Canon Rumors has a very good discussion on the 24-70 versus 24-105 4.0

They see the 24-70 as a kit lens for the 6D, so the $800+- net pricing sounds more realistic to compete with the Nikon D600 at under $3,000 total ($2,600 on the Nikon 24-85 kit now.)

That makes more sense, too, as a parallel to the 70-200 2.8, 2.8 IS, 4.0, 4.0 IS market positioning.

I assume that the 35 2.0 will also settle into the $600+ range that we have seen the 24 and 28 at after a few months. That is quite a nice set on wide angle primes.

I remember just 3 years back - or less - that was a complaint that everyone had about Canon wide's. I have to say they stepped up to the plate pretty well on that one.

I have to agree with those who don't "see" the 24-70 f/4; it's IQ would have to be spectacularly better than that of the 24-105 (not likely, IMO; my 24-105 is a very competent lens) for such a step down in focal length range to make any sense (especially with the much higher price). It's not appreciably lighter; it's not faster; I just don't get it at all.

If quality doesn't drive us all to the Dark Side...Canon pricing just might. (Makoto Kimura are you listening?)

Full Disclosure: I am both a black and white gear head....enjoyer of both...master of neither

I hope the price of the 35 is more like $600, but that's still pricey. I put a new 35 f2 down on the "most desired un-announced lens" thread. Be careful what you wish for.

One sales feature of the new lenses, probably both of them, will be autofocus optimized to the 5D III and 1Dx systems. Haven't we heard about that as a feature of the 24 IS and 28 IS—that they, along with the new 24-70 L II, will focus better than all the older stuff?

Given the choice between glass that squeezes out that last bit of sharpness when you hit the focus right, or glass that is almost as sharp, but absolutely nails focus every time, which do you prefer? These lenses could offer a major practical boost to image quality in real world shooting, and thereby justify a high price—a high price which will, fortunately, decline a bit over time.

One old rumor here shows US$849.

Another thought. If the 24-70 f/4 L IS costs nearly as little as the 35 f/2.0 IS, and produces similar image quality, are the extra stops on the 35mm useful enough to give it a market of its own? It would need very good IQ at f/2.0, I think. That would make it a useful pick for stage photography and especially dance, among other things. But the 35mm f/1.4 L is already a category killer in that department.

I think that all points to the new 24-70 being notably more expensive than the new 35mm, which would better sort them out in the market. The new 35 becomes the lower-cost general purpose lens, the new 24-70 becomes the full-featured more versatile version of that for more money, and the old 35 L continues as before, and includes better portrait potential than either of the others because better bokeh at f/1.4 and not a zoom.

RobertLynn wrote:
I think a 24-70 f/4is is stupid. But at $1800, it's really stupid.

I was excited about the 35, as I have a non-is version and it is great! But at $900 count me out of upgrading.

I think a new 24-70 f/4 IS is great. But I am with you. At this price it would be really stupid ...

Ralph

Jeff Nolten wrote:
I hope the price of the 35 is more like $600, but that's still pricey. I put a new 35 f2 down on the "most desired un-announced lens" thread. Be careful what you wish for.

Ha. I listed this exact lens with the IS in that thread. I think I have to buy one now.

I paid $800 for my 24-105L, slightly used. I may buy the 24-70 f4 IF

1. Sharper image, 2. Cheaper, 3. lighter, and 4. the lens doesn't extend when zoom to 70mm.

24-70 f4L at $1800 makes the 24-70 f2.8L II at $2300 a bargain.

I could use both of these...

I have long avoided the 35 1.4L due to price and skipped the 24-70 2.8L as it was too heavy, skipped the 24-70 2.8L II as it is crazy expensive. The 24-105L never appealed to me. This more compact 24-70 4L with 2 UD element and 9 blade aperture ring, weatherproof, IS may just swing me over. But let's see some tests and more importantly get the price confirmed. At $1849 there is no way, no way. At $849 I am tempted.

Count me among the interested, if the price is indeed in the $850 range. There is room for improvement in the current 24-105L.

No way the 24-70 f/4 will be listed at $1800, particularly if it's targeted as a 6D kit lens (as rumored). A price of $1800 would give new meaning to MAP - Minimum Absurd Price.

The 35mm f/2 IS is a dream lens to me.

splathrop wrote:
One sales feature of the new lenses, probably both of them, will be autofocus optimized to the 5D III and 1Dx systems. Haven't we heard about that as a feature of the 24 IS and 28 IS—that they, along with the new 24-70 L II, will focus better than all the older stuff?

If this were true, then Canon lens' AF mechanics would have serious design problem. But I don't think so. Canon lens' mechanics seems fine to me - to me it was always the AF system in the body which couldn't drive the lens optimally.

The proof for me? I put 50/1.8, with all its bad fame about AF performance, on 1D body. It worked very well, much better than on 350/400D and 30/40D I was using it with previously.

Wow! These lenses look really good!

Obviously, everyone is concerned about the price (me too). The 35 will probably be a touch more expensive than the 24/28 IS models, having its f/2. The zoom could be the new kit lens, and as such, didn't the 24-105L sell for over $1000 by itself when newer? I'd expect that range again.

I've not been thrilled with my experience with the 24-105 -- too much distortion at the wide and tele ends. So I can definitely see a use for a smaller, lighter zoom to replace my 24-70/2.8L if the IQ is the same or better with that IS.

Exciting news! Now we know a bit more what Canon has been up to, revamping its optics. Perhaps there really will be a nice high DR and high MP body coming in the next year or so.

I wouldn't be surprised if they discontinue the 24-105mm and replace it with the 24-70mm F4 IS. That would make more sense than having these two lenses...

The 35 is one of my favorite focal lengths and looked very appealing, even though I already have a 35mm prime.

Then I saw the price. I should have known Canon couldn't release anything new for less than 900 dollars.

I highly doubt the 35 would be any better than my Tokina 35mm macro which is superb, and which cost less than $300.00, I guess if IS is worth 600 dollars to you, but for someone who shoots landscapes and is always on a tripod I don't care about IS. I would spend maybe 500-600 for that lens.

But whatever, I am sure Canon will sell boatloads of these.

IQ will imo be improved to 24-105, so will be IS. Weight is lower and it is more compact. Of course it will extend at 70mm. And I really expect it as expensive as 24-105 and maybe 100-150 € more xpensive. But at 1000 € more this lens would be death for any sales numbers right from the beginning, imo. And nothing else than a great sales support for Tamrons 24-70 2.8 VC.