eosfun wrote:
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.

It seems Nikon and Canon have taken different approaches.

Nikon has not really upgraded its glass (or ever had the dominant quality and selection of Canon), has relied on outside supplier for sensor, and has produced high MP/high DR range FF bodies at reasonable price. Without upgraded glass, Nikon is sort of up against an optical wall in the foreseeable future.

Canon has not yet upgraded its sensors to higher MP and DR, but has set the foundation very well with the widest range of best optics. That seems the logical first step -- great new lenses that improve existing bodies, and pave the way for improved models. Canon has keep their (large) sensor production in-house (Canon also has the edge on processor design), so it is impossible to say what they will eventually unveil, but the company is not known as a technology wallflower!

Canon has been adding to and revamping its optics line, and I can't believe they are without a plan to upgrade the bodies (hardware and processor) to complement the lenses.

I can't buy into the doom and gloom about Canon products or prices -- their progress seems consistent, even if Nikon (and Sony) has some very attractive products at the moment.

Gunzorro wrote:

It seems Nikon and Canon have taken different approaches.

Nikon has not really upgraded its glass, has relied on outside supplier for sensor, and has produced high MP/high DR range FF bodies at reasonable price. Without upgraded glass, Nikon is sort of up against an optical wall in the foreseeable future.

Canon has not yet upgraded its sensors to higher MP and DR, but has set the foundation very well with the widest range of best optics. That seems the logical first step -- great new lenses that improve existing bodies, and pave the way for improved models. Canon has keep their sensor production in-house (Canon also has the edge on processor design), so it is impossible to say what they will eventually unveil, but the company is not known as a technology wallflower!

Canon has been adding to and revamping its optics line, and I can't believe they are without a plan to upgrade the bodies (hardware and processor) to complement the lenses.

I can't buy into the doom and gloom about Canon products or prices -- their progress seems consistent, even if Nikon (and Sony) has some very attractive products at the moment.


Agree with your last statement. Nikon catching up after 10 years of lagging with poor cameras is not the end of Canon. As far as I can tell from reports of real users, all the new canon products are great. People that actually bought the 5D3 love it, people that didn't buy complain about poor sensors and price. All the new superteles are getting amazing reviews and the other new lenses are the same.

I have no doubt that if I choose to replace my somewhat poor copy of the 24-105 it will be with this 24-70 f4 IS. The latest primes are of no interest to me, not my typical style of shooting and I have some MF primes if needed.

jctriguy wrote:
retrofocus wrote:
sandycrane wrote:
If Canon can meet the standard of the 70-200 f4 IS with the new 24-70 it will sell, even at a high price.

The biggest advantage of having the 70-200/4 IS over the f/2.8 IS version is reduction of weight and better portability with the slower version (about half the weight of the f/2.8 version). Comparing both 24-70 versions, the weight difference here is very small - only 200 grams. Customers will likely go for the faster 24-70 version (even considering a different brand or simply just the 24-70/2.8 vers. I).

There is still a $800 price difference and IS. I would definitely take the f4 version over the f2.8 version. Also consider the 77 vs 82 filters. And 200g is nearly a half pound on a lens that weighs less than 2 pounds.

Personally the biggest reason I bought the 70-200 f4 IS was the cost difference. You get similar performance for roughly half the price.

I purposely didn't mention the price differences since my main point considered the different applications and specs. Yes, a 77 mm filter thread would be a big plus for me, too - I just upgraded to the new 24/3.5 T/S II lens with 82 mm filter size, and I wish it was 77 mm (fortunately only a minor concern here regarding the overall performance).

Canon obviously has no problem offering lots of similar lenses. They currently sell 4 versions of the 70-200. So as a 24-105 owner I have little interest in the new 24-70, but a new buyer who wants to match a standard wide zoom with a 70-200 f4, this new lens makes sense. A 6D, 24-70, 70-200 combo would make a nice travel kit.

Hopefully the new 24-70 will be great at 24. The current 24-105 has issue when wide. If it has the image quality of the 70-200 II it might be worth the money.

retrofocus wrote:
jctriguy wrote:
retrofocus wrote:
sandycrane wrote:
If Canon can meet the standard of the 70-200 f4 IS with the new 24-70 it will sell, even at a high price.

The biggest advantage of having the 70-200/4 IS over the f/2.8 IS version is reduction of weight and better portability with the slower version (about half the weight of the f/2.8 version). Comparing both 24-70 versions, the weight difference here is very small - only 200 grams. Customers will likely go for the faster 24-70 version (even considering a different brand or simply just the 24-70/2.8 vers. I).

There is still a $800 price difference and IS. I would definitely take the f4 version over the f2.8 version. Also consider the 77 vs 82 filters. And 200g is nearly a half pound on a lens that weighs less than 2 pounds.

Personally the biggest reason I bought the 70-200 f4 IS was the cost difference. You get similar performance for roughly half the price.

I purposely didn't mention the price differences since my main point considered the different applications and specs. Yes, a 77 mm filter thread would be a big plus for me, too - I just upgraded to the new 24/3.5 T/S II lens with 82 mm filter size, and I wish it was 77 mm (fortunately only a minor concern here regarding the overall performance).

Ignoring price doesn't make sense. If you don't need f2.8 lenses why pay for it. I'd rather have IS than f2.8. For me, I would be getting basically the same performance in a smaller, lighter package with filters that match my other lenses and IS added, all for $800 less. Sounds like a simple decision for me. Then I could pick up a used 135 f2 and have all that for the cost of the f2.8 version.

"We want a better high megapixel camera first."

No. We need the top class lenses first before we get a 60MP camera and that's what's happening now.
If these new lenses are as good upgrades as 24-70/2.8 II then the prices are reasonable.

24-70mm f4 IS lens - great idea, I wouldnt mind even IS-less version. But that price?

Gunzorro wrote:
eosfun wrote:
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.

It seems Nikon and Canon have taken different approaches.

Nikon has not really upgraded its glass (or ever had the dominant quality and selection of Canon), has relied on outside supplier for sensor, and has produced high MP/high DR range FF bodies at reasonable price. Without upgraded glass, Nikon is sort of up against an optical wall in the foreseeable future.

Canon has not yet upgraded its sensors to higher MP and DR, but has set the foundation very well with the widest range of best optics. That seems the logical first step -- great new lenses that improve existing bodies, and pave the way for improved models. Canon has keep their (large) sensor production in-house (Canon also has the edge on processor design), so it is impossible to say what they will eventually unveil, but the company is not known as a technology wallflower!

Canon has been adding to and revamping its optics line, and I can't believe they are without a plan to upgrade the bodies (hardware and processor) to complement the lenses.

I can't buy into the doom and gloom about Canon products or prices -- their progress seems consistent, even if Nikon (and Sony) has some very attractive products at the moment.


Thank you Gunz, I was just writing something much the same. Like most successful Japanese companies, there's always a long-term plan...a decade at least in the making...they're the high-tech gurus.

They feed consumer hunger quite well, profit from the "I must have the latest" mentality perfectly. Buy bleeding edge, pay the initial price, don't cry about the 20% or more you're gonna loose because it's just the game of high tech goodies; the semi-fast turn around of today's bling; smartphones, tablets (these are near throw away these days and are $250-500 a pop.)

This new 24-70, for me is exciting; not the price as I'd like it lower, but add it to my f4L zooms and I've got a high grade three lens combo that will handle 90% of my shooting; 17-40, 24-70, 70-200. Add a FF digital body and my kit is near complete. I've had the EF 24-85 USM for more than a decade and it has served me well, it's tiny nature, reasonable IQ (when stopped down) and low cost, has been wonderful. Other than the higher price this new 24-70 looks pretty sweet.

I'll wait for a bit, don't need to be on the bleeding edge, so sometime next year, given positive reviews, I'd hazard a guess that a 6D and 24-70 f4L IS will join my current kit...and I'll be quite the happy camper

No gloom n doom here
In 34+ years with Canon gears I'm still having fun (FD and EOS; perhaps M in the future) and am able to manage a wide

Gunzorro wrote:
Nikon has not really upgraded its glass (or ever had the dominant quality and selection of Canon), has relied on outside supplier for sensor, and has produced high MP/high DR range FF bodies at reasonable price. Without upgraded glass, Nikon is sort of up against an optical wall in the foreseeable future.

Actually, Nikon has a number of lenses that can meet the demands of high MP cameras: 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 VR, 200-400 f/4 VR etc etc. But their latest offering, the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 lens, often cited as Canon 24-70 f/4 IS competitor, is serious flawed. I do not know how they could have sold such junk with a respectable D600 camera. On the DX side, their 10-24, 17-55 lenses are also not up to scratch.

On the other hand, Canon's newest lenses, often expensive, all have pretty respectable performance. I hope Canon is going to update their pathetic ultrawide zoom (particularly the 17-40 f/4L) lenses next year...

If the 24-70 f/4 IS has the same IQ as the new 24-70 f/2.8 II with better distortion control this may be a great overall lens. The macro mode and zoom lock seem to be both great features too. However the intro price seems a bit high, especially when you compare it to the most recent discounted prices of the 24-105. I'm also curious on the size in comparision to the 24-105 and the brick.

eosfun wrote:
Their price policy makes it clear that they want us to know that you are buying the best quality.

Hmm. The intent behind Canon's premium pricing is not hard to read.
The question is, are high prices alone enough to be perceived as a premium brand?
So far Canon has been mostly raising their prices, not necessarily offering "best quality" products.

Yes, the 24-70/2.8L is exceptional - but so is Nikon's counterpart ... at a lower price.
The new 24-70/4L seems promising. Its high price, though, makes it an expensive slow lens - which is a contradiction, just like the new wide primes.

And how does a conservative offering like the new 6D, for example, count as "best quality" ?
It's outspec'd in every respect by the competing D600.

If Canon wants to be the Apple of the photo industry, they should definitely work harder.
They are not going to achieve a premium status by being conservative and by just responding to the competition - rather than leading.

At this time, Canon's offerings look simply overpriced to me, not premium.

It is UNREAL how people whine & bitch about FILTER thread /filter size.......

This is the last aspect that I can understand whining about......

I get complaining about price, about optic quality vs price, about bla bla bla bla.......... but FILTER sizes?

There have never been more useless debates regarding photographic gear as nowadays....

boingyman wrote:
I'm also curious on the size in comparision to the 24-105 and the brick.


Smaller and lighter than the 24-105.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II 28.4 oz (805g) 3.5 x 4.4" (88.5 x 113mm) 82mm
Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS 21.2 oz (600g) 3.3 x 3.7" (83.4 x 93mm) 77mm
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS 23.7 oz (670g) 3.3 x 4.2" (83.5 x 107mm) 77mm

I guess there's a need for IS on a 35mm prime with /2 max aperture. Just can't quite make it out.

-Clueless

adrianb wrote:
It is UNREAL how people whine & bitch about FILTER thread /filter size.......

This is the last aspect that I can understand whining about......

I get complaining about price, about optic quality vs price, about bla bla bla bla.......... but FILTER sizes?

There have never been more useless debates regarding photographic gear as nowadays....

Well, it is not a decision-making point for or against getting a specific lens, but did you see how much more a circular polarizer filter costs in 82 mm compared to 77 mm?

This dude break it down on the 24-70 IS: http://fstoppers.com/canons-new-24-70mm-f4-lens-is-perplexing?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fstoppersfeed+%28fstoppers%29

Tom K. wrote:
This dude break it down on the 24-70 IS: http://fstoppers.com/canons-new-24-70mm-f4-lens-is-perplexing?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fstoppersfeed+%28fstoppers%29

That guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
He complains about having 3 options in the normal FL range.
Canon has 4 versions of the 70-200 and not too many people complain about that.
Canon will have 3 very good alternatives in this range and I don't see how that's a bad thing.

He's says that the 24-105 "performs fine". A stellar review!
Then he says the Tamron 24-70 is "awesome", which is a bit of an exaggeration.
Then he says that the Tamron 24-70 has better IS than the new lens, which he can't possibly know.

The price is really the only issue that I see.
If it's stellar optically, then it and the 70-200f4 IS make a great setup for landscape photography, with or without a high MP body. Maybe Canon will follow-up with an f4 version of the much anticipated 14-24?

retrofocus wrote:
adrianb wrote:
It is UNREAL how people whine & bitch about FILTER thread /filter size.......

This is the last aspect that I can understand whining about......

I get complaining about price, about optic quality vs price, about bla bla bla bla.......... but FILTER sizes?

There have never been more useless debates regarding photographic gear as nowadays....

Well, it is not a decision-making point for or against getting a specific lens, but did you see how much more a circular polarizer filter costs in 82 mm compared to 77 mm?

How often do you use a circular polarizer ? and would a 82mm thread be a deal breaker?

In my opinion there are only 2 things that matter in a new lens: how good it performs (optical) and how it is priced (considering its performance).

Of course, we could talk about build quality, weather sealing, usm, filter thread etc....

I assure you 90 % of the downside of 24-70 2.8L II is its steep PRICE, and 10 % the fact that you need another UV filter & perhaps a polarizing filter...

24-70 2.8 II is 2300 $ !!!!!!!! how much does a circular polarizer cost? 500 $? I bet it's no more than 100 $ and a good UV 50 $. wow, 150 $ !!!!! what a deal breaker.......who gives a ratt's ass about 24-70 2.8 II's optical qualities & etc........let's just concentrate on the 150 $ worth of filters (not that you need the most expensive filters, for that matter).......

This 24-70 F4L IS would better outperform the 24-105 F4L IS by a long shot, if it wants its price to be justified..

I'm curious how the current 24-70 performs, stopped down to F4, to the new F4L IS, considering that a used on is almost 1000 $...

adrianb wrote:
retrofocus wrote:
adrianb wrote:
It is UNREAL how people whine & bitch about FILTER thread /filter size.......

This is the last aspect that I can understand whining about......

I get complaining about price, about optic quality vs price, about bla bla bla bla.......... but FILTER sizes?

There have never been more useless debates regarding photographic gear as nowadays....

Well, it is not a decision-making point for or against getting a specific lens, but did you see how much more a circular polarizer filter costs in 82 mm compared to 77 mm?

How often do you use a circular polarizer ? and would a 82mm thread be a deal breaker?

In my opinion there are only 2 things that matter in a new lens: how good it performs (optical) and how it is priced (considering its performance).

Of course, we could talk about build quality, weather sealing, usm, filter thread etc....

I assure you 90 % of the downside of 24-70 2.8L II is its steep PRICE, and 10 % the fact that you need another UV filter & perhaps a polarizing filter...

24-70 2.8 II is 2300 $ !!!!!!!! how much does a circular polarizer cost? 500 $? I bet it's no more than 100 $ and a good UV 50 $. wow, 150 $ !!!!! what a deal breaker.......who gives a ratt's ass about 24-70 2.8 II's optical qualities & etc........let's just concentrate on the 150 $ worth of filters (not that you need the most expensive filters, for that matter).......

This 24-70 F4L IS would better outperform the 24-105 F4L IS by a long shot, if it wants its price to be justified..

I'm curious how the current 24-70 performs, stopped down to F4, to the new F4L IS, considering that a used on is almost 1000 $...

A very good 82 mm circ. polarizer costs about $200. Anyway, as you said it is not an essential part of making a decision for or against a lens, right. As I mentioned earlier, I also upgraded to the 24/3.5 T/S II lens knowing I wouldn't be able to use my 77 mm circ. polarizer. Still it might be one of the factors why someone would lean towards a different lens brand or lens itself.