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?

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!

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....

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

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.

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...

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?!?!?!?!?

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

.

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

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

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 ?

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.

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

One comment wasn't enough! Canon is INSANE!

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.

What was wrong with 24-105 ?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.