When somebody tells me that they would look for a 3rd party manufacturer (of lens) just because the brand spanking new 24-70 or XX-yy MM lens from Canon doesn't have the xy mm thread as his current line up, I will shoot myself.....

I've already taken the 82mm plunge with the 24 TS-E II and 16-35L II. Granted, the price of quality UV and CPL filters in that size is a bit of an initial gulp. But it is a matter of perspective: how much do the lenses cost your are putting them on?

(Watch out Adrian, shooting analogy coming. . . )

I always get a laugh over competitive pistol and rifle shooters that build a custom competition gun for $2500+, then try to shoot $1 per box .22 LR ammo from Walmart, instead of top quality stuff for $15. You've got this tack driver, and then you want to shoot the most inaccurate ammo you can find?? Why bother?

I don't mean to be elitist, but the comments certainly show the difference from those photographers that have already taken the plunge (some might say "bath" ) toward top imaging gear, at a relatively high cost. Again, it's perspective. If you have a selection of L lenses, you are less inclined to buy what you consider lesser image quality, even by reputation.

In a sense, the photography world is just as competitive as top marksmanship, and there are the same pride of ownership and confidence issues.

Everyone has to make the personal decision, professional or not, at what level of involvement they feel most comfortable or committed.

I freely admit to being a gear-slut (on a budget), gradually working my way up the equipment food chain (still, after all these years!).

Jerry -- You and I are tracking almost exactly -- I bought an A-1 in 1979, so 33 years owning Canon without dropping the brand (about 5 years during that time trying Nikon too). My only gripe was during the FD-to-EF change over after I'd gotten some good gear. But in the end, I'm glad Canon took that forward-thinking step.

adrianb wrote:
When somebody tells me that they would look for a 3rd party manufacturer (of lens) just because the brand spanking new 24-70 or XX-yy MM lens from Canon doesn't have the xy mm thread as his current line up, I will shoot myself.....

I think you are going way overboard here. Of course price and performance are the key factors. If you don't need one aspect of the performance of a f2.8 lens and another f4 lens has a better price and also has the same filter size as your other lenses, that sounds like a tick in favour of the f4 lens. Weigh the pros and cons and make a decision, no need to shoot yourself.

As I said when the first moaning appeared at the time the 24-70 2.8L II was officially launched, I find it funny to discuss & complani this much about filter thread when we are talking high quality lenses...

we're not a bunch of dudes owning EF-S 18-55 IS III and complaining about a filter...

I owned 2L lenses & a 50mm 1.4. All of them had a UV on them and I had a 77mm polarizer HD slim from Hoya (which I paid for 100 eur). I'm the type of guy that uses polarizer 5 % of the time. does that make me a bad photographer? a clumsy one? a begginer?

On the 24L II , i still have a Hoya UV and on the 135L which I owned, I had a B+W UV, and that's it..

When people are discussing high quality lenses, obviously they're not beginners getting their first L lens, most of you i'm sure are professionals and have some skill in photography and I find i awkward to talk so much about filters...

I know our thinking is subjective, and if somebody asked me, I would say that I couldn't care LESS about any filter size and I'm just interested in the optics & in the price (price in correlation with the quality/results of the lens)...

Where I am the 5D3 BODY is almost 4250 $ new......so let's not start a dispute over Canon & fair prices..

I would like to see some sample images. And read some reviews of people I trust.
I would like to see test shots to compare on "the-digital-picture.com", too.
If those informations convince me, I will ask my dealer, what price he offers me.
Then I will check the price and quality difference to the only existing competing lens, imo (guess which - itīs the Tamron with IS).
I am pretty sure the decission then will be easy. A lens like this will be used easyly for a ten year time span. Additional $ 365 will result in 10 cent a day/around 3% a month.
But even spending 365$ more makes it easy to spend the additional money if you get visible better IQ and results. It is a one time invetment for plenty of years reliability and pleasure about great results (again my opinion).

adrianb wrote:
As I said when the first moaning appeared at the time the 24-70 2.8L II was officially launched, I find it funny to discuss & complani this much about filter thread when we are talking high quality lenses...

we're not a bunch of dudes owning EF-S 18-55 IS III and complaining about a filter...

I owned 2L lenses & a 50mm 1.4. All of them had a UV on them and I had a 77mm polarizer HD slim from Hoya (which I paid for 100 eur). I'm the type of guy that uses polarizer 5 % of the time. does that make me a bad photographer? a clumsy one? a begginer?

On the 24L II , i still have a Hoya UV and on the 135L which I owned, I had a B+W UV, and that's it..

When people are discussing high quality lenses, obviously they're not beginners getting their first L lens, most of you i'm sure are professionals and have some skill in photography and I find i awkward to talk so much about filters...

I know our thinking is subjective, and if somebody asked me, I would say that I couldn't care LESS about any filter size and I'm just interested in the optics & in the price (price in correlation with the quality/results of the lens)...

Where I am the 5D3 BODY is almost 4250 $ new......so let's not start a dispute over Canon & fair prices..

Curious where you are seeing all the complaints and whining about filter size?

Ralph you go on and on with "i would like to see some sample images"..

rather than images, the input of many men would be more relevant, and even so, the most relevant would be your own personal test. Because what fits other's needs may not fill your own needs....

Me, I'd never get the 24-70 f4L IS even if it costs 800$ new ! It ain't for me. period.

I suggest you test the lens when it will be available,rather than plunging ahead ...

Seems clear from their 2011-2012 releases that Canon is moving upscale with their EF line. Everything they've released (aside from the 40mm pancake) has been significantly higher priced than many were expecting. They aren't thinking so much about the budget shooters with discontinued 5D/1D cameras looking for bang for the buck lenses (like me!). Given the trend I wouldn't be surprised if they update and discontinue the remainder of the 'value EF' lenses in the next year or two - 50 1.4, 85 1.8, even rumors of the 135L (and 17-40L?).

I personally doubt how successful this strategy will be. For one, Nikon has been better at keeping their new releases competitively priced, probably by using cheaper labor in China and Thailand. Second, I suspect in a year or two Sony and Fuji will have significant inroads with their mirrorless lines once their lens lineup and PDAF tech improves. I also think in a couple of years the compact camera market will be insignificant. Canon may go from being the ubiquitous camera brand it is now to becoming a boutique manufacturer.

This is likely to be a great zoom for me, small and light , probably sharp and low distortion.

But $1500. Canon needed a $500 kit lens for the 6d.

I'm no expert but Canon has nothing like the Nikon's 14-24 2.8.

The 16-35 II is not as good as the Nikon,and the 17-40 by far....

A new entry in the ultra-wide-zoom area would have been nice,rather than having TWO 24-70 L lenses released at the same time.

I mean just think of how many will be buying a 24-70 F4L IS and how many would have bought an improved 17-40 2.8 L or 16-35 III...

who's got the cash, will take 24-70 2.8L II for sure, and who doesn't have the cash, will most likely think of a good old 24-105 F4L IS (used).

my 2c..

surf monkey wrote:
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

Thanks for comparison.

RobDickinson wrote:
This is likely to be a great zoom for me, small and light , probably sharp and low distortion.

But $1500. Canon needed a $500 kit lens for the 6d.

Canon have a $500 kit lens, the 28-135. They have an $800 kit lens in the 24-105.

Haven't seen any mention of pre-orders for the 6d kit with 24-70 f4. Maybe that was just Internet speculation.

If it was in a kit I'd assume we are looking at $1100 for the 24-70. The 24-105 still retails for $1250 and is $800 in a kit. $3200 for 6D + 24-70 sounds ok.

adrianb wrote:
As I said when the first moaning appeared at the time the 24-70 2.8L II was officially launched, I find it funny to discuss & complani this much about filter thread when we are talking high quality lenses...

we're not a bunch of dudes owning EF-S 18-55 IS III and complaining about a filter...

I owned 2L lenses & a 50mm 1.4. All of them had a UV on them and I had a 77mm polarizer HD slim from Hoya (which I paid for 100 eur). I'm the type of guy that uses polarizer 5 % of the time. does that make me a bad photographer? a clumsy one? a begginer?

On the 24L II , i still have a Hoya UV and on the 135L which I owned, I had a B+W UV, and that's it..

When people are discussing high quality lenses, obviously they're not beginners getting their first L lens, most of you i'm sure are professionals and have some skill in photography and I find i awkward to talk so much about filters...

I know our thinking is subjective, and if somebody asked me, I would say that I couldn't care LESS about any filter size and I'm just interested in the optics & in the price (price in correlation with the quality/results of the lens)...

Where I am the 5D3 BODY is almost 4250 $ new......so let's not start a dispute over Canon & fair prices..

Price IS decision-making, and factors like thread diameters for filters play a role - maybe not a very important one, but still. Looks like you are not often using filters, so it is really a no-brainer for you. Personally, I use a cir. polarizer very often on my wide angle lenses, sometimes even combined with a ND filter. Having everything ready in 77 mm filter size - which can be also used on smaller lens diameters with step down rings, buying the same filters in 82 mm is an investment.
I only buy used L lenses in good condition if they are discounted a minimum of 15-20% of its original price. The gain of buying used might be then used just to buy fitting 82 mm filters (one time only obviously, but still!).

adrianb wrote: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 $...

I don't know about u, but I have several grey filters, uv filter and pola filters. All together easily 3 or 400 euro. Having lenses sharing these filters is a huge plus.
Not a dealbreaker, but it sure helps a lot picking a lens.

The new 35mm sure looks nice. Good to see canon finally has some medium speed primes. I always found that a huge gap in their offering. Or u have to pick a way to big and to fast L prime, or ur stuck with a plastic cheap lens.

Bijltje wrote:
The new 35mm sure looks nice. Good to see canon finally has some medium speed primes. I always found that a huge gap in their offering. Or u have to pick a way to big and to fast L prime, or ur stuck with a plastic cheap lens.

The new 35mm prime is still plastic and probably cheap feeling/looking too. Hopefully it is better optically than the old 35mm prime, as one would expect since the price has doubled.
Yes, better AF too, at least it is silent.

robinlee wrote:
dhphoto wrote:
thw2 wrote:
Nikon, like Canon, is mostly a traditional DSLR company.

Nikon is a traditional optical imaging company mainly making cameras, microscopes etc, Canon is a massively diverse company making everything from photocopiers, through scanners to lithographic printers and cameras.

Dslr sales account for very little of Canon's profits.

Sorry to differ but Nikon as a company has far more diversity than Canon. Where Nikon makes cameras, camera lenses, binoculars, microscopes, ophthalmic lenses, measurement instruments, and the steppers used in the photolithography steps of semiconductor fabrication, of which it is the world's second largest manufacturer - Quote from Wiki. Whilst Canon only specialised in the manufacture of imaging and optical products, including cameras, camcorders, photocopiers, steppers and computer printers.

Well you would be wrong. I know for a fact Canon do far more than your list would indicate.

Doing a quick check of a high quality circular polarizer, the price difference I saw between a 77mm and 82mm sized filter is $66. (That is for a very high end filter from a very well-regarded brand. For a medium-level filter, the difference was $32.)

If someone is considering purchasing a lens that costs $1500, I have a hard time understanding how spending an extra $66 could be so much of an issue.

My opinion is if an 82mm filter is what it takes to get the maximum image quality, then so be it

voltaire wrote:
Not sure what the 24-70mm f/4 target market is. It's slower and honestly do you need IS at that focal length? As far as the 35mm f/2, I'll wait until I see the results.

My two cents.

24-70 is supposedly a kit lens for the 6D. The thinking is that the 6D is far too cheap for a Canon FF offering so they need to address the issue by pricing the kit lens at absurd values. Throw is a useless macro mode to give the illusion of value.

Jeff Nolten wrote:
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.

No more sense than a 6D + 24-105 + 70-200. You are saving what 100g with the 24-70 over a 24-105. Plus the $500 you save on getting the 24-105 funds a better trip or tripod etc.

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

-Clueless

Normal lens on a crop camera. Being able to shoot at lower shutter speeds for indoor shots would be nice. At $300 less, I'd grab the new lens in a heartbeat.