Canon announceEF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM

[TheDrift-]

Not seen this posted up yet....announced yesterday (new 35 f2 as well)

"EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM – high performance, high flexibility, Hybrid IS
The EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM is the latest addition to Canon’s elite L-series, and expands the range of standard zoom EF lenses available for both professional and amateur photographers. Ideal for reportage and wedding photography, it combines an essential everyday focal range with a premium quality L-series construction, delivering consistently sharp, professional-quality stills in a range of different situations. A new macro function also optimises the placement of lens groups during macro photography, allowing shooting at a maximum magnification of 0.7x – reducing the need for photographers to carry a dedicated macro lens.

Its first-class optical system includes two aspherical elements alongside two Ultra-low Dispersion (UD) lenses, each with optimised Super Spectra Coatings to minimise chromatic aberration, colour blurring and flare. A constant f/4 aperture throughout the zoom range provides photographers with exceptional creative control, allowing blurring of the background of a scene at all focal lengths. A nine-blade circular iris also assists photographers in making their subjects stand out, delivering beautiful out of focus highlights (bokeh) in the background blur to add atmosphere to a shot.

The EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM also features a newly designed IS system, delivering blur-free images throughout the zoom range. Canon’s advanced optical IS offers a 4-stop light advantage, while Hybrid IS effectively compensates for angular and shift shake during macro shooting for stable close ups.

Superfast AF performance is provided by a small, ring-type Ultrasonic Motor (USM). Working in combination with a high-performance CPU and advanced AF algorithms, USM technology enables accurate, silent and ultra-responsive autofocusing. Full-time manual focusing also ensures adjustments can be made even when AF is engaged.

The EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM features a high grade, usability-focused design – both inside and out. The exterior features a high quality leather-texture coating, a revised shape ensures ease-of-use, and the focusing and zoom rings have been designed for optimal operation. Additionally, a dust and drip-proof construction is resistant to dust and moisture, a lock function protects lenses from knocks when travelling, while fluorine coating minimises the amount of dust, dirt and fingerprints that adhere to the front and rear lenses – helping to maintain superior image quality and reduce the need for cleaning."

I wonder how much?

 

[nburwell]

I thought I saw that the 27-70 was going to be around $1,100. I wouldn't be surprised to see Canon package it in a kit with the yet unreleased 6D. I have the 24-105 and I absolutely love it for the work that I do. However, I may have to check the 24-70 out since I really don't need the extra stop the f/2.8 model offers.

 

[fcortese]

I thought I saw that the 27-70 was going to be around $1,100. I wouldn't be surprised to see Canon package it in a kit with the yet unreleased 6D. I have the 24-105 and I absolutely love it for the work that I do. However, I may have to check the 24-70 out since I really don't need the extra stop the f/2.8 model offers.

I've read on some blogs that this will be the new L series "kit lens" essentially replacing the 24-105 which I have and love. The MTF specs on the new 24-70 are supposed to be quite amazing, however. It all comes down to what your needs are, what type of photos you shoot and, of course, what type of budget you have! Will the 35mm less reach on this new lens make a big difference in the walk-around-use world??

 

[TheDrift-]

I've read on some blogs that this will be the new L series "kit lens" essentially replacing the 24-105 which I have and love. The MTF specs on the new 24-70 are supposed to be quite amazing, however. It all comes down to what your needs are, what type of photos you shoot and, of course, what type of budget you have! Will the 35mm less reach on this new lens make a big difference in the walk-around-use world??

What you lose in length you gain in macro though! while not quite 1 to 1..0.7 isnt bad...but i still think the reach of the 105 will be more useful more often..

 

[Rowbear]

It’s listed at $1,499 US (B&H)

I find it a bit expensive, but for the type of photography that I do, I will certainly have a close look at it, especially if the IQ is high, and I have no reasons to believe it won't be. The near macro capabilities and I.S. is also a bonus.

I much prefer the weight savings of an F/4 lens to the speed of a heavy f/2.8. I got rid of a 70-200 f/2.8 to get an f/4 and I am very happy with my decision.

 

[nburwell]

I've read on some blogs that this will be the new L series "kit lens" essentially replacing the 24-105 which I have and love. The MTF specs on the new 24-70 are supposed to be quite amazing, however. It all comes down to what your needs are, what type of photos you shoot and, of course, what type of budget you have! Will the 35mm less reach on this new lens make a big difference in the walk-around-use world??

I hope Canon doesn't plan on discontinuing the 24-105L. It would really be a shame if they did.

----------

It’s listed at $1,499 US (B&H)

I find it a bit expensive, but for the type of photography that I do, I will certainly have a close look at it, especially if the IQ is high, and I have no reasons to believe it won't be. The near macro capabilities and I.S. is also a bonus.

I much prefer the weight savings of an F/4 lens to the speed of a heavy f/2.8. I got rid of a 70-200 f/2.8 to get an f/4 and I am very happy with my decision.

I saw this as well. I agree with you in that it's a bit pricey for a f/4 lens. I would certainly look at ponying up the extra cash to get the 2.8 mkII lens instead. However, I'm very content with my 24-105L since that means I really don't "need" a 70-200 lens in my bag (even though the 70-200 f/4 non-IS is a great lens, IMO). But I'm sure that within time, the lens will come down in price (look at 5DIII prices).

 

[fcortese]

I hope Canon doesn't plan on discontinuing the 24-105L. It would really be a shame if they did.

----------



I saw this as well. I agree with you in that it's a bit pricey for a f/4 lens. I would certainly look at ponying up the extra cash to get the 2.8 mkII lens instead. However, I'm very content with my 24-105L since that means I really don't "need" a 70-200 lens in my bag (even though the 70-200 f/4 non-IS is a great lens, IMO). But I'm sure that within time, the lens will come down in price (look at 5DIII prices).

There has been some speculation to that effect. I love my 24-105, so I'd hate to see the model go.

 

[cocky jeremy]

$1500 for a 24-70 f/4 is way too much. I'd either save the extra and get the 2.8 or buy the 24-105 again.

 

[someoldguy]

$1500 for a 24-70 f/4 is way too much. I'd either save the extra and get the 2.8 or buy the 24-105 again.

I'll second this .... if it was half the price ( 750-850) maybe I'd bite. The 35/2 I may very well be interested in , though .

 

[arogge]

24-70 f/4 not f/2.8?

What happened to the 24-70 f/2.8 with IS? $1,500 is much too pricey for an f/4 aperture at these focal lengths, especially considering the less-expensive 24-105 f/4 IS. If you have EF-S compatibility, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is also an excellent choice for less money, and you'll have a wider field-of-view.

 

[digitalfailure]

There's been rumours of an IS version of the 24/70 f2.8 for years, but never from Canon from what I could find. IMO the focal length is so short that IS is pointless, with the ever increasing ability to up the iso you never struggle to get a shutter speed above the focal length so shake shouldn't be that much of an issue. I love my 24/70 f2.8 mk1 and wouldn't want to lose the f2.8 because of the shorter DoF and bokeh on my 5d compared to that of f4

 

[cocky jeremy]

24-70 2.8 with IS would be stupid expensive.

 

[OreoCookie]

$1,500!?!
Before I read the price, I was think »great addition to Canon's lens line-up«. Now I'm thinking »meh, most people can't afford it or will go for another lens«.

 

[VirtualRain]

$1,500!?!
Before I read the price, I was think »great addition to Canon's lens line-up«. Now I'm thinking »meh, most people can't afford it or will go for another lens«.

Really?! Even if it was $800, it seems like the lens no one is asking for. The current 24-105 f4 IS has me wanting for nothing.

Now in general (not in response to your post OreoCookie)...

People have been talking a lot lately about how Apple has lost its edge, I can't help but think the same thing about Canon. Their product management is a mess (with products like this and fast primes with IS). The Yen is killing them, forcing their pricing into the stratosphere, and they seem to be lagging technically on sensor tech compared to Sony/Nikon. It's sad.

 

[OreoCookie]

Really?! Even if it was $800, it seems like the lens no one is asking for. The current 24-105 f4 IS has me wanting for nothing.

For $800, it's a product that'd make sense to me, assuming what you lose in focal length at the long end, you win in image quality, of course. If the 24-70 mm f/4 is not a marked step up in IQ compared to the 24-105, then I agree, the 24-70 is not a sensible addition. I should have explained that in my post, sorry.

People have been talking a lot lately about how Apple has lost its edge, I can't help but think the same thing about Canon. Their product management is a mess (with products like this and fast primes with IS). The Yen is killing them, forcing their pricing into the stratosphere, and they seem to be lagging technically on sensor tech compared to Sony/Nikon. It's sad.

Canon and Nikon have also lost their edge when it comes to mirrorless cameras. Nikon's new mount is DOA for any serious photographer, even though it's not cheaper than m4/3 cameras or similar mirrorless cameras with large sensors. Canon has done the right thing with the mount, but the EOS-M is a big point & shoot. And Canon has publicly stated they don't intend to make a professional/semiprofessional EOS-M mount body. Big mistake.

They're afraid that this would cannibalize dslr sales …*and they may even be right, but so what if you sell more mirrorless bodies in the process. (Just like Apple wasn't afraid to let the iPhone cannibalize their iPod sales.)

 

[VirtualRain]

For $800, it's a product that'd make sense to me, assuming what you lose in focal length at the long end, you win in image quality, of course. If the 24-70 mm f/4 is not a marked step up in IQ compared to the 24-105, then I agree, the 24-70 is not a sensible addition. I should have explained that in my post, sorry.

I suppose, but can the IQ really be that much better than the 24-105? I've never heard people complain about it. In my case, I can't recall ever looking at a photo from that lens and wishing I had a better lens. So even if this new lens is a little bit better (which is all I think it can be), are folks going to be willing to pay twice as much for it while loosing telephoto focal lengths?... I dunno.

I guess I'm not representative of the average Canon customer. Canon has not released a lens in the last two years (since the 70-300L) that has made me even want to consider it. They all seem to offer more compromises than the products they're replacing. I suppose some people must be snatching these things up, but not me. I feel their lens announcements lately are a missed opportunity... I'm a gear junky and will usually jump at the latest and greatest for any hobby I pursue. But they're alienating me. Less capability for a lot more money is not going to get me to buy

 

[Prodo123]

I'd rather have a 24-105 with the wide angle range spaced more evenly, to be honest. The 24-70 f/2.8L II is king in terms of image quality, but still the first 24-70 is king in terms of overall quality and usability due to its tanklike metal construction, reverse zoom and deep hood, and the above-average MM.

This new 24-70 f/4 is in a weird place, meant to replace the 24-105 but not quite being able to do so, with only a macro mode to make up for the lost tele reach. It doesn't replace either of the fast 24-70s, since nothing can make up for a full stop of exposure, not even IS. An occasionally-used macro mode and image stabilization can't compensate for the loss of reach and exposure, in my opinion.

I'd take any other of Canon's general purpose zooms over this lens any day.

 

[OreoCookie]

I suppose, but can the IQ really be that much better than the 24-105? I've never heard people complain about it. In my case, I can't recall ever looking at a photo from that lens and wishing I had a better lens.

The more I think about it, the more your argument makes sense. Back when the 70-300 mm L was released, my reaction was similar: what's the place in Canon's line-up? The two 70-200 mm f/4 lenses are optically top notch and there was no necessity to replace them. But at least the 70-300 mm L has a much larger focal length range (which is not the case here).

Also, it's curious that the prices for Canon lenses seems to increase significantly these days. I think they've gone too far and exceeded the pain threshold of many enthusiasts.

 

[/"\/oo\/"\]

24-70 2.8 with IS would be stupid expensive.

The current 24-70mm 2.8 II is already well on its way to stupid expensive

I'm curious to see how the just-announced 24-70 4 stacks up in terms of image quality across its zoom range. Canon has certainly put itself in a tough spot in that a) for the price, the image quality *has* to be outstanding, which would put it in the same league as the 2.8 and if that's case, b) how many people will justify the extra stops, lack of IS and lack of macro mode for $800 more?

I won't complain much about another excellent ƒ/4L lens to join the proven 17-40 and 24-105, but as someone that enjoys using Canon equipment over the competitors it concerns me to see them making business decisions that outwardly don't make much sense and putting out products that just don't stack up in the value for money department IMO.

 

[OreoCookie]

I'm curious to see how the just-announced 24-70 4 stacks up in terms of image quality across its zoom range. Canon has certainly put itself in a tough spot in that a) for the price, the image quality *has* to be outstanding, which would put it in the same league as the 2.8 and if that's case, b) how many people will justify the extra stops, lack of IS and lack of macro mode for $800 more?

Perhaps Canon views it as the go-to lens for most prosumers and ambitious amateurs, thinking that IS is a replacement for a larger aperture? With tele zooms, you always have the weight advantage (the 70-200 mm f/4s weigh about half compared to its f/2.8 brethren), but with bread-and-butter zooms, the weight advantage is comparatively small (an extra 200 g, or roughly 1/3 more weight).

 

[ChristianVirtual]

I prefer my 2.8. It also have advantage with respect to focus speed and precision in lower light.

 

[ctyhntr]

downfall meme

The new lens from Canon generated enough interest for a Hitler downfall parody video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYtsi08mmk4&feature=plcp

 

[fcortese]

Also, it's curious that the prices for Canon lenses seems to increase significantly these days. I think they've gone too far and exceeded the pain threshold of many enthusiasts.

Canon's prices are getting painful. I had to make a decision several years ago based on what kind of photography I mainly do (which is mostly outdoors and family gatherings), which way to go L lens-wise and how much money I wanted/could spend. So over a 2-3 year period I went with the f/4 range of lenses: 17-40 (refurb), 24-105 (kit lens), and the 70-300 (actually 4-5.6). Although I lusted for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I just couldn't justify paying that much for a single lens. Yes, there is some overlapping but I use them differently in different situations. And the 70-300 is nice and compact and easier for when I travel. I can see where those who do more professional shooting and need the faster lens would go the f/2.8 route. They may be able to justify it as a business expense and offset the cost by revenue earned. With the higher ISO range of the modern day DLSRs, for me the need for an f/2.8 lens is less. I really do not know where the 24-70 f/4 will really fit in unless Canon decides to fade out the 24-105. A big mistake, IMO. I still think the 24-105 makes more sense as a walk-around lens than the 24-70.

 

[cocky jeremy]

The current 24-70mm 2.8 II is already well on its way to stupid expensive

Exactly what i based the 24-70 2.8 IS on. Can you even imagine the price? Wow. lol.

 

[Prodo123]

Canon's prices are getting painful. I had to make a decision several years ago based on what kind of photography I mainly do (which is mostly outdoors and family gatherings), which way to go L lens-wise and how much money I wanted/could spend. So over a 2-3 year period I went with the f/4 range of lenses: 17-40 (refurb), 24-105 (kit lens), and the 70-300 (actually 4-5.6). Although I lusted for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I just couldn't justify paying that much for a single lens. Yes, there is some overlapping but I use them differently in different situations. And the 70-300 is nice and compact and easier for when I travel. I can see where those who do more professional shooting and need the faster lens would go the f/2.8 route. They may be able to justify it as a business expense and offset the cost by revenue earned. With the higher ISO range of the modern day DLSRs, for me the need for an f/2.8 lens is less. I really do not know where the 24-70 f/4 will really fit in unless Canon decides to fade out the 24-105. A big mistake, IMO. I still think the 24-105 makes more sense as a walk-around lens than the 24-70.

I was able to get my 70-200 used as well, but still $2000 for a single lens is a little painful. But the price shows; the lens is amazingly good.

What I theorize is that Canon will make this a SECOND kit lens, as a more expensive alternative to the traditional 24-105mm kit, just like how there are 4 kit lenses for crop bodies. This would give the lens at least some position in Canon's lineup, as an alternative to the venerable 24-105.

Exactly what i based the 24-70 2.8 IS on. Can you even imagine the price? Wow. lol.

This would be an exception; I'd buy that in a heartbeat, no matter how expensive that is.