Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS In Stores Now

Just so everyone knows, the new Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS is now available online. I can't buy one, but it sounds very interesting and tempting..... I'd love to know what people say.

Keen to hear how it performs!

Not sure I'd like the bump from my 2.8 to f/4. But interested to hear reviews.

At double the price, this thing had better produce. it is going to be tough to shake me off of a 24-105. for 1500 i can buy a used 24-70 2.8 Mk I and a decent prime.

At the price it will stay in the stores

Give it a few months and it will drop $300-400. Then buy it.

Invertalon wrote in post #15443893
Give it a few months and it will drop $300-400. Then buy it.

That is what I'm thinking too. I really don't need anything in that range because I already have a 28-135mm IS. But if I was in the market I could see myself going for the 24-70L f/4 over the 24-105L.

It looks very tempting right up until you look at the price.

Canon is nuts on how they ticketed this. Anyone else notice that they're also creeping up the prices on everything else? I suspect this is the new Japanese government's "statement" on their intent for the Yen..... coming early to a store near you!

The early reads from the lens rental community is not so good. It is better than the 24-105 in its zoom range but is indifferent to the Tammy 2.8

smaller, lighter, macro..ish. The 2.8 vII - when you get a good copy - is truly spectacular. If you can pop for 1,500 the step to 2,200 for a much sharper faster lens i.e. world class is possible. IF you don't mind shooting non-canon the Tammy (when you get a good copy too) can be very good and you can save some good sized $$$$. Perhaps buy the 180 real macro....

Busted Knuckles wrote in post #15450137
The early reads from the lens rental community is not so good. It is better than the 24-105 in its zoom range but is indifferent to the Tammy 2.8

Lensrentals' initial test have it far ahead of the 24-105L, and in-between the Tamron and the Canon mk II - wouldn't call it indifferent. Once it drops to the same price as the Tamron, Canon's strategy will seem clever:

1. Bring out the best lens possible in the 24-70 zoom range, and charge $2K+ for it.

2. Tempt those who want the Tamron to consider the Canon 24-70 f4 by making it smaller, lighter, superior in all ways apart from aperture, and (once it drops in price) just as affordable.

I know I would be choosing the f4 over the Tamron because I don't need f2.8 in a zoom range my primes cover. Sure there will still be a market for the Tamron, but with better image quality and less distortion (very pleasing) than the Tamron, I think the f4 has a nice place in the market.

kobeson wrote in post #15450329
Canon's strategy will seem clever:

and don't forget the macro mode.

tickerguy wrote in post #15444230
It looks very tempting right up until you look at the price.

Please name one, JUST ONE, Canon lens that wasn't:

1) People bitched and moaned about the MSRP,
2) People were still buying it left and right, despite the complaints,
3) Price dropped within a year or less,
4) And people concluded "holy s***, it's worth it"

HyperYagami wrote in post #15450576
Please name one, JUST ONE, Canon lens that wasn't:

1) People bitched and moaned about the MSRP,
2) People were still buying it left and right, despite the complaints,
3) Price dropped within a year or less,
4) And people concluded "holy s***, it's worth it"

28 2.8 IS?

Not really seeing anyone buy this left and right. Nor its wider cousin the 24 2.8 IS. Nor even the 35 2 IS for that matter. There don't even seem to be any sample picture threads started in the samples forum. Though they haven't been out for a year yet, there have been no price drops and no one seems to be saying holy ****, its worth it.

HyperYagami wrote in post #15450576
Please name one, JUST ONE, Canon lens that wasn't:

1) People bitched and moaned about the MSRP,
2) People were still buying it left and right, despite the complaints,
3) Price dropped within a year or less,
4) And people concluded "holy s***, it's worth it"

So true.

I might have been interested in this lens as a walkabout as the 24-105 is quite bulky. Unfortunately, the 24-70 isn't that much smaller and it is twice the price.