24-70 f4 II coming soon?

I noticed the rebate for the cheaper f4 is $200 and the 2.8 II is $150. Any chance this is Canon's way to unload the f4 for a f4 version 2 in the near future?

My guess is the f/4 is lowered because it is WAY over priced. A few bucks off the f/2.8 II can't hurt sales either. I think most folks would want an EF 24-70 f/2.8 IS, not another f/4.

Doubt it. The lens is not that old.... There are many more that need an updating first.

i don't see them investing in another 24-70f4 when the first was such a flop....they're trying to sell what they've already produced

I have the 24-70 f4. I must say for all the bad reviews I've heard, I am quite impressed and happy with this one on my 6D. It might be that I have an excellent copy. It is absolutely sharp, especially at f6.3-8. I also have the 2.8 II that I haven't got to use much yet because I bought them both nearly at the same time. Don't ask me how I ended up with both lol. Anyways, its a great lens if you're on a budget for a 24-70 lens and want to upgrade your 24-105. I have heard a lot of people complaining about the image at 50mm, but for me its very sharp. I can provide you with some samples if you'd like. I had it for sale, but I took it down because I figured it would be an excellent lens if I didn't want to carry a heavy version of it. Macro is really sweet and I think you can get this lens for $799 now with the rebate.

se7enxn9ne wrote in post #17490518
I have the 24-70 f4. I must say for all the bad reviews I've heard, I am quite impressed and happy with this one on my 6D. It might be that I have an excellent copy. It is absolutely sharp, especially at f6.3-8. I also have the 2.8 II that I haven't got to use much yet because I bought them both nearly at the same time. Don't ask me how I ended up with both lol. Anyways, its a great lens if you're on a budget for a 24-70 lens and want to upgrade your 24-105. I have heard a lot of people complaining about the image at 50mm, but for me its very sharp. I can provide you with some samples if you'd like. I had it for sale, but I took it down because I figured it would be an excellent lens if I didn't want to carry a heavy version of it. Macro is really sweet and I think you can get this lens for $799 now with the rebate.

I have no doubt that it's a great lens, but can I ask you why you think people would purchase it over the excellent Tamron 24-70 2.8 (which has IS btw) for close to the same price? (or at least they were before the rebate. I still don't think they're far enough apart to merit the purchase of the Canon.)

I think it might be a branding / name issue. Tamron is an excellent company and make great lenses. The reason I purchased the canon 24-70 f4 over the tamron is because I shoot mainly still subjects, like stationary cars and people so i didn't really care for the speed.. Plus the macro feature seemed cool. I did a lot of review on this before making the purchase. I was thinking in my head, I have the 70-200 ii is for any motion/fast shots.. I ended up with the 2.8 ii in my bag because I could not pass it up due to a excellent price.

I also skimmed through this article quickly and saw that these guys had some good luck on the lens as well...

http://www.lensrentals​.com …70-f4-is-resolution-tests

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #17490525
I have no doubt that it's a great lens, but can I ask you why you think people would purchase it over the excellent Tamron 24-70 2.8 (which has IS btw) for close to the same pricie? (or at least they were before the rebate. I still don't think they're far enough apart to merit the purchase of the Canon.)

I can tell you why I bought the Canon 24-70 f/4L IS over the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. I tried 2 copies of the Tamron and neither were acceptable. The first front focused so badly I couldn't micro focus adjust it. The replacement I got was super sharp and focused terrifically in good light but didn't focus nearly as well as it should have in low light and it did a terrible job tracking a subject in low light. The Canon 24-70 f/4 focuses far more consistently in low light and tracks far better despite being a stop slower. Maybe, a third copy of the Tamron might have done better but I saw enough complaints online and in reviews to decide it wasn't worth it to keep trying to find a "good" copy.

the reason the lens was a flop has nothing to do with the quality of the lens...it was the ridiculous price canon thought people would pay for it....$1,499 at introduction...now it's down to a more realistic number of $799 with a rebate...

Good point. Forgot about that.

DreDaze wrote in post #17490548
the reason the lens was a flop has nothing to do with the quality of the lens...it was the ridiculous price canon thought people would pay for it....$1,499 at introduction...now it's down to a more realistic number of $799 with a rebate...

precisely, pair that with a significant loss in focal range compared to the 24-105, there's not many redeeming features in that lens. I mean if it kept the same focal range as the 24-105 with super optics, I think more folks would be welcoming of that idea, than the macro feature.

I have owned the 24-105, 24-70 II and the 24-70 f4 IS. I love the f4 IS version on my 6D. It is lightweight, excellent IQ, macro is nice for events, and I consider it a bargain at today's prices.

When I bought my 6D, I would have bought the f4 IS if it was priced at the level it is now. Instead, I bought the Tamron. Now, I have the 2.8 II.

jrscls wrote in post #17490602
I have owned the 24-105, 24-70 II and the 24-70 f4 IS. I love the f4 IS version on my 6D. It is lightweight, excellent IQ, macro is nice for events, and I consider it a bargain at today's prices.

I dont deny the utility of the lens, having a macro and standard zoom all wrapped up into one is super convenient. I own a 24-70f4 zeiss, and I do change lenses often due to the focal length issue, I find that 70 is quite short, and I also have a macro/portrait lens that I love, so I understand the utility of a super versatile lens, however I'de choose the extended range every time over the macro, and I suspect most people would as well. The 24-105 does .23 macro, so it's not bad, that and the extended range, it's a winning combo, really hard to ignore.

if both had equal optics, it would be a really easy decision on which to pick.

When I was in the market for a zoom it was between this and the 2.8 ii .. if it were 799 back then i would have gotten it and bought a 35l as well to cover the low light needs . It would have been just the combo that I wanted the convenience of a zoom with image stabilizer and a fast prime ..i went with the 2.8 ii I'm happy with it ..but sometimes wish for image stabilization and sometimes wish for something below 2.8 but wider than my 50 1.4

But yeah I would be surprised to see them do a second version.. if anything I think the 24-105 needs it more