Previous news story    Next news story

Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM preview

By dpreview staff on Nov 6, 2012 at 04:16 GMT
Buy on GearShop$1,499.00

We've had our hands on Canon's latest zoom, the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM, for a couple of hours and prepared a quick preview. It's clearly designed primarily as a 'kit' lens for the EOS 6D, but of course will work just as well on Canon's other full frame bodies such as the EOS 5D Mark III, as well as APS-C cameras on which it will offer a 38-112mm-equivalent range. In our preview you can read more about the lens and its features, including its unusual macro function, and see how it compares in size to Canon's other L series standard zooms.

76
I own it
26
I want it
2
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM

Comments

Total comments: 151
12
R N
By R N (5 months ago)

Here it is about a year later -- the price is starting to come down -- and despite the initial slamming of the lens that blustered about, the people who actually bought the lens and have been using it seem on the whole to like it a lot.

So typical of Canon products...

0 upvotes
Carbon111
By Carbon111 (Jan 4, 2013)

Wow! All the noise about the pricing makes me laugh.

Nobody has to buy this lens - Canon has a perfectly good 28-135mm zoom with image stabilization for about a thousand dollars less than this. It's actually a darn good performer too and is even a little faster on the wide end. The extra grand buys you weather sealing, a more robust build, more aspheric and exotic glass and convenient .7X macro capability.

This newcomer is only $400 more than the venerable 24-105mm but by the looks of the MTF charts, this is a *much* better performer. All I need to know before buying this is wether or not Canon have tamed all the awful distortion it's older sibling has on the wide end?

1 upvote
emildan
By emildan (Nov 22, 2012)

All these conversations about how canon's only reason to existence is to rip their clients off with high prices. Can we, please, talk photography? :)

For those who chose to stay, and have something to say. What I'm reading between the lines, 6D is by definition a travelers camera (wifi and gps embedded), and the lighter lens aspect of the 24-70 f4 (than the 24-105, or the f2.8) is to relief the fatigue one can easily get with say 5D Mark iiii + 24-105. The traveler aspect is perhaps also the macro position - some nice detail nature shots without carrying another lens. Very exciting! However, I love the 24-70 f2.8, especially in low light, and I am curious/ slight concerned to see the performance combination of 11 FP on the 6D with the f4 above - specially in low light shots and video? Clarity, contrast, bokeh? DPreview - can you advise on these aspects, have you tested 24-70 f4 + 6D ? Thank you!

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Nov 22, 2012)

obviously some people will have to find good reasons, qualities to justify the lens' ultra-high price.

0 upvotes
jedinstvo
By jedinstvo (Nov 20, 2012)

Sorry, but I'm saving up for the new Leica 50mm APO-Summicron ASPH, modestly priced at $8000.

0 upvotes
Nafees A Bazmi
By Nafees A Bazmi (Nov 17, 2012)

to much expensive and
f/4 instead of f/2.8

0 upvotes
EthanX
By EthanX (Nov 15, 2012)

Am I the only one wondering why DPReview has chosen to make a preview and not a full review for this lens?

I mean - They've done a real good job for a preview, but unlike camera reviews, the reviews for lens are usually only 4-5 pages anyway. So what's the overhead in running this one test that will give us their famous widget results and make this a proper *review*? Another single day of work?

Come on, DPReview - we trust you!
I just wanna know how good this lens performs...

0 upvotes
spiderhunter
By spiderhunter (Nov 10, 2012)

Overpriced.

0 upvotes
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (Nov 9, 2012)

Wow ! Can't wait to spend £1500 on a KIT lens - NOT! I'm sure its a cracking lens, better than my beloved 24-105 L ( it is after all 7 years newer) but at £1500 - a JOKE. Yet again Canon shoots itself in the foot. This on top of a new 35 F2 (with IS) costing almost 3 times as much as the older current design. Having seen reviews of the 24F2.8 IS being only slightly better than the older current (none IS) design I begin to despair that Canon are going out of their way to lose customers. Come on Canon stop this pricing nonsense as its simply helping sell more NIKON's....

4 upvotes
Gunston Gun
By Gunston Gun (Nov 9, 2012)

what is the verdict since there is 24-105 ??
what Canon is thinking?

0 upvotes
Zeddiath
By Zeddiath (Nov 9, 2012)

this new lens (even though 24-70 f4) gains a 0.7x macro mode

0 upvotes
Nafees A Bazmi
By Nafees A Bazmi (Nov 17, 2012)

Canon thinks users will also run like it is running with Nikon in only market business or MP race

0 upvotes
David Hurt
By David Hurt (Nov 8, 2012)

I'll stick with my Trusty 24-105 - especially since I spent a little over $300.00 last year to have it fixed after it died. It's my #1 Lens!

0 upvotes
Michael Knight
By Michael Knight (Nov 8, 2012)

I think I'll just get a sony with zeiss 24-70 F2.8...

4 upvotes
M DeNero
By M DeNero (Nov 8, 2012)

Nice lens, but why would you waste your money on Sony garbage? Sony doesn't know how to implement their own excellent sensors half as well as Nikon and others.

2 upvotes
Earthlight
By Earthlight (Nov 7, 2012)

What's with the new pricing strategy? If they can pull it off, more power to them.

...but I personally think they are pushing it too far.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Justhandguns
By Justhandguns (Nov 8, 2012)

Apparently they have a huge market in the blooming China. You have to see it to believe it. People just walk into the shop, ask the sale persons to hand them the best combination of gears, then pay by cash to bring them home. I happened to be in Hong Kong getting some accessories, the sales man didn't even want to deal with me since he was also serving some rich Chinese tourists, apparently buying the 1Dx together with a 16-35L and a 50L. I heard from their conversations, something along the line that his colleague got the 5D2 and he wanted something better. And after 10min, this fellow paid for both lenses and the body. The most amazing thing was, another couple stepped in and ask the salesman if they could get the same 1dx.....

1 upvote
Earthlight
By Earthlight (Nov 8, 2012)

Well, that would explain a lot. Hard times ahead in Europe anyway.

2 upvotes
Homam
By Homam (Nov 7, 2012)

Why is there so much negativity already...just because you think YOU wouldn't need the lens, you jump to the hasty conclusion that 'Canon has lost it'!? If you feel this Canon won't go into your gear that doesn't mean its production is pointless!!!

I beg to differ. I think Canon exactly knows what they're doing and they have certain customers for everything they plan and produce. As for the new 24-70 lens, I think we need to wait to see how it performs in real life...If it lives up to what they say it will be like, improved IS (hybrid) 0.7 macro capability, then it would make taking a macro lens with your midrange zoom totally redundant...not to mention if it shares the same optics of 24-70 II which by far is the highest quality mid-range zoom in the world, it would be totally worth it...

6 upvotes
Justhandguns
By Justhandguns (Nov 8, 2012)

In respond to your comments, no, I don't think it is the negativity that people don't like the lens. I think most of us are pretty sure that this lens will perform pretty well. Canon know exactly how to make money. It is the disappointment that Canon is not giving us what we wanted, a 24-70 2.8 with IS.

Secondly, this new 24-70 f4 does not share any bit of the optics with the 24-70 2.8 ii, 15 elements in 12gp + IS compared to 18 elements in 13 gp. You can say the Marco function is just the icing on the cake, for a walk around zoom lens, the longer end is much more important than close ups.

2 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Nov 7, 2012)

What does the 'L' stand for?

0 upvotes
Henrikw
By Henrikw (Nov 7, 2012)

Canon has completely lost the plot. Utterly pointless lens as there is already the 24-105 for less money. Prior to this they came up with another pointless lens, the new 24-70 without IS so no major upgrade. And before you say it, no - IS does not deteriorate the image quality. The 70-200 mk II is a testament to that. so...HOW ABOUT A 24-70 IS?!?!?!?!?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Nov 7, 2012)

The new 24-70 has noticeably better optics. It is now on par and maybe even a little better than the Nikon version. To say it isn't improved is ignorant at best.

6 upvotes
Henrikw
By Henrikw (Nov 9, 2012)

If you are pixel peeping, yes. In real life that doesn't justify a $1000 price hike. IS on the other hand....but no, they think it's much more useful to have IS in a 35mm prime. Speechless

1 upvote
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (Nov 9, 2012)

I have the 24-105 & 15-85 lenses - both very good, one for FF, one for crop. But with this new and VERY expensive 24-70 f4 Canon yet again shoots itself in the foot....anyone fancy a Nikon?

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 11, 2012)

naw the old 24-70 2.8 l was not a great lens. massive field curvature. canon had to replace it largle becasue the new tamron 24-70 is probably a better lens. they cant have that. should have got IS to happen though

0 upvotes
Justhandguns
By Justhandguns (Nov 7, 2012)

I would love to see this lens pitting against the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC stopped down to F4.0. Yes, there is the red ring factor here, but with that price tag?
I also don't see this as a lens in which the pros will use too often. They would rather stick with the F2.8 series. I bet that the lens R&D department in Canon are working independently without knowing what's in their original lineup, too many youngsters maybe?

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (Nov 7, 2012)

The lineup and what lenses are made is decided higher up on the food chain then the lowly R&D department. My guess is the thinking was like this:

" Wow the 24-70 is one of the best selling zooms ever! If we make one that is cheaper than the 2.8 version it will REALLY sell."

Which sounds good until you realize the main reason the 24-70 is so popular is the constant f/2.8 not the range it covered and if you want cheaper and' and don't mind f/4.0 you can already get a very good one that has more range in the 24-105.
I am sure the new 24-70 f/4.0 will be better optically than the 24-105 but I have a feeling more range will be much more enticing. Especially with the prices the 24-105 is going for theses days. Heck many will just buy a used 24-70 f/2.8 version 1 instead.

IMO Canon would have been much better off just updating the 24-105 instead. Unfortunately this lens seems positioned to take the 24-105's place. There may not ever be an update for it now.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
cjhwang
By cjhwang (Nov 7, 2012)

I think it MIGHT open up a roadmap for a 24-135L F/4 with IS. Probably bigger than the current 24-105L and the new 24-70L F4. Just a thought.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Nov 8, 2012)

@cjhwang

That might work but only if the 24-105 is discontinued and the 24-135 is $2000+ It would be redundant to have both a 24-70 f/4.0 and 24-135 f./4.0 at the same price point.

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Nov 7, 2012)

I think to time Canon poops fully from -
and then you try it with superfluous lenses. . .

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
1 upvote
blank_
By blank_ (Nov 6, 2012)

it may not be the most exciting lens, but it will be a great workhorse, if it's perfect wide open.

They will sell it in the kit, so the price will hopefully get reasonable.

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (Nov 6, 2012)

Seriously why didn't Canon just make an updated 24-105 if they were going to charge this much. A new 24-105 with similar optics and preformance to go along with the new 24-70 would make much more sense IMO.

1 upvote
Goodmeme
By Goodmeme (Nov 12, 2012)

because the 24-105 compromises too much for the 70-105. You don't need the extra zoom for a standard lens, especially with high MP cameras. Instead you gain the effect of not looking weird, so if you're taking portraits people will smile freely rather than looking worried you're zooming in on their nostril hair. :) Most subjects think big lens = super telephoto. And lets not forget about bokeh quality.

0 upvotes
EmmanuelStarchild
By EmmanuelStarchild (Nov 6, 2012)

Considering its price, I'm hoping this lens' IQ is on par with the 24-70 2.8 II, just with less focal length and smaller aperture.

0 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Nov 7, 2012)

Considering the price this lens better be made of gold. I couldn't imagine more than half as much as the 2.8 version of the lens, this really is insane for such a small range f/4 lens.

2 upvotes
EmmanuelStarchild
By EmmanuelStarchild (Nov 7, 2012)

I think the price is proportionate to the features you receive. It has something the 2.8 doesn't: IS, and a better macro feature.

1 upvote
jwalker019
By jwalker019 (Nov 6, 2012)

I was *very* happy with the 24-105 when I shot Canon - can't imagine paying $600+ more for shorter focal length. What were they thinking?

5 upvotes
stelioskritikakis
By stelioskritikakis (Nov 7, 2012)

my thoughts exactly!
no need to buy this one over the 24-105L IS

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Nov 6, 2012)

Canon is a slumbering giant that is feeling the pinch of market share losses to other name brands... old foe Nikon, and to new challengers such as Sony, Olympus, Pentax and others.

This is just one knee jerk reaction: To saturate and flood the market with so many options and products that the consumers, in all this confusion, will just buy them outright without thinking, out of frustration of having to weave through so much clutter of offerings that are essentially more of the same.

Canon will soon offer a free Casino Roulette for buyers to help them choose wisely.

.

6 upvotes
smileblog
By smileblog (Nov 7, 2012)

Maintaining product lines itself costs much, you know.
I don't think they have so much time and money in their economic situation now.

If your guess is right, I think they're going to wrong way...

1 upvote
Boky
By Boky (Nov 9, 2012)

what happened with "delete" option?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
StephenSPhotog
By StephenSPhotog (Nov 6, 2012)

I'm not confused by the existence of this lens, but it is oddly expensive.

4 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Nov 6, 2012)

I own the amazing 24-70 F/2.8 II, a lens which, many say, is sharper than most primes. I received it in a trade so it cost me at most $1800, but even at a listed $2299 price, those that can afford $1500 I think can squeeze $2300 for that gem of a lens. 24-105L was always clearly differentiated by its price (around $800 in a kit, about $750-850 used, $1090 new today). This new 24-70 is essentially the same weight as 24-105 so it is not much lighter. It is a little shorter. But you are losing 35mm of length!!!!!

0 upvotes
blue hour
By blue hour (Nov 6, 2012)

I´d like to get rid of my Canon gear for good.

5 upvotes
EmmanuelStarchild
By EmmanuelStarchild (Nov 7, 2012)

If you send it to me I'll pay for the shipping.

6 upvotes
mikew5163
By mikew5163 (Nov 7, 2012)

I have just done exactly that, partly because of the high prices Canon are now charging. I could not have justified the cost of going from the 5DII to 5DIII, for example. If this lens is aimed at people who will buy the 6D instead of the 5DIII then it is clearly way too expensive.

I sold all my Canon gear and bought a NEX 7 plus various lenses. For the occasions where I need a dslr (child portraits) I bought a Nikon D7000 and 35 / 50 primes. I still have change left over even from the prices I got for the Canon gear used!

I think Canon have lost the plot to be honest.

2 upvotes
blue hour
By blue hour (Nov 6, 2012)

The AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR
has a suggested retail price of $599.95.

I admit it's neither splashproof nor a macro lens.
It´s a consumer zoom while the canon
is a light weight pro lens with a moderate constant aperture.

But anyway, the canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM
has a suggested retail price of $1499.

What´s going on ?

5 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Nov 6, 2012)

Good glass costs money.

0 upvotes
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (Nov 6, 2012)

Canon for many years sold glass that was cheaper than Nikon but offered similar optical quality. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Some have suggested that Nikon assembling many of their lenses in Thailand and China has resulted in lower cost, but 600 vs 1500 is a lot more of a gap than simply allowed by cheaper assembly costs.

1 upvote
smileblog
By smileblog (Nov 7, 2012)

Love it? or Leave it. That's all.

We can refuse it and get other choice, if we want.
Good is it? right?

2 upvotes
Barbiehg
By Barbiehg (Nov 7, 2012)

Yeah I'm leaving it - way too dear

0 upvotes
thomas2279f
By thomas2279f (Nov 6, 2012)

Looks good lenses although price is a bit skyward; would go for the 24-105 F4 L IS instead - excellent lens and cheaper (£699) + cheaper on ebay (2nd hand) £550

24-105 along with the 70-200 F4 L IS are legends in the Canon camp.

1 upvote
facedodge
By facedodge (Nov 6, 2012)

More options are a bad thing... BOOO Canon. Nikonyentaxigma for LIFE!

2 upvotes
Vladik
By Vladik (Nov 6, 2012)

One comment wasn't enough! Canon is INSANE!

10 upvotes
quanss78
By quanss78 (Nov 6, 2012)

Only one thing can convince us to buy this lens is the excellent IQ, I think so. If not, Canon will make end- users feel hopeless. May be, with the highest optical quality, this lens can be the legend, but i think 1% oppoturnity. Kaka. On the other hand, i think this lens is a tool for Canon to increase price of 24-105 L f4 IS.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Azfar
By Azfar (Nov 6, 2012)

What was wrong with 24-105 ?

8 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Nov 6, 2012)

Not very good at F4 for most of the range.
Shorter range but same MSRP should improve on that.

0 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (Nov 6, 2012)

Well, the barrel distortion at the wide end is rather severe, but I like mine anyway.

2 upvotes
Goodmeme
By Goodmeme (Nov 6, 2012)

It's too big. Just like the 24-70 f2.8 which I own. The trend is now towards small cameras i.e. like micro four thirds. Canon need to protect themselves as much as possible, hence this f4 zoom and a standard prime with IS.

These days high ISO quality is amazing, apart from faster af, amateurs - some pros - don't want / need an f2.8 zoom lens, I'd personally prefer one small zoom, and a small fast prime. Or just this lightweight lens. This is a dream lens. I LOVE it. If I used zooms much anymore, I ought to sell my f2.8, but I'm not sure I can be bothered. I certainly wouldn't buy the 2.8 again with this thing available. This will be brilliant.

edit: assuming it sells used in a few years for what I can get for my f2.8, then I may swap. My big lens just doesn't get used anymore which is a shame as it kicks my other lens' (35mm f2) butt image quality wise.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 7, 2012)

nonesense amatuers and pros still want fast glass. and no matter how good high iso gets they still will. Its about subject isolation not light. By and large pro photographer never shoot with wide apertures unless they mean too for DOF high iso made that easier but before wed just come up with more light. again pro photographers do not shoot at f2.8 for the light. it has a pronounced effect on the look of the image and wed only do it if that was needed. and it is still just as likely to be needed so f/2.8 zoom are just about as necessary as they ever were. also viewfinders are noticeable darker at f/4

2 upvotes
Squancho
By Squancho (Nov 6, 2012)

Unless it shows great improved IQ and the macro capability is superb on the tele end I don't see many people paying the extra. I'll stick with my 24-105.

0 upvotes
Mr Fartleberry
By Mr Fartleberry (Nov 6, 2012)

L series lenses for kit bodies just doesn't sound right. Like Nikon putting a gold ring on everything now.

1 upvote
Henrik Herranen
By Henrik Herranen (Nov 6, 2012)

For what it's worth, I'm completely OK with Nikon gold ringing all lenses that cost over 1400 €.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
RXVGS
By RXVGS (Nov 6, 2012)

Just because Canon offers it as a option with a camera body doesn't make it a 'kit lens' (as in cheap and nasty) You can get the 24-70 f/2.8 II with the 5D3 and that's certainly not a 'kit lens'!

It makes sense to package these lenses with the full frame cameras because they match up well and offer those first time buyers/those upgrading from crop cameras a good starter lens and at a slightly cheaper price then buying it separately!

2 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 11, 2012)

"L" lenses have always been a marketing ploy. For instance the 50mm f/1.2 is an L lens and the f/1.4 is not. Simply put the f1.2 is the most expensive option. the f1.4 is a very sharp lens and the f.2 is dismal. The L lens tag here tells you nothing except the 1,2 is the most expensive in the class.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Nov 6, 2012)

Seems we are going through a period where Canon and Nikon will test consumers to see how much they'll pay. The 5D3 is a good example of something that's too expensive and not worth the money that people buy anyway. I have the 24-85 Nikon and it's decent, but it wouldn't be hard to improve on it--for a price, of course.

4 upvotes
Henrik Herranen
By Henrik Herranen (Nov 6, 2012)

First: The 5D3 obviously is not priced too high if people buy it anyway. I won't at least for now, because I'm on a lens update cycle, but many other will.
Second: With its very high price, the new 24-70 obviously is going to be something else than "decent".

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
LarryK
By LarryK (Nov 6, 2012)

I'm waiting for a $500 price drop before I buy one, in the meantime my reasonably-priced D600 & D800 are working just fine.

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 6, 2012)

@LarryK
Why would you need a 5D3 if you have a D600 and D800? Two SLR systems almost never work unless you have extremely deep pockets.

2 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Nov 6, 2012)

Before the 5D3 I had to have a 5D2 and a 7D to get what I wanted. So yes, actually, the 5D3 is worth the money.

2 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 12, 2012)

I also cant understand why youd want a 5d3 if you already and have such nice nikon bodies and presumably lenses

0 upvotes
Calvin Chann
By Calvin Chann (Nov 6, 2012)

In isolation, to a certain extent, you could theorise this as Canon extending the differentaition between their L and consumer lenses. After all, L lenses are supposed to be the best and the best is hadrly ever cheap or affordable. If it works for Canon, I can't see Nikon or Sony being too far behind. It works up until you see the pricing of their recent IS primes.

Still, they must have seen some brand erosion due to almost everyone having an L lens stuck onto the front of their camera, even when they wouldn't appreciate the difference, but bought it just to have the best.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Donnie G
By Donnie G (Nov 6, 2012)

The only gripe I've heard so far is about price, but I think this lens will be well worth it's $1500 price tag if you consider all of the gear you won't have to buy or lug with you. Wide angle to portrait length to true macro plus top draw IS are all present in this one weather sealed, durable, light weight and compact optic. For photographers who only want to carry one body/lens combo (and there are a lot of us), full frame or APS-C, this is it. Even at $1500, this lens could easily become one of the most popular standard zooms that Canon has ever made.

3 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Nov 6, 2012)

I agree up to where you say this is for a one lens kit?? If you ask me it's nearly the opposite, this is just the starting point. At the very least you're gonna need a fast prime for indoors, and a short-tele for portrait etc, or even long-lens landscape shots which when done well are too awesome to miss out on.

2 upvotes
jm67
By jm67 (Nov 6, 2012)

If Canon truly wanted to give us a one main lens, they could have and should upped the quality of the 24-105. This lens offers nothing over it as they're both F4 with IS and now you'll lack a little reach. Reach isn't a big deal as we learn to use primes but the whole point of putting a zoom on is so that you can (zoom). To be fair of course to justify the price I'll guess Canon has likely given it better sharpness and less distortion than the 24-105 but why oh why can't they just give us a 24-105II instead? I bet people would even be willing to pay more than $1500 for it.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Goodmeme
By Goodmeme (Nov 6, 2012)

@ m jesper. Are you kidding? :) What happened to flash for indoor shots. Most shots at lower than f4 are too difficult to pull off anyway without a low keeper rate.

Plus with 20-40MP, who needs a long tele in the future. Donnie G is right. This will be THE lens to own for everyone who wants light weight but can't cope with a single prime. 24-70 covers normal eyesight v well imo. With IS, high MP and great ISO, who cares about long range or high speed? They'd just better not screw up the bokeh. Nicer bokeh quality was why I and many others avoided the 24-105 in favour of 24-70.

1 upvote
Arn
By Arn (Nov 6, 2012)

Goodmeme, I'm sure you mean well, but you said many confusing / contradictory things. Perhaps you are kidding? You say, "who needs a long tele, with 20-40MP", but you need nice bokeh. Well, cropping will not get you quality out-of-focus areas. You need different focal lengths for adjusting the field of view, not just magnification. An f/4 zoom will not replace fast primes, they have very different uses. And last but not least: "most shots at lower than f4 are too difficult to pull off anyway" and "flash for indoor shots" - well, you know... you will get very different looking images in just about every way with flash and available light. Certainly with a slow zoom+flash compared to fast lens with available light.

2 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 11, 2012)

@Goodmeme "Most shots at lower than f4 are too difficult to pull off anyway without a low keeper rate." What the hell are you talking about.

1 upvote
viking79
By viking79 (Nov 6, 2012)

Nice lens, but $1500 US for an f/4 lens? Might as well shoot APS-C and use an f/2.8 lens for those prices (equivalent but the body is about $1000 cheaper).

Eric

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Goodmeme
By Goodmeme (Nov 6, 2012)

The camera sensor will be better ff, not to mention the enormous viewfinder that improves the experience. Also it should last better than a non-L.

1 upvote
Tazz93
By Tazz93 (Nov 6, 2012)

I like the idea of the lens but, due to the recent devaluation of the 24-105, re-sale isn't really an option. So unless I break or lose my 24-105 I can't see myself buying this one. I like it though - the size, near 1:1 magnification, and IS are great features.

I am happy with my current 24-105. But... too bad they missed on the price point though, (kinda tough considering buying this one at an elevated price and selling the other at a greatly devalued price) at the right price it would almost be tempting.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Jacques Cornell
By Jacques Cornell (Nov 6, 2012)

I might have been interested if it were under $1000 like the 17-40 f4L and 70-200 f4L (both of which I own and recommend). That would make a nice lineup of affordable pro lenses. When I'm shooting events with very low ambient light, even f2.8 isn't enough and IS doesn't stop action, so I go with fast primes. Sharp f4 zooms fit nicely in my kit for those times when I've got plenty of light or am working with flash. I'm not too happy about the way Canon L lens prices have been climbing into the stratosphere.

0 upvotes
Jeff Peterman
By Jeff Peterman (Nov 6, 2012)

When paired with a 10-22 on a crop body, it could make a good, two-lens, combination. If the macro works well, that would be a definite advantage to this combination over the 10-22 and the 17-55. (A little more lens swapping at the wide end, but longer reach and no need to carry another lens for macro.)

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (Nov 6, 2012)

Nah. 24mm on crop (38mm) is *right* in the middle of what I consider a useful range. So awkward. The 17-55 exists for this reason.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Nov 6, 2012)

I've tried something like that and switching at about 35mm means you are ALWAYS trading lenses. You want even a little wide angle? Back to the UWA. You want normal or telephoto? Back to the 24-xx zoom. It gets old.

1 upvote
Abbas Rafey
By Abbas Rafey (Nov 6, 2012)

I like the range of this lens which will make good combination with 70-200 but honestly they have ignored their fans and customers by producing under estimated products like the 6D 5D mkiii I think that they are going in minolta direction
They have forgotten the gear in reverse

4 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Nov 6, 2012)

^ obviously someone who has never used a 5D3.

7 upvotes
Le Kilt
By Le Kilt (Nov 6, 2012)

Well, I suppose it does have three advantages over the 24-105 and 24-70 f/2.8...
Size and weight, up to date IS, and macro.
But I'll stick with the other two.

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (Nov 6, 2012)

Umm, yeah I guess more choice is a good thing but I don't get it. If I'm going to give up a whole stop of light, I want to be paid back in reach. This lens had better absolutely demolish the 24-105 for IQ to justify its existence! Maybe if it was 20-70 or 17-70 I'd be interested.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Nov 6, 2012)

"This lens had better absolutely demolish the 24-105 for IQ"

I'm hoping that was the point. :)

"I'm going to give up a whole stop of light, I want to be paid back in reach."

You don't want the $1000 that you save compared to its big brother ? Because you can give it to me i don't mind.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Nov 6, 2012)

You mean $800. And if you already have a 24-70L or 24-105L to sell, the price of the 24-70II isn't as painful.

Or maybe if this lens was 24-85mm f/4 it would be interesting. But still, as is I just don't get it. The 24-105 makes more sense to me as a kit lens.

2 upvotes
mike16
By mike16 (Nov 6, 2012)

When dpreview review this lens I hope they do a proper test of the macro capabilities as this is usually completely missed out of lens tests. Macro is one of the headline features of this lens and if its no good then for some people there would be little point in choosing this particular lens.
Testing macro (among other things) involves looking at distortion and sharpness across the frame especially when the lens is well stopped down, f16 at least, so that you can where diffraction starts to be a big issue. If this lens can deliver good macro performance at the wide end of the zoom range then it might be ideal for natural history photographers wanting to do images of plants and other wildlife in their environment BUT it must still have very good sharpness when well stopped down.

0 upvotes
vin 13
By vin 13 (Nov 6, 2012)

Sounds good to me, I don't see how more choice is a bad thing, especially for those that don't already have a 24-70 or 24-105. I am surprised it's more expensive than its 70-200 equivalent though.

1 upvote
David Hurt
By David Hurt (Nov 6, 2012)

Not surprised at Canon's pricing at all. Look at the price of the Newly announced 35mm f2.0 with IS; look at the price of the 6D; & the G1X that just went back UP in price from $660.00 to $799.00(which is waaay overpriced)!!

2 upvotes
Calvin Chann
By Calvin Chann (Nov 6, 2012)

You'd think that from the bitching that's going on in this thread that Canon were forcing you to buy this lens. They're not.

4 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Nov 6, 2012)

oh yes... with all the expensive canon lenses... what choices we have?

nikon.. sony...

and yes genius.. guess what.. the people who complain will probably not buy it.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Nov 6, 2012)

Not forcing you to buy a product is a terrible excuse for pricing.

6 upvotes
Calvin Chann
By Calvin Chann (Nov 6, 2012)

Sigma, Tamron ...

Canon prices are what they are.

If they're wrong, they'll find out because no-one will buy them and they will bring down the price. Classic product pricing. Early adopters always pay more.

1 upvote
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Nov 6, 2012)

@ Calvin Chann
your theory doesn't work with Leica. That is what Canon will be in couple of years.

1 upvote
DanielNCom
By DanielNCom (Nov 6, 2012)

I Hope get EF-S 15-85mm f2.0 IS STM ... it good for traveling and eos dslr movie

0 upvotes
David Hurt
By David Hurt (Nov 6, 2012)

I wish there were NO ef-s lenses. Just sayin' . . .

0 upvotes
brian1366
By brian1366 (Nov 6, 2012)

I wish there were MORE EF-S lenses. There are already some great performing lenses that are smaller, lighter and cheaper than their EF equivalents. That is a good thing for APS-C shooters.

0 upvotes
massimogori
By massimogori (Nov 6, 2012)

The market pushed Canon's Full Frame prices down to reasonable levels and they had to recover margins somehow.

After weeks of hard thinking they came out with the idea of pricing a standard lens almost at the same level of a full frame body. Brilliant.

3 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Nov 6, 2012)

the 5D MK3 is still 600 euro more expensive then the D800 in europe. how is that a reasonable level?

7 upvotes
massimogori
By massimogori (Nov 6, 2012)

Greed drove the pricing of 5D MK3. The reasonably priced one is the 6D.

Canon is loosing customers because of this attitude: when I saw their approach, I immediately sold all my Canon kit and purchased a Fuji X-Pro 1.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
russbarnes
By russbarnes (Nov 6, 2012)

Incredible. Is there no limit to Canon's price gouging? It would seem not, this is meant to be a consumer lens to help sales of the poor 6D? What a joke. The pricing on display shows the breath-taking arrogance Canon has and the total belief that its once loyal customer base has unlimited pockets and will buy any old crap they put out there. I predict a lonely future for Canon, their products fail to innovate, Nikon, Fuji and Sony are positively running rings around them and their financial performance has been abysmal to boot. Could Canon be the next giant to fall in the consumer world? It's looking more and more likely, no one is immune these days. When you start increasing prices and delivering product that's a step behind the rest of the market it's time to start asking some serious questions about the entire leadership of the business. Thank the lord everyone has the amazing choice of pretty much ANY of the other brands out there just now.

21 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Nov 6, 2012)

while i agree to what you say about the pricing, from all companys you mentioned canon makes the most profit in the camera biz.... still.

so you can´t argue from that standpoint with canon.. at least not yet.

but i guess canon will lose market share in the long run.
as more new DSLR customers are willing to invest into the sony or nikon system.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
abi170845
By abi170845 (Nov 6, 2012)

I am serious looking at the A99, haven't jumped to FF yet, the A99 just has more of what I am looking for, mainly instant info on how the photo will look like before pressing the shutter. no more guessing about exposures, wb, etc. Learning those will be a relic of the past so that I can concentrate more on taking photos rather than worrying about exposures, shutter speed, wb, etc.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 6, 2012)

Agree to an extent about the price, but where do you get consumer lens? This is an L lens with presumably a metal barrel, 9-blade aperture, UD elements, and IS. Nothing remotely consumer-ish about it and is in no way "a step behind" any of the competition's lens offerings.

I'm a Nikon shooter and also use an X-Pro1, but Canon also makes terrific lenses. And in case you haven't notice, ALL of the big 4 camera makers are raising prices of their lenses at a fairly unsustainable pace relative to the global economic conditions.

10 upvotes
russbarnes
By russbarnes (Nov 7, 2012)

Marike - it's an f/4 zoom which puts it into consumer category without question. Even DPR seem to be saying that this is intended to be a kit lens for the 6D. Who am I to argue, usually an f/4 zoom wouldn't exceed the price of an f/2.8 variant on any other planet, but on Planet Canon, absolutely any price now seems plausible to them on every release it seems. It's like they're playing a game of "who blinks first" with all of their customer base.

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (Nov 7, 2012)

But it is less expensive than the 2.8 version. You can't compare the new f/4.0 lens price with the price to the old discontinued f/2.8 model. Plus the 24-104 is an f/4 L lens as well so saying f/4.0=consumer lens is absurd. I do agree though that Canon is off their nut with the overall pricing of their new products lately.

Though I do think that it should have been a consumer grade lens to be Canon's answer to Nikon's new 24-85. Having two pro zooms covering the exact same range with only difference is one is a stop faster is kind of silly. They should have just updated the 24-105 instead if they were going to do that.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Nov 6, 2012)

Most expensive kit lens ever! FTW!!!

7 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Nov 6, 2012)

More expensive than Sony DT 16-50/2.8. Sheesh!

1 upvote
RXVGS
By RXVGS (Nov 6, 2012)

Canon offers the 24-70 f/2.8 II L as a 'kit lens' option with the 5D Mk III!

4 upvotes
Total comments: 151
12