The 24-105 list price is $1150, but they can be found at much lower prices. Hopefully the same will occur with the 24-70 F4 after a few months or a year. Once they make it a kit lens, the street price will drop to something more in line with other F4 lenses. (He predicted with no authority whatsoever.)
Mark - Flickr
************************
will the 24-70 replace the 24-105 or will they continue to make both?
That's another question. If the prices on 24-105s continue to fall and the price of the 24-70 does not, sales of the 24-70 could be impacted. I think a lot is going to depend on the IQ of the 24-70. Canon's latest releases have all shown marked improvements in IQ over their predecessors, so there's no reason to think the 24-70 won't do so as well. That fact alone could tip the scales for pros and devout hobbyists.
Mark - Flickr
************************
Definitely might be interesting for handheld landscape HDR. This is where IS at f4 and these focal lengths would please me. Always better to use a tripod, but I often hike with my wife who is less than thrilled when my photography dominates the pace. Of course, I agree the IQ has to be great for me to be tempted toward this application.Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles
I saw the f/4, and the IS, and wondered what Canon was doing. Then the press released mentioned the 6D, and I saw the price, and it clicked.
It seems Canon watches what I browse used on Adorama. They announce budget replacement versions of things I look at, the very next day. Unlike the 1Ds2 / 6D fiasco, I didn't hit buy last night. This seems to happen every time I visit Adorama, so this shouldn't have surprised me. I'm in the market for a full-frame compatible general purpose zoom. I was on Adorama last night, seeing what was available. I was, once again, looking at used because I'm on a budget. It seems, once again, I am Canon's target market, in terms of timing, budget, and product description. I want sharp and cheap. I guess, if I must, I'll sacrifice a bit of aperture to get it.
I'm not sure how I feel about being a budget-minded enthusiast product category, but it appears that's what I am.
I've tried the 24-105mm on crop before, and wasn't always impressed with the results. Whether it was my copy, or the 24-105mm in general, I don't know, but I wasn't intending to try again. So, while the 24-105mm lens may be cheaper, and it may be Bryan's "If I can only have one lens, this is it" lens, it's not for me. The fact that it was an f/4 lens, or an f/4 on a crop body, can't be what I didn't like, as I think the 70-300L performs well. (Note, the 70-300L is a budget-minded enthusiast product).
So my choices were the super expensive 24-70 II, the sharp, but not super sharp, and often has issues 24-70 I, or more primes. Well, I decided against having pure primes in the general purpose range. I toyed with the idea of the used 20-35mm f/2.8, but decided it was too small of a range for the price. And old.
Hmmm. What to buy. I sleep, wake up, and Canon has an answer. (Seriously, should I be concerned that Canon is cyber-stalking me?!?)
If this lens is super sharp, and not as insanely expensive as the other current sharp full-frame compatible lenses, then I might end up with this lens. And that saddens me a bit.
I'd be more concerned that Canon has a time machine. They watch what you browse, go back in time 1 year, and start R&D on a new lens just for you...Hmmm. What to buy. I sleep, wake up, and Canon has an answer. (Seriously, should I be concerned that Canon is cyber-stalking me?!?
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
Gear Photos
I often thought Canon should make this lens, but at this price I'm not sure if many 24-105mm would swap to this lens. But it looks very nice indeed!
John.
Amateurs worry about gear, pros about the pay, masters about the light, and I just take pictures!
What amazes me is that people look this new 24-70mm and discount it against the 24-105mm and discount it because of the extra 35mm and price.
I am looking at this lens and from what I see it may be superior to the 24-105mm in ways that matter to those of us who spend the extra money to buy L lenses.
While there are those that buy the L lenses for weather sealing and low light abilities, I think if you compared everything together IQ is going to be the top reason.
What I am hearing about the new 24-70mm is it has Macro capabilities at the long end. So to speculate a bit, the IQ and resolution will have to be very good at the long end to make this worthwhile.
If you look at the MTF charts side by side and compare what you see is that the new 24-70mm isn't any better than the new 24-70mm II or the old 24-105mm. You gain nothing by going with the 24-70mm f/4 for landscape and wide. However, if you compare at 70mm you see that the 24-70mm f/4 is showing the best performance on the charts compared to the 24-70mm II and the 70-200 f/2.8 II, the new 24-70mm f/4 is better than all three.
I think what we are going to get with this lens is the best IQ performance of any zoom in the 70mm range, average performance on the wide end and the ability to do extreme close ups at 70mm. The question to weigh will probably be; vs the 24-105 do we give up 35mm and $600 for the close ups and IQ, vs the 24-70mm II it will come down to f/2.8 vs IS.
I will be real curious to see how the reviews come out for this lens.
This lens is for people who want awesome IQ without spending the money on the 24-70mm II, and who don't need the fast aperture. There are other reasons but I think IQ and IS is going to be the biggest reason.
John.
Amateurs worry about gear, pros about the pay, masters about the light, and I just take pictures!
I recently bought a 5D Mark II and it introduced me to the high ISO performance of full frame sensor that I had never seen in an APS-C body. I no longer shoot my f/2.8 L zooms wide open as much as I had done before. ISO 1600 is so clean and ISO 3200 seems better than ISO 800 on my 7D. I can't imagine you guys with newer bodies like the 5D III and 1D X. With the announcement of the 24-70 f/4L IS I am seriously considering selling all my f/2.8L zooms and switching to f/4 L IS zooms. 70-200 f/2.8L IS will make room for 70-200 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/2.8L will make room for 24-70 f/4L IS, I no longer use the 16-35 f/2.8L because 16 is just too wide. I'm giving up the f/2.8 zooms because I don't shoot at f/2.8 anymore and they are too heavy and I don't get any younger, I turn 28 in 2 months! What do you guys think? Smart decision to switch to f/4?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote