head around it better.

It will be interesting once/if it is announced and then sent to reviewers.
Maybe I will understand it better after people have time to play with it?

_________________
Canon 5DIII, Rebel XTi/400D
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DO, 85mm f/1.8
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX Macro
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon 430EX II
Opteka 13mm, 21mm, and 31mm extension tubes
Vivitar 50mm f/1.8 for OM System

A recent article, appearing on one of the lens rental sites, on the subject of AF accuracy, noted that the very-newest Canon lenses performed better on the newest generation of cameras. It seems that Canon may be updating lenses to perform better with the latest generation of DSLRs, such as the 1D X and 5D Mark III. (I do not know if any of the Kiss/Rebel series have benefited from the latest generation of AF.)

As for f/4, in general, I think the trendiness may be swinging away from 2.8 zooms, as people tire of carrying the weight, and better high-ISO performance makes f/2.8 seem less important. Nikonians seem quite excited by the lighter weight and smaller dimensions of the newly-announced 70-200mm f/4, compared to the Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 lens.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro

I guess it's just going to be smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 24-105mm 4L IS USM. Here the 24-105mm costs about 350€ more than the 70-200mm 4L USM so I guess the 24-70mm might reach that price level. Also a 3x zoom might offer a better image quality (sharpness etc.) than the 24-105mm. So yeah; I think it's a lens that would be bought. But not by me; it's just too short. 105mm on the long end are the minimum for what I want for my standard lens. I'd rather go for a 35-150mm lens than for a 24-70mm.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D + Canon EOS 5D Mark III + Canon EOS 33v
Canon EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM + EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM + Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM + Canon Speedlite 580 EX II + Nissin Speedlite Di 466

Maybe its all about IS and if you got any of the 70-200 lenses why do you need 24-105.

Maybe Canon have worked out that a 2.8 24-70 with IS is pushing the boundaries of what is practicably achievable.
In theory the f4 version should be lighter, smaller and produce better image quality.

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 6D,7D, 24-70 2.8 Tamron VC, Canon 15-85, Canon 85 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L Macro, Canon 70-300L +Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic

So this lens, along with an EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, have just been announced.
This lens is more expensive than the older EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.

I understand the 35mm. I feel this would be a nice addition to the lineup.

The new 24-70mm however baffles me. Though it has a lot more capable macro mode.
Canon is targeting the 6D with it though.

Does anyone not have an EF 24-105mm f/4L and would be tempted by this EF 24-70mm f/4L?
Or would anyone think to trade in their older 24-105mm for this lens?

_________________
Canon 5DIII, Rebel XTi/400D
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DO, 85mm f/1.8
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX Macro
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon 430EX II
Opteka 13mm, 21mm, and 31mm extension tubes
Vivitar 50mm f/1.8 for OM System

Having looked at the press release, I'm starting to like the 24-70/4 more now. If it were just another lens, then I can't find sense in it with the 24-105 around. But with 0.7x maximum magnification you can get away without a dedicated macro lens much of the time, plus it also has the hybrid IS system like the 100L macro. Add those two factors in, it starts to have value over the 24-105 assuming you really didn't need that longer range.

I've been thinking about getting a 24-105 for a long time but the value never quite tempted me enough that I got a used 28-135 instead! But I do want something nicer some time and this 24-70/4 might be it, subject to local street pricing!

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

I still love the 24-105L. I was surprised to see the 24-70 IS like everyone else. I would have been interested, even if bulky, in a 24-70 IS f2.8. For the f4 version, I already love the IQ of the 24-105, so no need to update it The .7x magnification, like Popo pointed out, could be handy though...

_________________
http://www.parismetrotrash.com

Maybe they are trying to allow people to have a 24-70 f4 and then a 70-200 f4 or a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8. Or kill off the 24 to 105. If they can make new lenses cheaper now because of better manufacturing techniques it makes sense to bring out new lenses. You will probably find there was a huge amount of market research that found people wanted a lighter short zoom lens because their 70-200 overlapped with the 24-105mm too much and it was wasted weight.
Im not buying one, too expensive!!! I like the 35mm that was released today but again far far too much money!! Is there still talk of an IS 50mm still or was that mistaken with the 35mm?


Also new lens caps today? I never have had a problem with mine yet (except for forgetting to take it off on a night time exposure where i just assumed it was too dark to see in the viewfinder!!) if they are reasonably priced i might get one to see if its any better.

_________________
Cameras: Canon Ixus 100is. 60D 17-85mm
Computer: 2008 Apple Macbook Aluminum (dreaming of a new retina macbook pro!!)
Phones: iPhone 1g And HTC Wildfire Apple iPad 3 wifi
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gareththomasjones/

My first thought was that this lens doesn't make any sense, and I thought the topic of the thread was hypothetical.

Maybe they are trying to take on Nikons 24-70 f 2,8 with a f4,0 at the same price range - it just seems a bit ridicules, because it just make Nikon seem more attractive, for someone with the canon vs nikon choice. And probably make more choose the 24-105 f 5 over this 24-70 f 4.
I know I would probably choose Nikon today, and if I needed a canon L-lens in that range with f 4.0 and IS, I'd choose 24-105.

Wonder why they put IS in it and not in the f 2,8 - yea low light, but that forces non-IS owners to shoot with a larger apature

And why IS in a 35 f 2,0 if you - apparently - don't need it at 70 mm on a 24-70 mm f2,8 lens

Maybe a 24-70 mm f 4.0 owners, with the smaller zoom range, will be more likely to buy a tele lens than a 24-105 owner?

Strange things happening at Canon....

I'm not going to buy it or the f 2,8 version for that matter

just had a thought, maybe the 24-70 F4 is specifically targeted at video work, with its IS and it may well be parfocal lens as well.
here is a list of current parfocal lenses, as the 24-105 isn`t a lens purpose build for video seems to make sense.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02 ... or-video/4

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 6D,7D, 24-70 2.8 Tamron VC, Canon 15-85, Canon 85 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L Macro, Canon 70-300L +Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic

Hi folks,

From the Canon USA site:

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - SRP $1,149.00

EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM - SRP $1,499.00

IMHO the 24-70mm will have to be optically one of Canon's absolute finest to justify a 30% premium over the 24-105mm. Personally I don't think the price hike of a lens with less telephoto capability can be justified solely by adding a 0.7x macro facility with IS when the optically excellent EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (1.0x but no IS) can be bought together with the 24-105mm for just an extra $250 (probably less as that number was derived from SRPs). But hey, I sold my Canon kit earlier this year, including my 24-105mm, so maybe I should butt out.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

What was the price of the 24-105mm when it was released? I guess the 24-70mm f4 will become (much?) more affordable within the next few years.

I'm not one to use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm kit but I'm using a 12-24mm, 24-105mm and 100-400mm - and 70mm are a bit short in my opinion if used as a standard lens. Sometimes I'd even love more than 105mm without having to change lenses. But in the end the 24-105mm is one of the best lenses I know and in my opinion it's the best standard lens for Canon cameras.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D + Canon EOS 5D Mark III + Canon EOS 33v
Canon EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM + EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM + Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM + Canon Speedlite 580 EX II + Nissin Speedlite Di 466