New EF 24-70 f/4L IS USM. Why?

<p>What is the point? Any thoughts?<br>

<a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/114843935092587531104/posts/cqcFWCnyUUp">link</a></p>

<p>It's smaller and lighter than the 24-70 f2.8, although you lose one stop of light. </p>

<p>I'm actually really excited about the 35mm f2. I've used the non-USM version of that lens for a long time. It makes an awesome, lightweight travel lens with great IQ. Having USM and IS built in makes it a no-brainer.</p>

Harry. Precisely, so why not use the

24-105?

 

Aubrey, I agree the 35mm looks good.

Not looking forward to Canon's pricing

though, going by recent product

announcements.

<p>You got me, Jamie; I don't have a clue. Makes no sense.</p>

<p>Perhaps IS with f/4 is necessary to keep the price down (look at what happened to f/2.8 II w/o IS). It might be a good complement to those (like me) who prefer the 70-200 f/4 IS. And to the question why not the 24-105 instead? -- I think it will come down to IQ, which I don't recall seeing yet for the new lens.</p>

<p>Why? Because different strokes for different folks. It's nice to have a choice so you can buy exactly what fits your needs and taste: 24-104L for all-in-one travelers, 24-70 2.8L for PJs and wedding pros and 24-70 4L IS for hand held macro buffs craving a zoom over a prime. If I didn't already have a 24-105 and was buying now, I'd probably spring for the smaller 24-70 since I mainly live from 24-50 and love shooting close details. The 24-105 is a wonderful general purpose zoom but macro is its weakest point (in terms of magnification & sharpness). So I always carry the 50 2.5 CM in my bag. The 24-70 4L would let me loose the 50 2.5 and score a little smaller and lighter optic.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I also own the EF 35 2.0 and it's a nice little optic for occasional snapshots in low light. I bought it used for $90 in the early 1990s and can't see dropping 8 or 9 bills for a similar lens although IS would be nice. But, yeah, I'd toss it in a heartbeat if I found an EF 35 2.0 IS USM for less than a benjamin...</p>

<p>What the 35mm needed was not so much the IS as the USM, but I guess Canon figured "what the heck".<br /> Here's the new 24-70 http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_4l_is_usm since the link given seems a little confused about what is what.</p>

<p><br /> Just the other day I was reading an old 1970s Burt Keppler column about his not understanding why the Japanese camera and lens makers didn't consult with a hugely important American market <em>before </em>designing new models.... Looks like not much has changed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>not understanding why the Japanese camera and lens makers didn't consult with a hugely important American market <em>before </em>designing new models.... Looks like not much has changed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the USA and/or Europe were able to stage formidable competition for Japanese camera makers they would be a lot more sensitive to the whims of North American. However, their closest competitors are Korea and China and the Japanese don't have anything to worry about for a very long time if ever.<br>

However, I wouldn't underestimate the value of Canon's home market. It's huge and the Japanese have rather different taste. Ultimately Canon sells so much gear at home and in Asia I don't think they are too concerned about a few yawning Americans. Things that seem silly to us are all the rage there. I see hordes of Japanese tourists carrying red or white mirrorless ILC I in Waikiki and Ala Moana. Not too many Westerners would be caught dead with a red ILC or DSLR...</p>

<p>I seem to remember lots of comments deploring the fact that the then new 24-70 f/2.8 II didn't have IS. So what is the point? - those who desire a 24-70 with IS now have what they wanted - may be Canon was listening after all.</p>

<p>Regarding the 24-70/4.0-IS: I too ask "WHY"?</p>

<p>Another overpriced lens is not what I want.</p>

 

<p><<Triplicate: Double confirmation I am a moron>></p>

<p><<Duplicate: Delete>></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Triplicate: Double confirmation I am a moron</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for a good morning laugh. ;>))</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I seem to remember lots of comments deploring the fact that the then new 24-70 f/2.8 II didn't have IS. So what is the point? - those who desire a 24-70 with IS now have what they wanted - may be Canon was listening after all."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly.<br>

Its small size, close-up capability and the use of the much more common 77mm filter size make this a very useful, compact multi-purpose lens. Given its price I have no doubt that the optical quality will be equally high as in other recently introduced zooms.</p>

<p>I agree. Not sure why people are so down on this lens. Its small and will have great optical quality (let's hope) that will make it good for those of us who find the 24-70 f2.8 a way too bulky beast to schlep around. With current cameras f4 and IS is no impediment to low light shots.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Its small size, close-up capability and the use of the much more common 77mm filter size make this a very useful, compact multi-purpose lens.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The 24-105mm f/4L IS also has a 77mm filter thread and is smaller than the 24-70 f/2.8. The only thing it can't do as well as the new 24-70mm f/4 is macro, but it does have an extra 35mm of focal length to play with. No doubt the new lens will be much more expensive too. Unless Canon intend to phase out the 24-105 I can't see the attraction of the new lens. After all, if you shoot macro, use a macro lens.</p>

If you need the extra 35 mm, just get a 100 mm lens . Cuts both ways...

<p>The Canon MTF suggests somewhat improved image quality over the 24-105/4. I predict we will see a tendency towards reduced focal ranges as the pixel density of the cameras goes up.</p>

<p>The new 24-70 has a close focus of 0.38m throughout the zoom range (versus. 0.45m for the 24-105, which is pretty poor for a wide angle).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The 24-105mm f/4L IS also has a 77mm filter thread and is smaller than the 24-70 f/2.8."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but it's considerably less compact than the new 24-70mm, which is what your thread was about.<br /><br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"After all, if you shoot macro, use a macro lens."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really an option if one doesn't want to acquire or carry a dedicated macro lens. If you're travelling with a compact camera kit it's always hard to fit in an extra lens, and that is where the new 24-70 can come in very handy.</p>

Seems like a good alternative to what is available, but a few hundred $$s too expensive. Canon has not been providing good value (price/performance) in its current product offerings, highlighted by the rapid price decline of the 5DIII from it initial offering price.

<p>I have a dedicated macro, but if I didn't I would prefer the 24-105 f4L with a high quality close up lens than this new 24-70 macro. It would be cheaper too.</p>

<p>Why not? The 70-200mm lens comes in both f/2.8 and f/4 Obviously Canon would not spend millions in a new lens production if they didn't have consumer interest in mind</p>