I don't get it ! Why someone would buy 24-70 f/4 L IS over 24-105 f/4 L IS since the longer one is already has a very good IQ (I own it since 2008) and the new 24-70 f/4 it will be twice more expensive than the 24-105 !!!

My guess is, based on the newer Canon 24 and 28 f2.8s with IS (both running about $700-800), is that they're in some part based at video users, though I don't know enough about video to be sure. Perhaps they're doing a similar product layout as with the 70-200s, though it doesn't make as much sense.

Very strange, is shorter,the same f/4.0, is also an L , a little more effective IS, but double the price !!! Who would choose this lens over 24-105 (maybe they plan to discontinue 24-105L, so you should hurry up if you want a versatile lens and a good IQ too).

Don't worry, it's expected, confusion is a integral part of Canon's most recent marketing strategy

Apart from kidding, I am somewhat confused too. Right now I wonder if the 24-105 will be discontinued or not

gabimaster wrote:
Very strange, is shorter,the same f/4.0, is also an L , a little more effective IS, but double the price !!! Who would choose this lens over 24-105 (maybe they plan to discontinue 24-105L, so you should hurry up if you want a versatile lens and a good IQ too).

I would be surprised if they dropped the 24-105L, but it may mean we won't see an update for much longer.

My guess is that 24-105 mm IS will not be dropped. It will also go throw an update and will be priced at $2200. I am guessing that it will be paired with 5dIII if it gets updated in the near future or the replacement for 5dIII in another two years.

snooked123 wrote:
My guess is that 24-105 mm IS will not be dropped. It will also go throw an update and will be priced at $2200. I am guessing that it will be paired with 5dIII if it gets updated in the near future or the replacement for 5dIII in another two years.

You seriously believe it will same price as the 24-70 f/2.8 II? Can't see it myself.

I might be wrong but it will be priced higher than 24-70mm f4L IS. A difference of $500 for such an extended range doesn't make much sense to me but I might be wrong. In any case, I do believe it will be priced higher than 24-70mm f4L and might even get extended from 105mm on the longish end to 120mm.

I'm sure the new lens will have better IQ than the 24-105. That's a good reason to buy it for a lot of people
Look how many different zoom lenses Canon have in the 70-200 or 70-300 range.

It's good for photography forum:

Help me which one to get 24-70L II vs 24-105 L vs 24-70 f/4 L .

gabimaster wrote:
I don't get it ! Why someone would buy 24-70 f/4 L IS over 24-105 f/4 L IS since the longer one is already has a very good IQ (I own it since 2008) and the new 24-70 f/4 it will be twice more expensive than the 24-105 !!!

You have to compare apple with apple and so don't compare street price against retail price. Also, 24-105L is a 7-year old lens that has saturated the market and it may be very close to the end of its life.

24-105L is retailed at $1,149, while 24-70/4L is at $1,499. I don't think it's too bad of the price increase, especially compared to the increase of 24-70/2.8L I at $1,349 to $2,299 for the new version II.

Even though the 24-70/4L has shorter focal length, it definitely has better image quality, thanked to more UD elements. It's shorter, so it's easier to design to correct distortion. It's lighter. Has hybrid IS. It can focus really close at 20 cm, so it works as a macro lens.

That said, I might buy it when the street price hits $1,000, but, until then, I'll stick to my 24-105L as my general purpose and travel lens.

I find the 24-105 has issues at the wide end withe distortion (when compared to a prime). Also it is not the sharpest lens around.

snooked123 wrote:
My guess is that 24-105 mm IS will not be dropped. It will also go throw an update and will be priced at $2200. I am guessing that it will be paired with 5dIII if it gets updated in the near future or the replacement for 5dIII in another two years.

I kinda think differently. After hearing rumors that the 24-70/4L might be retailed at $849 (which I thought it'd be too good to be true and doubted it would happen), I thought of the possibility that Canon would release 24-70/4L as a competition to Nikon 24-85 VR. Then, I suspected that Canon would drop 24-105L and announce a 24-120L.

But, now, at $1,499 for the 24-70/4L, that might not happen. Either way, keeping the 24-105L will just hurt the sale of 24-70/4L. Their potential buyers will just be confused about which one to buy and how the 24-70/4L is better than the 24-105L. So, I think the 24-105L will be discontinued soon. Pity, it's such a great lens. (I personally prefer 24-105L over the 24-70/2.8L I.)

The Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is still available, and was the standard kit lens for a lot of Canon cameras until the 24-105 came out. The 28-135 has a poor IS system, and only average image quality, which made people select the 24-105 at roughly twice the price when they cared about performance. With the 24-70 f4 L IS, Canon is providing another choice to consider for a general use zoom.

The new L zoom lenses like the 24-70 f2.8 L are indeed better performers than their previous versions, and I am guessing that the 24-70 f4 L IS will be a successful lens in the market for those that want the small size combined with great image quality and the latest generation of IS. Very few people have mentioned the additional IS feature the 24-70 f4 L IS has of stabilizing translation motion, which is a feature that I like on the 100 L macro.

Wahoowa wrote:
gabimaster wrote:
I don't get it ! Why someone would buy 24-70 f/4 L IS over 24-105 f/4 L IS since the longer one is already has a very good IQ (I own it since 2008) and the new 24-70 f/4 it will be twice more expensive than the 24-105 !!!

You have to compare apple with apple and so don't compare street price against retail price. Also, 24-105L is a 7-year old lens that has saturated the market and it may be very close to the end of its life.

24-105L is retailed at $1,149, while 24-70/4L is at $1,499. I don't think it's too bad of the price increase, especially compared to the increase of 24-70/2.8L I at $1,349 to $2,299 for the new version II.

Even though the 24-70/4L has shorter focal length, it definitely has better image quality, thanked to more UD elements. It's shorter, so it's easier to design to correct distortion. It's lighter. Has hybrid IS. It can focus really close at 20 cm, so it works as a macro lens.

That said, I might buy it when the street price hits $1,000, but, until then, I'll stick to my 24-105L as my general purpose and travel lens.

You're comparing old lens current retail to new lens current retail.

Compare them at release.

jerrykur wrote:
I find the 24-105 has issues at the wide end withe distortion (when compared to a prime). Also it is not the sharpest lens around.
1 click in LR and distortion is solved.
Sharpness, I think it's pretty good.

The current price at B & H is $1,091 for the 24-105 f/4L IS, so we are basically talking about $400 more for the new lens. Here is what I like about what Canon appears to have done with the new 24-70 f/4L IS. To me it looks like they didn't position this lens relative to their other lenses. They seemed to ignore that it may piss people off that have the 24-70 f/2.8 MKII that the f/4 lens has IS and the more expensive top of the line lens does not. Similarly, they seemed to ignore that people might be upset that the new f/4 lens isn't as long as the 24-105. Instead, they seem to start from scratch and asked the question, if I could design a great lens to pair with the 5D MKIII and the 6D what would that lens be, and that is what they built. Personally, I think 24-70 makes sense. Keeping the zoom range below 3X is usually required to optimize image quality and from the MTFs that Canon has published it seems this lens might well have image quality very close to if not as good as the 24-70 f/2.8 MKII just a stop slower. A situation very similar to the 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 zooms. Personally, I think that is good news. In contrast, the greater zoom range of the 24-105 produced very good image quality, but not the top drawer image quality that the new 24-70s seem to have. I think this is a necessary consequence of the greater zoom range and even if they built a new 24-105, it wouldn't be able to match the IQ of these new 24-70 lenses. What else did Canon do with this lens? They kept it pretty light. They kept it compact--the short length is quite nice of this lens. They added sealing at a pretty high level. They gave it the best IS they make. They designed it to focus very close. All in all, it seems like a great lens for the 5D MKIII or 6D. Sure the price is too high for my taste, but that has been true with all the new lenses Canon has introduced. They appear to be adopting a strategy of building excellent lenses and charging a lot for them. You might not like this strategy, but it shouldn't be a surprise and at least they are building good lenses. For me this just means I will acquire lenses at a slower pace.

Yeah, when you compare retail to retail prices the lens price seems to be
fair for Canon standards. What I'm hoping to see is an improvement in optical quality and sharpness corner to corner, better distortion control, better microcontrast and the macro mode being useful. Of course the IS, smaller/lighter built and zoom lock are all bonuses. If all of the above are true then this will make a great general zoom for walkaround purposes and landscape. If I want speed I'll pull out the primes.

I also think many are spoiled by the recent prices of the 24-105. 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 non-IS are all great bargain L zoom lenses.

Like many, I also can't begin to figure out why one would buy the 24-70 f/4L IS, at this price.

If IQ (assuming this lens has better IQ) is so important (my 24-105 has very good optics; IMO only a pro who sells large prints or an absurdly compulsive--or rich--amateur would want to pay that much more for less focal length choice), why would one buy this lens over paying a bit more for the 24-70 f/2.8L II?

Yes, the size makes it a better walking-around lens, but we already have the much less expensive 24-105 for that.

I'm sure Canon has done their market research, and this lens will sell. I just don't see a big market for it.

StarNut wrote:
Like many, I also can't begin to figure out why one would buy the 24-70 f/4L IS, at this price.

If IQ (assuming this lens has better IQ) is so important (my 24-105 has very good optics; IMO only a pro who sells large prints or an absurdly compulsive--or rich--amateur would want to pay that much more for less focal length choice), why would one buy this lens over paying a bit more for the 24-70 f/2.8L II?

Yes, the size makes it a better walking-around lens, but we already have the much less expensive 24-105 for that.

I'm sure Canon has done their market research, and this lens will sell. I just don't see a big market for it.

Is $800 or 50% more a 'bit more'?? I'd call that a huge jump. Retail on the 24-105 is $1100, so $400 less than the 24-70 f4. The 24-70 is smaller and lighter than the 24-105, 7 years newer design and new hyrbid IS. Almost certainly the IQ will be improved over the 24-105. I know my copy of the 24-105 is not a great one, I would happily sell it and pick up a new 24-70 instead of hunting around for a good copy of a 7 year old lens.

Also, if they do actually bundle this as a kit with the 6D we will see similar influx of 24-70 f4 on the used market as people get the lens for maybe $1200 in a kit. That is the main reason why the 24-105 is so easy to get for around $800 even in new condition, kit pricing has made it very popular.