What's up with Canon 24-70 f4 IS ???!!!!

I just found out that canon finally did come out with a 40-70 with IS ... but at f4 !!!!????? What's up with that ? Why not f 2.8 That was probably my most anticipated lens and for the life of me I cannot figure out why Canon would come up with f4 especially when there is a 24-105 f4 with IS. Anyone have any insight to why Canon did not release a 24-70 at f2.8 with IS

It would have cost way too much to be included as a "kit" lens with upcoming cameras such as the 6D...would be my first guess.

Size & weight ?

LowriderS10 wrote in post #15216897
It would have cost way too much to be included as a "kit" lens with upcoming cameras such as the 6D...would be my first guess.

That's what Canon says. But it's still wayyyy overpriced.

And Nikon can bundle a 24-85 f3.5-4.5 VR as the kit lens for D600 and sell that < $500....

Which one would you choose? D600 + 24-85 f3.5-4.5 VR for $2.5k or 60D + 24-70 f4 IS for $3k+?

Just what is Canon smoking srsly...???

Looks like Canon is doing what it did with the 70-200 line, with the 24-70:

70-200 f/4 non-IS
70-200 f/4 IS
70-200 f/2.8 non-IS
70-200 f/2.8 IS II

For the 24-70, they skipped the non-IS f/4 version..

24-70 f/4 IS
24-70 f/2.8 non-IS
24-70 f/2.8 II non-IS

Its a lot of overlap in my opinion, especially because of the 24-105 f/4 IS but hey, every lens has a purpose to someone. It's just another option...I guess. But if I had the choice of a kit lens between the 24-70 f/4 IS and the 24-105 f/4 IS, I would go with the 24-105 for the added reach alone. Could it be an indicator that Canon is going to discontinue the 24-105? I doubt it... its a useful little walk-around lens that is a great range on FF.

If it has the same IS as the 70-200 MkII, and you use it on a 5DMkII or MkIII (or similar newer body with pretty rediculous high-ISO capability), you have somewhere between six and eight stops of stability.

What was the question again?

(PS .. This is with the same new optical design as the Brick MkII...)

Actually if I could change my 24-105 to 24-70 f4, I would probably go with the 24-70 if it was slightly smaller and performed better at the 24mm range. I find I use the 24mm side much more than the 105mm side ... but I still would love to go down to f2.8 but WITH the IS. That gives dramatically more flexibility especially now that the 5DIII does really well in low light and high ISO. The 24-70 f2.8 with the newly developed IS would be a fantastic lens!

get the tamron 24-70f2.8VC then...

I wouldn't get your hopes up for a 24-70f2.8 IS in the next year...

I personally don't get the purpose of it, especially at the proposed price tag of $1500.
The only useful thing would be macro and hopefully much better optics than 24-105, which is in my opinion is nothing to write home about.
Even macro isn't at 1:1, but only 0.7, so... meh!
I'd still have a dedicated lens for macro and not push it into walkaround lens.

Aleness wrote in post #15217847
Even macro isn't at 1:1, but only 0.7, so... meh!

You probably have a long list of zoom lenses with 1:1 macro function.
Can you share it with us?
I'd appreciate it.

The purpose of it is to take some pictures. I wish some people would go use the lenses they had to TAKE PICTURES instead of bashing each new lens Canon releases.

I'm excited about the optics on this lens if it does in fact match the new Mark II that came out.

I guess people are upset that Canon didn't release the 2mm-600mm f/1.2 yet. And if that lens did come out, there would still be people whining about "It doesn't go to 1mm!!!!"

Did we really need another thread on this?

LowriderS10 wrote in post #15216897
It would have cost way too much to be included as a "kit" lens with upcoming cameras such as the 6D...would be my first guess.

Spot on! Some photographers can remember when Canon replaced the quite good 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I lens with the decidedly inferior built 50mm f/1.8 Mark II because they wanted a cheaper lens to include with the el-cheapo Rebel film cameras.

However... With the superior ISO capablity of full frame cameras (I don't know about the 6D) an f/4 aperture isn't all that hard with which to live.

But, I would have expected Canon to have released an IS version of the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens or at least Mark-II version of the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens with better wide angle image quality.

After all, the 24-105mm is a pretty darn good focal range for full fame cameras.

Well sales-wise is quite logic, if they would have made a 24-70 2.8L IS they wouldn't sell any 24-70 2.8LII. It's like delaying the game for more sales, see it as some sort of subscription.

If Canon would have made directly a 70-200 2.8L IS II, they wouldn't be able to sell the first two, except for who is on a lower budget and has no problems with the shortcommings.

Strange that they made a perfect 70-200II, this lens seems at it's end now, there isn't any improvement possible for this lens, normally it should be the last one.

Probably a 50 1.2L II would be a great sale seen a lot of people have problems with this lens and there are a lot of portrait/weddingphotog​raphers.

it may cost a lot as a kit lens, but if the kit is *ONLY* 1K more, it may be perceived as an attractive deal.... marketing gimmick.