Rumored 24-70 f4 IS you interested?

[Overread]

Very true, I was surprised that Canon didn't put IS on their 24-70mm. I just assume that they feel that its not needed on that lens for its photographic use and that if videographers want IS they'll either:

1) use an f4 zoom lens

2) use a prime with a wider max aperture lens.


I suspect though that this lens, as its rumoured, is aiming to offer us less in a lens than a full upgrade would, but it is aiming to recapture a segment of the market who are budget limited (ie the people who now can't afford a 24-70mm f2.8 MII). Canon might well be building in defence against 3rd party market loss by providing more budget targeted products of their own.

 

[cgipson1]

No, Ill stick to my 2.8.

Ditto! F4 would be useless in a lot of situations...

 

[bledererphoto]

It was initially suspected at 895 but estimates are as high at 1700. Would you pay the same as a current 25-105 if iq, is, macro capabilities, and weight were all improved while losing 35mm?

 

[swiftparkour94]

Canon might well be building in defence against 3rd party market loss by providing more budget targeted products of their own.

Oh I really hope so! They just have to....especially with EF-S standard zooms! I find them really lacking with that. Their good with primes for now, I still wish they all had IS anyways. If only they made IS versions, USM versions, and both IS USM versions on all of their lenses. That'd be insanely awesome but it'd never happen lol. Sigma has always had my attention since I've looked at 3rd party lenses, Tamron I'm still not sure about but willing to try their 24-70mm f/2.8 VC HSM after reading many reviews.

 

[Overread]

I don't know about the EF-S range its in iffy waters. They've only 9 lenses in that range itself and they've also cut the 1DMIV (their top flagship 1.3 crop camera) from the market recently. So there is a semi-good chance that Canon might start to wind down the 1.6 crop as well - maybe pushing for 35mm across the board in a few years time; or at least not investing more into a market that they might leave only for the entry level.

 

[MLeeK]

Very true, I was surprised that Canon didn't put IS on their 24-70mm. I just assume that they feel that its not needed on that lens for its photographic use and that if videographers want IS they'll either:

1) use an f4 zoom lens

2) use a prime with a wider max aperture lens.


I suspect though that this lens, as its rumoured, is aiming to offer us less in a lens than a full upgrade would, but it is aiming to recapture a segment of the market who are budget limited (ie the people who now can't afford a 24-70mm f2.8 MII). Canon might well be building in defence against 3rd party market loss by providing more budget targeted products of their own.

You could be very right there. Much like the 70-200 f/4L's.

 

[swiftparkour94]

I don't know about the EF-S range its in iffy waters. They've only 9 lenses in that range itself and they've also cut the 1DMIV (their top flagship 1.3 crop camera) from the market recently. So there is a semi-good chance that Canon might start to wind down the 1.6 crop as well - maybe pushing for 35mm across the board in a few years time; or at least not investing more into a market that they might leave only for the entry level.

Yea it'd be nice to see a full frame camera with the same functions as the T2i but obviously with the same buttons/dials as the 5D mark II priced just between the mark II and 7D. Or does that just sound stupid?

Full frame cameras are going to eventually dominate crops and become the norm for entry level photographers, unless of course people like the extra reach and rage about it til Canon makes a change. I love seeing prices drive down unless your trying to sell your DSLR

 

[Overread]

Well Canon shooters can already get a fullframe camera for about the price of a Rebel (5D original second hand). So the potential market is already there; Canon, of course, isn't competing with its own second hand market, but I suspect that as they are bringing out the 6D now a few years down the line we will see a cheaper yet fullframe.

Sony and the others might even try and put additional pressure on things and jump the entry level fullframe market in advance.


In the past its always been, at least canon side, the AF that was one of the biggest differences between crop and fullframe cameras. With the 5DMIII Canon it showing that they are no longer keeping that the case. At that point the only bonus crop keeps is its focal length "increase" through the crop factor effect - and honestly with the high MP fullframe sensors coming out that bonus will be marginal as well before long.

 

[swiftparkour94]

Well Canon shooters can already get a fullframe camera for about the price of a Rebel (5D original second hand). So the potential market is already there; Canon, of course, isn't competing with its own second hand market, but I suspect that as they are bringing out the 6D now a few years down the line we will see a cheaper yet fullframe.

Sony and the others might even try and put additional pressure on things and jump the entry level fullframe market in advance.

In the past its always been, at least canon side, the AF that was one of the biggest differences between crop and fullframe cameras. With the 5DMIII Canon it showing that they are no longer keeping that the case. At that point the only bonus crop keeps is its focal length "increase" through the crop factor effect - and honestly with the high MP fullframe sensors coming out that bonus will be marginal as well before long.

I heard that the 5D mkiii's AF was better than the mk II by far. They are usually portrait/landscape DSLR's, and some photographers don't even need the AF. The 1D series (other than the 7D) is more of the camera for better AF performance and the extra AF points hints that

 

[MLeeK]

Well, both the new 24-70 f/4L IS and the 35mm f/2 became a reality this morning... Not impressed with the pricing on either. Makes no sense what-so-ever.

 

[Overread]

Since when has Canon ever put a proper market price on their releases?

 

[Dao]

Well, both the new 24-70 f/4L IS and the 35mm f/2 became a reality this morning... Not impressed with the pricing on either. Makes no sense what-so-ever.

Wow $1,499.00 for the 24-70 f/4L IS ??? that's kind of high! That is $300 more than the 24-105L list price.

 

[Overread]

That kind of makes me think that it is the (priced) replacement for that lens - $300 on a lens that price is quite a bit, but it could easily drop by that much after a stable month or two in the market itself. The only ones stung for that price (as always) will be those buying on its release/at the end of its product cycle and at any points in between when stock runs critically dry.

It also makes me wonder if the 24-105mm is going to be dropped after this lens hits the shelves or upgraded with something that might be $500 or more higher in the market than its current price (lets not forget that all the direct replacements from Canon have hit and stabilized in the market at much higher values than what they replaced)

 

[swiftparkour94]

Screw these lenses lmao. Not worth the price when you can get near equivalent or perhaps even better 3rd party lenses at such a lower price. No doubt that these are put out there for filming, which I do but I cannot justify the cost

 

[Derrel]

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.

That must be why the Nikon Trinity is the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200, all f/2.8...because there's no point in going from wide-angle 94 degree angle of view, to short tele, in one lens...

That must be why Canon, and Sigma, and Tamron, and Sony, and of course Nikon, ALL make high-end 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses...because there's no point in owning something so outrageously practical...and a smaller, lighter, less-expensive 24-70mm Canon lens, with an AMAZING .7x macro reproduction capability, and Canon's state of the art Image Stabilizer system, is silly, especially in this era of cameras with decent ISO 6,400 capability...a TOP-quality optical design with an f/4 max aperture is no longer the drawback it was when d-slr's topped out at a clean high ISO value of 250, like with the original $8,000 11 megapixel Canon 1Ds of a decade ago...or even when ISO 500 was the high end...