I think the macro function sounds pretty cool, but if I'm gonna pick up a f/4 walk around zoom, a used/refurbished 24-105 would be a no-brainer.

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.

jctriguy wrote:
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.


28-135 isnt up to todays standards.

6D will be up against the d600 which has a 24-85 thats $500 or so.

A $2000 camera selling in kit form for $3200 vs a $2500 camera selling in kit form for $3000?

Perhaps it is an internet ruimour that this is the 6d kit lens. Thats what we were all expecting, not a 24-70f2.8L priced f4 lens.

Kisutch wrote:
I think the macro function sounds pretty cool, but if I'm gonna pick up a f/4 walk around zoom, a used/refurbished 24-105 would be a no-brainer.

The macro bit does sound cool but according to dpreview you have to be almost touching the subject to get 0.7 mag, which will cause major lighting issues.

RobDickinson wrote:
Kisutch wrote:
I think the macro function sounds pretty cool, but if I'm gonna pick up a f/4 walk around zoom, a used/refurbished 24-105 would be a no-brainer.

The macro bit does sound cool but according to dpreview you have to be almost touching the subject to get 0.7 mag, which will cause major lighting issues.

Yeah, but you don't necessarily have to get all the way to maximum magnification.

For example, for large butterflies and dragonflies, about 0.3x would be sufficient. It comes handy for this type of subjects.

howard wrote:
RobDickinson wrote:
Kisutch wrote:
I think the macro function sounds pretty cool, but if I'm gonna pick up a f/4 walk around zoom, a used/refurbished 24-105 would be a no-brainer.

The macro bit does sound cool but according to dpreview you have to be almost touching the subject to get 0.7 mag, which will cause major lighting issues.

Yeah, but you don't necessarily have to get all the way to maximum magnification.

For example, for large butterflies and dragonflies, about 0.3x would be sufficient. It comes handy for this type of subjects.

The old 24-70/2.8 already did this perfectly.....without IS, too.

RobDickinson wrote:
Kisutch wrote:
I think the macro function sounds pretty cool, but if I'm gonna pick up a f/4 walk around zoom, a used/refurbished 24-105 would be a no-brainer.

The macro bit does sound cool but according to dpreview you have to be almost touching the subject to get 0.7 mag, which will cause major lighting issues.

It'll cause more than lighting issues. This would make it basically only for non-moving subjects in good light. IMO the macro mode is useless. It's got far less working distance than the already challenged dedicated 50mm macros.

Do the specs say what the magnification is at mfd in normal mode? Surely it will have to be worse than the 24-105 as they have similar mfd's?

retrofocus wrote:

The old 24-70/2.8 already did this perfectly.....without IS, too.

But we want IS, and hybrid while we are at it!

howard wrote:
retrofocus wrote:

The old 24-70/2.8 already did this perfectly.....without IS, too.

But we want IS, and hybrid while we are at it!

Well, then I guess you need to go for it if you believe this is what you need.

This does not make sense to me. If 24-105L is a kit lens for 5DM3, and 24-70 F/4 will be a kit lens for 6D, that is strange. The better more expensive camera gets the cheaper worse lens, and the new single-cross-sensor 6D gets the more expensive lens as a kit?? Should not it be the other way around?
Nikon got a cheap 24-85 F/3.5-4.5 VR go with D600, and then 24-120 F/4 VR would sometimes go as a kit with D800, which makes sense, since 24-120 is a $1200 lens while 24-85 is a $600 lens.

artd wrote:
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



This is a flawed comparison. The actual comparison would be $0 cost for the 77mm because you already have those for your other lenses vs 150-200 for a completely new 82mm. You would also need to carry both with you if you have lenses of both size on a shoot.

Ralph Conway wrote:
I would like to see some sample images.

I would like to see a picture of the box.

Seriously though, I think this lens would actually create more problems than it solves. If I was to get something in this range, it would still be the 24-105 which does everything the 27-70 does with an extra 35mm and the same speed and IS.

Secondly, anyone who was disappointed by the lack of IS in the 24-70 f/2.8 MkII, would probably be even more cheesed off than they were before.

J.D. wrote:
Seriously though, I think this lens would actually create more problems than it solves.



I don't understand how the introduction of a lens (assuming the other lenses are not discontinued, can cause any problems.

If I was to get something in this range, it would still be the 24-105 which does everything the 27-70 does with an extra 35mm and the same speed and IS.


You can still get the 24-105, you know.


Secondly, anyone who was disappointed by the lack of IS in the 24-70 f/2.8 MkII, would probably be even more cheesed off than they were before.


The 24-70 f/2.8 II still doesn't have IS, it's a deficiency in that lens which should be, and probably will be, addressed in the future.

It's about choices, more choices are always better.

To be honest, if this lens was released before I purchased the 24-70 f/2.8II, I most likely would have snapped it up instead. Price seems ok and it would work well in combination with my 17-40 f/4. It's certainly has the weight advantage over the f/2.8II being lighter. If folks are happy with the IQ when it comes out it would be a fine lens to add to my small collection. I would have loved to have the 70-200 f/2.8II but having a good copy of the f/4 at much less weight, that alone won me over. Sadly these days I need to consider this into my lens equation when purchasing new lenses. Over all, it appeals to me. I've no complaints with the new f/2.8II and pleased with the performance, but as many here might suggest, it's a little pricey but nonetheless it fit in with my budget having shaved a few $$ in the purchase of the 5D MkIII before the 1D X I had pre-ordered came in. I saved a little in the weight exchange there too. As an amateur and it being a retirement hobby, my choice's so far have been good ones based on many opinions and experience from the folks here. So much fine new gear and not as much time, I am however content

howard wrote:
I don't understand how the introduction of a lens (assuming the other lenses are not discontinued, can cause any problems.

See my last point. If you really, really want to put potential 24-70 f/2.8 buyers off side, you do something like this.

If I was to get something in this range, it would still be the 24-105 which does everything the 27-70 does with an extra 35mm and the same speed and IS.


You can still get the 24-105, you know.

Of course and I would do just that. That's why I don't see this as a very good move.

Secondly, anyone who was disappointed by the lack of IS in the 24-70 f/2.8 MkII, would probably be even more cheesed off than they were before.


The 24-70 f/2.8 II still doesn't have IS, it's a deficiency in that lens which should be, and probably will be, addressed in the future.

It's about choices, more choices are always better.

In theory, yes. In practice, I can't help thinking there are and will be better commercial decisions for this. We can't know that they'll ever produce a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS but never is a long time. From my point of view, there's nothing this lens does that the 24-105 can't do cheaper.

jctriguy wrote:
artd wrote:
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



This is a flawed comparison. The actual comparison would be $0 cost for the 77mm because you already have those for your other lenses vs 150-200 for a completely new 82mm. You would also need to carry both with you if you have lenses of both size on a shoot.

I think your comparison is very flawed Why would all people have a 77mm and have to buy the 82mm It would be the opposite for some. And others will have both, or no filter at all.
Most people don't even use a circular polarizer filter and don't care at all

Lars Johnsson wrote:
jctriguy wrote:
artd wrote:
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



This is a flawed comparison. The actual comparison would be $0 cost for the 77mm because you already have those for your other lenses vs 150-200 for a completely new 82mm. You would also need to carry both with you if you have lenses of both size on a shoot.

I think your comparison is very flawed Why would all people have a 77mm and have to buy the 82mm It would be the opposite for some. And others will have both, or no filter at all.
Most people don't even use a circular polarizer filter and don't care at all

Guess I didn't state the obvious..,

My post was coming from a fairly typical canon owner that has 67mm and 77mm lenses. Obviously if you have no current filters or existing lenses, the filter size doesn't matter. You might note I was talking in my post about people who already have 77mm filters in their kit. You can also see other posts about this confirming that most view filters as a minor additional point when considering a lens, after price and performance are factored in.

jctriguy wrote:
artd wrote:
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



This is a flawed comparison. The actual comparison would be $0 cost for the 77mm because you already have those for your other lenses vs 150-200 for a completely new 82mm. You would also need to carry both with you if you have lenses of both size on a shoot.

Ok for that scenario, let's rephrase to the following: If someone is considering purchasing a lens that costs $1500 they can probably afford to buy a new polarizer too. If one has the means and the willingness to spend $1500 on a lens, would $1650 really be such a back breaker?

If the burden of an extra few grams to carry two polarizers is too much, you can also get a step-down ring and leave the smaller polarizer at home (or sell it). If that step down ring is too burdensome to carry...well...then it'd be hard to imagine you'd not be overburdened already by multiple lenses.

And finally, there are some who also have multiple lenses with 82mm threads. (For example my two most-used lenses right now both have 82mm threads).

artd wrote:
jctriguy wrote:
artd wrote:
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



This is a flawed comparison. The actual comparison would be $0 cost for the 77mm because you already have those for your other lenses vs 150-200 for a completely new 82mm. You would also need to carry both with you if you have lenses of both size on a shoot.

Ok for that scenario, let's rephrase to the following: If someone is considering purchasing a lens that costs $1500 they can probably afford to buy a new polarizer too. If one has the means and the willingness to spend $1500 on a lens, would $1650 really be such a back breaker?

If the burden of an extra few grams to carry two polarizers is too much, you can also get a step-down ring and leave the smaller polarizer at home (or sell it). If that step down ring is too burdensome to carry...well...then it'd be hard to imagine you'd not be overburdened already by multiple lenses.

And finally, there are some who also have multiple lenses with 82mm threads. (For example my two most-used lenses right now both have 82mm threads).

People are making a pretty big deal about this for some reason. See my other response above, stated the obvious that apparently wasn't so obvious

Try this...you have 77mm lenses already (70-200, 17-40, etc), you are thinking about 24-70 f4 vs f2.8. Total cost would be $2300+new 82mm filters ($2500) vs $1500 and no new filters.

To use your argument another way. Why do people care about having two camera systems. If they can afford multiple 2-10k lenses and carry them around, clearly it would be possible for them to have 2 different camera bodies (Nikon and Canon) and appropriate lenses for both systems. Why all the fuss about Canon not having great UWA, just get a Nikon FF and a 14-24 and keep all your Canon gear and carry both around.

That will solve all the constant debates about what system to use and whether or not someone should jump ship.

artd wrote:

Ok for that scenario, let's rephrase to the following: If someone is considering purchasing a lens that costs $1500 they can probably afford to buy a new polarizer too. If one has the means and the willingness to spend $1500 on a lens, would $1650 really be such a back breaker?




For those who are budget minded that live within their means they may have to make the decision to buy the lens only. One thing lost by a lot of people on photoboards myself included is we at times get tunnel vision and don't always look at the real cost. The real cost includes the cost of all the accessories they want to use with the product.

For some they have a budget that says I have $1500 max to spend, they like using polarizers but don't have an 82, thus thier cost now becomes $1650, that extra $150 maybe be earmarked to food, the mortgage, rent or some other basic necessitity for the household.

If the additional cost for a polarizer is a deal breaker then that person needs to reevaluate the want/need to buy that lens or look at other alternatives such as selling the 77mm polarizer and buying a step ring to go with the 82mm they will buy to replace the 77mm or shooting without a polarizer.

burningheart wrote:
artd wrote:

Ok for that scenario, let's rephrase to the following: If someone is considering purchasing a lens that costs $1500 they can probably afford to buy a new polarizer too. If one has the means and the willingness to spend $1500 on a lens, would $1650 really be such a back breaker?




For those who are budget minded that live within their means they may have to make the decision to buy the lens only. One thing lost by a lot of people on photoboards myself included is we at times get tunnel vision and don't always look at the real cost. The real cost includes the cost of all the accessories they want to use with the product.

For some they have a budget that says I have $1500 max to spend, they like using polarizers but don't have an 82, thus thier cost now becomes $1650, that extra $150 maybe be earmarked to food, the mortgage, rent or some other basic necessitity for the household.

If the additional cost for a polarizer is a deal breaker then that person needs to reevaluate the want/need to buy that lens or look at other alternatives such as selling the 77mm polarizer and buying a step ring to go with the 82mm they will buy to replace the 77mm or shooting without a polarizer.

I'm not saying people don't have budgets. But, if $150 can make or break your household budget in terms of being able to pay rent or buy food, I would offer a sincerely friendly suggestion to that person that perhaps their desire for a $1500 lens could be reconsidered. There are, after all, many other budget-conscious alternatives.