0.2m minimum focusing distance, 0.7 times the maximum magnification

Is the 24-70/4 IS a macro lens in disguise? It certainly seems so.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

If the 24-70mm f4 is really $1800, Canon is CRAZY.

Especially if it's the 6d kit lens.

6d's kit lens, 24-70mm.... $1800.... D600 kit lens, 24-85mm VR, $600. That's THREE TIMES MORE.

Even if the 24-70mm is sharper, and adds a macro mode, that's still absolutely crazy. They could get away with $1299 probably if the Macro mode is really, really good, but even that's a bit much.

My thinking is that the macro mode is being added in order to justify being able to raise the price over the 24-105mm. Note that the 24-70mm also has less elements than the 24-105mm, so is probably cheaper...it's all about making the profit margin go up, for Canon, it seems.

Two thoughts:

1. People shouldn't convert the Japanese yen price to dollars, and assume that will be the retail price in the USA. Camera and lens prices in Japan have always been much higher than anywhere else in the world, especially the USA.

2. The 24-70 f4 IS is obviously Canon's reaction to Nikon's pricing. Unlike Canon, Nikon never packages their 24-120 f4 VR as a discounted kit lens. They always sell it full price. Nikon only offers the cheaper variable aperture zooms (i.e. 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR) as $500 kit lenses. When it comes to "affordable" full frame bodies like the D600, the cheaper kit lens becomes advantageous.

Canon obviously cannot sell the 24-105L at $500. So instead they've created a new 24-70 f4L IS to compete with Nikon's cheap kit lenses. My guess is that the 24-70 f4L IS when purchased in a kit, will be approximately the same cost as the Nikon kit lens ($500). But it will be more expensive when purchased on its own ($850). I also believe that the 24-105L will continue to sell in retail, but will no longer be sold as a discounted kit lens.

PetKal wrote:
StillFingerz wrote:
PetKal wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
PetKal wrote:
OK, what's next from Canon ?

Perhaps EF 70-150mm f/4L IS USM ?

I'd really like a 35-200 f/4L IS


Patience, Ron........that one is coming next year.

I've a 35-210 f4.5, tis a Tamron SP Adatal-2 from many moons ago...could work, maybe
Wonder if the new 24 - 70 f4L IS will be bundled with the 6D?


Hang onto that Tamron, Jerry......for sentimental reasons if nothing else.


A bundle 6D + 24-70 f/4 ?.
The problem with that is in buying two grossly overpriced items instead of one grossly overpriced item, in order to "save" $38 or something like that.

Wait a year for favourably priced 2nd hand items. No way in hell this sort of pricing can be sustained if they wanna continue selling EOS camera gear in N. America.

I've a nice collection of old Tammys Peter, what I'd really like is an eos-m to fd adapter to come out, then all my old glass suddenly gets more popular and might actually fund my step into FF...I'm guessing there's a market for 24/28 and 35 f2s, we shall see...

Not sure how I missed this thread, glad I found it though, I've a tiny EF 24-85 that is a sweet bit of lower end glass, it's just a tad heavier than the 50 f1.4...has served me well since 98

At a reasonable price the 24-70 f4L with IS would actually round out my f4L kit; add the 17-40, 70-200 and you've got a nice trinity...but if it's $1800, think not

Canon's pricing does seem to be getting crazy, gotta make up those R&D costs, and even after pondering a 5D, as you noted so well...seems I'll wait things out for a 2nd hand but newer FF body, live with my lowly 40D and wallow in some additional L glass

Jerry, 40D is an all around very good camera.

PetKal wrote:
Jerry, 40D is an all around very good camera.

I agree. In fact, a few months ago I mentioned that I liked my 40D better than the 7D that I bought to replace it. Man, that didn't go over very well.

Yakim Peled wrote:
0.2m minimum focusing distance, 0.7 times the maximum magnification

Is the 24-70/4 IS a macro lens in disguise? It certainly seems so.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

That is actually amazing. If the specs are correct, the new 24-70mm f/4L IS will gives us "more macro" than the 50mm f/2.5 Macro! Just as a comparison, the 24-105L yields 0.23x max magnification and the 24-70 II only 0.21x.
The Hybrid IS system is also another hint that this new zoom will be capable of some serious macro work. (The only other Hybrid IS capable lens is the 100L macro)

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 wouldn't sugar coat it so much Robert. Canon have lost their f*&$ing minds IMO.

What on earth would make them come up with a 24-70 f/4 in the first place and the price is insane and same for the 35 which should be around $400.

Yakim Peled wrote:
0.2m minimum focusing distance, 0.7 times the maximum magnification

Is the 24-70/4 IS a macro lens in disguise? It certainly seems so.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Fred Miranda wrote:
That is actually amazing. If the specs are correct, the new 24-70mm f/4L IS will gives us "more macro" than the 50mm f/2.5 Macro! Just as a comparison, the 24-105L yields 0.23x max magnification and the 24-70 II 0.21x.
The Hybrid IS system is also another hint that this new zoom will be capable of some serious macro work. (The only other Hybrid IS capable lens is the 100L macro)


An MFD of 0.2m is not unusual at 24mm, but it's very special for a 24-70mm zoom, if it holds up at 70mm.

Yakim Peled wrote:
0.2m minimum focusing distance, 0.7 times the maximum magnification

Is the 24-70/4 IS a macro lens in disguise? It certainly seems so.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


Or a typo in disguise. Where is the word macro on the lens?

leftnose wrote:
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.

Same for me

stargazer78 wrote:
Canon obviously cannot sell the 24-105L at $500. So instead they've created a new 24-70 f4L IS to compete with Nikon's cheap kit lenses. My guess is that the 24-70 f4L IS when purchased in a kit, will be approximately the same cost as the Nikon kit lens ($500). But it will be more expensive when purchased on its own ($850). I also believe that the 24-105L will continue to sell in retail, but will no longer be sold as a discounted kit lens.

That makes a lot of sense.

So, the question is, how much will Canon charge for this lens.

If the 24/2.8 IS prime is $849 new, how much would the 24-70/4L IS cost?
It's possible that it would be cheaper than the 24-105/4L.
The more I think about it, though, a price of $1100-1400 is not farfetched, considering Canon's recent pricing.

$1800 will definitely be a new level of low for Canon.
Unfortunately, it wouldn't be all that surprising .

robinlee wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm not expecting the 24-70 f/4L IS to be priced as high as suggested. It should be part of the EOS 6D kit making it a great compact full frame alternative. When shooting landscape, sometimes the conditions call for only one lens and the 24-105L IS is my choice. However, as much as I think it produces decent IQ, fixing its high wide-angle distortion diminishes this edge quite a bit. If the new 24-70L IS has better distortion control and higher corner resolution, I will be seriously thinking about this trade.

Fred, what about similar IQ with its brother f2.8L II but only in f4L... that will be interesting, similar case with 70-200mm 2.8 and f4

my dream. And yes, for 2750€ as a kit with 6D.

jcolwell wrote:
PetKal wrote:
Jerry, 40D is an all around very good camera.

I agree. In fact, a few months ago I mentioned that I liked my 40D better than the 7D that I bought to replace it. Man, that didn't go over very well.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
0.2m minimum focusing distance, 0.7 times the maximum magnification

Is the 24-70/4 IS a macro lens in disguise? It certainly seems so.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


Or a typo in disguise. Where is the word macro on the lens?

The English translation reads:

• Macro mode can be switched to the telephoto end
  
• 0.2m minimum focusing distance, 0.7 times the maximum magnification
  
• Hybrid IS Image Stabilizer

"Damn, it's a very exciting time", Tank - The Matrix.

P.S. just foolin' around.

stargazer78 wrote:
1. People shouldn't convert the Japanese yen price to dollars, and assume that will be the retail price in the USA. Camera and lens prices in Japan have always been much higher than anywhere else in the world, especially the USA.

Is there an echo in here? And yet people still quote the prices from the 1st page as if they're correct

Well, assuming the 24-70 f4L is more in the 800 range, I'm interested. If it's sharp and has low distortion, that would be a great travel landscape lens. The 16-35L only weights about 600g, + this 600g lens, + the 70-200 f4L IS and you have one heck of a combo.

Chris

Here in germany the old 70-200 2.8 L "nonIS" is priced same like the 4.0 L IS.
Same should happen with this new lens. It should be same as the old 24-70 2.8 L (not II, of course). That is slightly more expensive than the 24-105 L.

0.2m is great, imo. Everything else, too. If IQ is comparable to the 24-70 L II stopped down like it is with the 70-200, this lense would be a great success, imo.

A 5D III or 6D, a 24-70 4.0 IS and my 70-200 4.0 IS would be everything I need (not want ). One of those combos would have done 100% of my jobs the last 5 years.

Great times if newcomers can start into business at an € 4.5k ($ 5750) investment.

Schlotkins wrote:
Well, assuming the 24-70 f4L is more in the 800 range, I'm interested. If it's sharp and has low distortion, that would be a great travel landscape lens. The 16-35L only weights about 600g, + this 600g lens, + the 70-200 f4L IS and you have one heck of a combo.

Chris


+100

And in fact f4.0 for me would do it with todays cameras offering usable ISO 12-24k instead of 3600.

Ralph