Let's talk value between these two lenses that are the class of their fields.
Things they have in common:
- Similar Pricepoint $200 difference give or take
- Both L series (duh)
- Both are amazingly sharp! Best zooms in their class!
- Both focus almost instantaneously!
- Both Weather-sealed
How they differ:
- The 70-200 is mostly metal; the 24-70 is mostly plastic
- 4 stops of IS on the 70-200 and 4 stops of nada on the 24-70
- The lens hood on the 70-200 is right sized. Lens hood on the new 24-70 is too small and extension of zoom barrel being exposed is not as sealed as the Mark 1 lens.
So, where am I going with this? I feel considering the price one pays for the 24-70, it's an absolute travesty of a Value!!! Especially when you compare it to the 70-200 2.8 II, which justifies its price.
Had canon released the 24-70 with a metal build, did not expose the barrel to outside conditions, and included IS, I can fully understand paying $2000+ for this lens. The glass is magnificient, but everything about it is - frankly, crap considering the price. It simply does not offer the kind of value you would expect for the price.
Ok, I hope I'm not the only one who feel this way.