Does the 24-70 officially replace the 24-105, or is the 24-105 remaining in the lineup?

jeraldcook wrote:
I must be the only person who thinks the price for the 24-70 f/4 isn't out of line. After all, Canon currently lists the price of the 24-105 as $1149. The new lens is going to be:
- sharper (it has two UD lenses)
- less distortion
- better IS
- and .7x magnification. It's darn near a macro lens.

Once the hype fades a bit, the price will settle down to $1200 or so.

Even after recent Canon prices, I was not really expecting $1500. But, when I think about, you are probably right. Before 5D II/III kit deals this year, 24-105 was regularly over $1000. As a kit lens, 24-70L/f4 will probably follow the same trend.

jeraldcook wrote:
I must be the only person who thinks the price for the 24-70 f/4 isn't out of line. After all, Canon currently lists the price of the 24-105 as $1149. The new lens is going to be:
- sharper (it has two UD lenses)
- less distortion
- better IS
- and .7x magnification. It's darn near a macro lens.

Once the hype fades a bit, the price will settle down to $1200 or so.

No, you are not the only one. If IQ at 4.0 hits the level of the 2.8 non IS, I think this price is in a range that is acceptable. "Market" will press it anyway. And I myself would prefere to add 200-300$ and purchase it instead of a 24-105.
IQ is what counts. I would like to see samples, now.

jeraldcook wrote:
The new lens is going to be:
- sharper (it has two UD lenses)
- less distortion
- better IS
- and .7x magnification. It's darn near a macro lens.

According to the MTFs on Canon's web site, sharpness will be excellent - even wide open.
We can only hope, though, that distortion will be well-controlled.

The 24-105L has a quite pronounced barrel distortion at the wide end.
And even the new 24-70/2.8L II has a somewhat high distortion for such an expensive lens.

Hopefully that the new 24-70/4L will be closer to the 24-70/2.8L II than to the 24-105L.

At least Canon rumors was not that wrong one week ago.

Ralph Conway wrote:
At least Canon rumors was not that wrong one week ago.

When they have been reading it at a few other web-sites first. They are never among the first.

I would have liked a 67 mm filter for the 24-70 like the 70-200/4. Other than that if it has less distortion then the 24-105 and is sharper I am interested.

Ralph Conway wrote:
jeraldcook wrote:
I must be the only person who thinks the price for the 24-70 f/4 isn't out of line. After all, Canon currently lists the price of the 24-105 as $1149. The new lens is going to be:
- sharper (it has two UD lenses)
- less distortion
- better IS
- and .7x magnification. It's darn near a macro lens.

Once the hype fades a bit, the price will settle down to $1200 or so.

No, you are not the only one. If IQ at 4.0 hits the level of the 2.8 non IS, I think this price is in a range that is acceptable. "Market" will press it anyway. And I myself would prefere to add 200-300$ and purchase it instead of a 24-105.
IQ is what counts. I would like to see samples, now.



+1

Lars Johnsson wrote:
Ralph Conway wrote:
At least Canon rumors was not that wrong one week ago.

When they have been reading it at a few other web-sites first. They are never among the first.

:-) - it is still a rumor page. But I follow them and Northlight from time to time. I do not spend more time to collect thousends of rumored info spread over the net.

That comment was more mentioned to another thread, that was closed a couple of days ago.

R.

Ralph Conway wrote:

No, you are not the only one. If IQ at 4.0 hits the level of the 2.8 non IS, I think this price is in a range that is acceptable.



I certainly don't see as acceptable whatsoever. I find Canon's pricing over the last few years simply appalling.

I was quite interested in the new 24-70 until I saw the price. I see it as the real FF answer to the EFs 17-55 . If its as good or better than that lens then they will have a winner .

If they shift this new lens as the kit lens with the 6D (and maybe the 5D3) then it could be quite good value on the used market .

The latest introductions Canon made make other systems, like Sony's look small. Canon does offer a system that gives the enthusiast photographer and professional the ability to cherrypick and build a personal system setup like no other imaging company. They offer zoomlens ranges, primes, with and without IS, special feature lenses (Tilt and Shift, Softfocus, macro head lenses, etc.) like no other company. Their price policy makes it clear that they want us to know that you are buying the best quality. Building a coherent and adequate photographic system has become a puzzle like choosing a cellphone and the right subscription As we all know, that is no EOSfun.

Anyway, this is without a doubt the philosophy behind Canon latest introductions. I guess we are going to see some more unexpected, and to my taste underwhelming, news the next year. I am not sure if Canon is on the right track though. The market is moving rapidly away from the traditional D-SLR and Canon should bring more convincing products with an innovative character.

Crazy pricing. Unless these drop considerably on the street I just can't see the point.

But then I've just ordered a 5DIII because I've found one under £2k new which was all I was ever going to pay.

Canon are a very successful company so they know more than me but their pricing structure seems bonkers in this climate.

eosfun wrote:
The latest introductions Canon made make other systems, like Sony's look small. Canon does offer a system that gives the enthusiast photographer and professional the ability to cherrypick and build a personal system setup like no other imaging company. They offer zoomlens ranges, primes, with and without IS, special feature lenses (Tilt and Shift, Softfocus, macro head lenses, etc.) like no other company. Their price policy makes it clear that they want us to know that you are buying the best quality. Building a coherent and adequate photographic system has become a puzzle like choosing a cellphone and the right subscription As we all know, that is no EOSfun.

Anyway, this is without a doubt the philosophy behind Canon latest introductions. I guess we are going to see some more unexpected, and to my taste underwhelming, news the next year. I am not sure if Canon is on the right track though. The market is moving rapidly away from the traditional D-SLR and Canon should bring more convincing products with an innovative character.

With all respect, it's not often that I'm presented with this much BS wrapped so nicely......

Don't shoot the messenger Have EOSfun

I notice the new 24-70 f/4L IS has 2 super UD glass elements to one on the 24-70 f/2.8L II. They both have 2 UD and 2 Aspherical.

I was considering the f/2.8 but I think I will wait to see if the f/4 will improve on the 24-105 @ 24mm and the f/2.8 @ f/5.6-8. I can remember when the 70-200 f/4L IS came out and it kicked the 70-200 f/2.8L IS from f/4 up.

Jim

Ralph Conway wrote:
jeraldcook wrote:
I must be the only person who thinks the price for the 24-70 f/4 isn't out of line. After all, Canon currently lists the price of the 24-105 as $1149. The new lens is going to be:
- sharper (it has two UD lenses)
- less distortion
- better IS
- and .7x magnification. It's darn near a macro lens.

Once the hype fades a bit, the price will settle down to $1200 or so.

No, you are not the only one. If IQ at 4.0 hits the level of the 2.8 non IS, I think this price is in a range that is acceptable. "Market" will press it anyway. And I myself would prefere to add 200-300$ and purchase it instead of a 24-105.
IQ is what counts. I would like to see samples, now.



+1

I never understand the immediate issues with pricing. I have an issue with poor value, which is different to expensive. If its an exceptional lens, like the 24-70II seems to be, the price wouldn't seem unreasonable. Canon have cheap lenses too.

I suspect it's launched partly as a studio lens (usually f8-f11) which can cope with high MP. The 24-105 is a great lens, but I don't think it'd take "46mp".

eosfun wrote:
Don't shoot the messenger Have EOSfun
Can I hang the messenger ?))

Kidding aside, I am actually having EOSfun

The 24-105 is a great lens, but I don't think it'd take "46mp"

That's why so many don't get why Canon sold us the 1Dx being the replacement for both the 1D IV and 1Ds mk III. This bullshit has lasted long enough now. We want a better high megapixel camera first. We have more than enough good lenses already that take high mp resolution. After a high res model introduction everyone would have been happy to see a better 24-70/4.0L IS zoom that fits a high res model better than a 24-105L. Now this lens is swimming with no clear aim. Even if we assume this lens is a great performer, it better should be at this price, the most interesting aspect of this lens seems to be it's size. For everything else I would take the 24-70/2.8L anytime. Sure IS is what I wanted in the 2.8mk II version as well. But if I have to choose between 2.8 and 4.0 I choose 2.8. More light to the sensor, more creative possibilties with DOF and bokeh, higher shutter speeds, or lower ISO settings. I made that choice for the 70-200 zoom that I have in 2.8 and not 4.0. For the same reason I have the fastest primes as well. I know, this is not for everyone and as a general hiking setup or street photography kit the 4.0 lenses are a much better combo, but if size matters, there are already much more attractive alternatives, like an m4/3 or NEX setup. Canon is definitely missing some important buying decision factors here. The move from many photographers to those platforms does have good reasons. And Canon's latest introductions made it clear they don't get it yet that a lot of customers want other kinds of EOSfun than what they presented us lately.

eosfun wrote:

That's why so many don't get why Canon sold us the 1Dx being the replacement for both the 1D IV and 1Ds mk III. This bullshit has lasted long enough now. We want a better high megapixel camera first. We have more than enough good lenses already that take high mp resolution. After a high res model introduction everyone would have been happy to see a better 24-70/4.0L IS zoom that fits a high res model better than a 24-105L. Now this lens is swimming with no clear aim. Even if we assume this lens is a great performer, it better should be at this price, the most interesting aspect of this lens seems to be it's size. For everything else I would take the 24-70/2.8L anytime. Sure IS is what I wanted in the 2.8mk II version as well. But if I have to choose between 2.8 and 4.0 I choose 2.8. More light to the sensor, more creative possibilties with DOF and bokeh, higher shutter speeds, or lower ISO settings. I made that choice for the 70-200 zoom that I have in 2.8 and not 4.0. For the same reason I have the fastest primes as well. I know, this is not for everyone and as a general hiking setup or street photography kit the 4.0 lenses are a much better combo, but if size matters, there are already much more attractive alternatives, like an m4/3 or NEX setup. Canon is definitely missing some important buying decision factors here. The move from many photographers to those platforms does have good reasons. And Canon's latest introductions made it clear they don't get it yet that a lot of customers want other kinds of EOSfun than what they presented us lately.

+1