Rumored 24-70 f4 IS you interested?

[bledererphoto]

What price point would you be interested to acquire at? Rumored to have near macro capabilities at 70 mm with hybrid is. Would assume far better iq compared to 24-105. I m guessing these are going to list higher than new tamron 24-70 2.8 thats already at 1300

 

[dorian7]

For me; I would take the 2.8 over the 4 IS.

 

[Overread]

Near macro abilities sounds a bit iffy - most zooms only just get to 0.5:1 and no where near 1:1. Where is this rumour from?

I can see canon releasing a lens in this range with IS to cater to the video market - though honestly I would have expected them to keep to a 24-105mm upgrade instead of a 24-70mm. That said it could do well as a smaller, lighter (cheaper?) market lens for those who want a good quality lens but without the high cost and, size and weight of the MII Brick.

 

[rexbobcat]

Yeah I don't understand the point of this lens...

 

[bledererphoto]

Near macro abilities sounds a bit iffy - most zooms only just get to 0.5:1 and no where near 1:1. Where is this rumour from?

I can see canon releasing a lens in this range with IS to cater to the video market - though honestly I would have expected them to keep to a 24-105mm upgrade instead of a 24-70mm. That said it could do well as a smaller, lighter (cheaper?) market lens for those who want a good quality lens but without the high cost and, size and weight of the MII Brick.

Supposedly it will be 0.71:1 on the macro front

 

[o hey tyler]

I would never ever buy this lens. Heck, I wouldn't buy a 24-70/2.8. I cannot see the point to this lens.

 

[bledererphoto]

Also releasing a 35 f2 IS

 

[Big Mike]

Links?

 

[bledererphoto]

The site is canonrumors.com

 

[dorian7]

According to the site they have an unconfirmed price of $849. I think it's strange that they are speculating it will be a kit lens with the 6D as 70mm is still pretty wide on a FF. But then again it's pretty much like a 18-55 equivalent.

 

[MLeeK]

I think it's aimed at the video shooters who are screaming for that IS. That's where the 24-105 is at. I have a feeling the video shooters will jump at the chance to buy it.

 

[swiftparkour94]

I think it's aimed at the video shooters who are screaming for that IS. That's where the 24-105 is at. I have a feeling the video shooters will jump at the chance to buy it.

I agree! I'd take the Tamron over it even if it's cheaper, I'd need that f/2.8 for low light. Noise in videos is harder to get rid of and far more noticeable, it just dances around in the shadows

 

[Overread]

I think it's aimed at the video shooters who are screaming for that IS. That's where the 24-105 is at. I have a feeling the video shooters will jump at the chance to buy it.

Agreed though I'm surprised that they'd effectively drop the 24-105mm f4 and not just upgrade that instead. It's also a worry because canon's 70-200mm range (certainly the f2.8 I'm not 100% sure about the f4) shift the focus as the zoom changes, which makes them rather useless for video photographers. The 24-105mm f4 IS L has always been a good choice for them since it retains its focus point even as the zoom changes - that along with IS are great features that video needs.

 

[DorkSterr]

No, Ill stick to my 2.8.

 

[MLeeK]

I think it's aimed at the video shooters who are screaming for that IS. That's where the 24-105 is at. I have a feeling the video shooters will jump at the chance to buy it.

Agreed though I'm surprised that they'd effectively drop the 24-105mm f4 and not just upgrade that instead. It's also a worry because canon's 70-200mm range (certainly the f2.8 I'm not 100% sure about the f4) shift the focus as the zoom changes, which makes them rather useless for video photographers. The 24-105mm f4 IS L has always been a good choice for them since it retains its focus point even as the zoom changes - that along with IS are great features that video needs.

I think it would have been wiser to put the IS on the 24-70 f/2.8
Granted, IS isn't needed at that length for the most part (that whole 1/focal length thing.) I am still leaning on the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VR IF THE PRICE DROPS. I am thinking that the price has to meet the projected price for the 24-70 f/4IS in order to justify it.
If the price doesn't drop I'll go for a 24-70 f/2.8 original version. I can't justify the VR/IS enough at this focal range to make me compromise at an equal price and I can't justify going f/4 over f/2.8 to have the IS/VR. Can't justify spending less on this lens over the older version of the f/2.8 NEED that 2.8
So... this lens? It's a non-lens as far as I am concerned.

So, as far as professional photographers are concerned? I see this as not so much an option.