Canon's new 24-70mm f/4 Lens is Perplexing

Canon's new 24-70mm f/4 Lens is Perplexing

When Canon released the upgraded 24-70mm f/2.8 II lens earlier this year, it was met with a serious mix of emotions. Why was it so expensive, and where the HECK was the image stabilization? And sure, the lens performs magnificently, but it left a lot to be desired. Last night, Canon announced a new member to the lens family, and many of us are confused as to where a 24-70mm f/4 IS fits into the picture between the 24-105 f/4 IS and the 24-70mm f/2.8 II.

I love Canon. I've shot on Canon nearly exclusively (except for one year where the studio I was in had an Olympus E-5 and when I was shooting film on my Nikon FTN) over the past twelve years. Up to this point, I've been the first person to stand up for Canon when I'm surrounded by a hoard of Nikon fanboys and girls. But this is one decision that I am just at a loss to defend. Sure, I can probably think of the strategy that went into this decision, but that doesn't mean the strategy makes any sense.

Canon's Strategy: Money. Sure, this is kind of everyone's strategy, but if you make it obvious that's all you're about, then you start to turn people off. I don't like it when companies make decisions based only on profitability. Customers notice, business dips, the company then tries to overcompensate and then things just end up getting worse. If you make a quality product, people will buy it. But if it looks like you're just trying to take people's money, then you run into issues. We all understand that these companies need to make money, but at least TRY and make it look like you care about us or the product a little bit. Aiming at the 24-70mm focal length was a direct strike at where the money is. 24-70mm f/2.8 is the most popular lens out there. We all should own one, because when you need one lens on your camera body, this one can do it all. But Canon's recent decisions with this focal length just baffle me. Why do we need two options at this focal length? Both L glass? It's especially perplexing given that the 24-105mm L lens, a really fantastic lens, costs less than this new 24-70mm f/4.

These two lenses appear to be a misshapen attempt to meet all the desires of photographers while actually attaining none. Yes we wanted IS in our 24-70mm focal length, but we didn't want to give up a stop to get there. We wanted the 24-70mm f/2.8 to be cheaper, but again we didn't want to give up a stop to have that either. It's like watching someone purposely try and infuriate a customer. Rather than just giving us what we want and have asked for, Canon has offered two less satisfying options. I don't want to have to pick- none of us do!

Here is what really gets me. I like the 24-105mm f/4 lens. It's actually really great for video. There are those who complain about it's sharpness for stills, but I never really saw it as an issue. It performs fine. In releasing this new 24-70 f/4 lens, Canon is telling us that the 24-105mm might not be around for much longer. Well that sucks. I like having that extra 35mm if I want it. Now to get what I want, I'll have to buy one lens for photo and one for video and spend three times as much and end up with less versatility. The only one who wins here is Canon, who gets to take my money. Speaking of cost...

Canon seems to be really pushing their pricing. They recently cracked down on MAP pricing on their camera bodies, and this new lens is not cheap either. The 24-70mm f/2.8 II is quite expensive, especially compared to the competition. Heck, the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 with VC is only $1300 and it's awesome. The IS is far and away better than anything else on the market. So why would I buy this new Canon lens when it isn't as fast, and the IS is outperformed by Tamron's?

More expensive. Segmented features. Disregard for their core clients. Canon, slow down and think for a minute before you make another decision like this one. Tamron and Sigma are only getting better with their glass and unlike you are keeping their prices affordable. If you keep on this path, you're not going to end up making up for that loss of profit you experienced last quarter. You're going to end up like Sony: desperately trying to cling to dwindling profits. Sit down, take a deep breath, and just go back to what made you successful in the digital space originally: great product that we all loved.

Log in or register to post comments


Previous comments

It is certainly a tradeoff, Shi, because there are some improvements vs the 24-105.  Maybe those improvements will have a huge effect on IQ.  If not, there is no way that an improved IS system and semi-macro capabilities are worth the loss in range and increase in price for me.

Like the author I'm the biggest Canon fangirl in the universe but this is just stupid first the 6D than the lying about the 5DIII clear HDMI output now this 24-70 f4 IS about this lens I always hate realy hate Tamron but theyr 24-70 is as amazing as the Canon 24-70II and if i had to make a choice than Tamron 24-70 is no brainer or secondhand 24-105 if the budget is tight and i will have to make this decision soon and the Tamron is my favorit now but will I buy Canon or Nikon mount thats the question...

"I don’t like it when companies make decisions based only on profitability"

Yes, Canon just did it, this is negligibly.But opposite you, I don't need IS 24-70 at all for reportage photo.
Canon 24-70/2.8 1st edition sucks - all lenses is not justified for precise focus :( I need to pay for justifying additionally.
Canon 24-70/2.8 2st edition is too expensive, don't think I will want to buy it as a professional photographer
Canon 24-105/4 it is too softy for L class lenses. So, I don;t like it too.
Canon 24-70/4 IS for the 24-70/2.8 1st edition price? :D why do I need to pay more for f4???

For future I see, if something happens with my 24-70/2.8 1st edition, I will buy Tamron :) and hope other photographer will strike announced 24-70/4

canon has made no loss...... they have made less profit.

read this on another forum.... zitat:

I've watched and waited for new Canon gear with anticipation for a couple years. When prices were released for the 5D3, 24-IS and 28-IS I was shocked, esp for standard EF prime lenses. Then the 24-70 f/2.8 II arrived. Well, compared to the overpriced 70-200 f/2.8 II not surprised but still disappointed with Canon. Now the new 24-70 f/4 arrives, huge shock. After the previous insane EF 24-IS and 28-IS (non L!) lens prices, the EF 35-IS price was no surprise either but all of these prices are a big disappointment and just stupid expensive. Most every photo product that Canon has released this year including the G1X, etc shows a consistent Canon pricing trend to heavily gouge the market. They are trying to re-establish the general base price line upward and train everyone to pay more across the board. Perhaps they are following Apple's practice of demanding 40% margins. The real suckers that Canon is aiming for are the enthusiasts that are willing to spend more than pros on whatever the coolest current thing is, over and over. Pros don't upgrade the tools of their trade at the drop of a hat, they have a business to run. They take pictures for profit and mostly buy what they need. It takes time/effort to upgrade to a new body and if the expense doesn't result in a better business, it can wait. Enthusiasts buy because they need another endorphin high that results from another cool toy to add to their collection. They equate better pictures with better hardware. Canon loves these folks and is taking marketing to them to a whole new level. Most experienced photographers, those folks that have taken thousands of pictures over the years, don't buy equipment as often because they already have gear that works for them.
Canon has lost me for quite a while until they WTFU and get past this insanity. I am running away from these prices. In fact, I'm considering selling a few things now, not buying more. Unfortunately, there are thousands of fans out there that simply MUST buy all this new gear right away at whatever price is asked which will delay the return to reasonable prices for at least a year or two instead of just a few months. If the market (enthusiasts) ran away at these prices, they would quickly drop. But Canon expects enough enthusiasts to accept and swallow this price point to demand it and rake in cash which is a real shame. In this case, Canon equates "Enthusiasts" to = "Suckers". Our society has become so impatient and demanding of instant gratification at any cost that most consumers have truly become sheep. Upgrade cycles for expensive luxury items have become months, not years. Sorry if this offends you but if it does, then think a minute about why it offends you. Then go shoot some pictures in a 3rd World Country or even just a poor part of town."

could not have said it better.
teach canon a lesson.. don´t buy overpriced stuff you don´t really need.

Nothing wrong with choices, look at the 70-200L range, 4 lenses there and all are brilliant and have their uses. Personally, I'd never pay the extra money for IS unless doing video work. It just isn't a justifiable expense.

As for dumb Canon decisions lately, I'd call putting wifi/gps gimmicks into the 6D, but not built in wireless flash triggers for the new 600ex range, a bigger WTF than an f4 lens in the most popular focal range.

I can't believe they did not do SD dual card slots. If you have SD cards, then you have eye-fi cards. The OEM, obviously, would like to sell you their wifi solution. 

This is a little off the the subject but I have a 24-105f4L that I rarely used. After sending it back 2 times for adjustment it has become one of my most used lenses. Same with my 70-200 2.8 IS. It came back way better than when I first bought it.

This is the worst decission Canon made. I wasn't expecting this from Canon. Really disappointed. 

Canon has made this lens to sell along the upcoming 6D. Its lighter than both the 2.8 and the 24-105, which will appeal to those who are buying the 6D for its size. Some people will also argue that if a lens has less zoom it is closer to prime and therefore better. The 24-105 has 4.37 X zoom while the 24-70 has 2.9 X

great points, I share your sentiments exactly and have been waiting on the sideline for years now (since the 5Dmk2) for a great new innovation + value _without_compromises_ from Canon in bodies and lenses, but have not seem much compared to what Nikon, Sony, Tamron, and others have put out. maybe only the 70-200 2.8 IS v2 has delivered imho. I wish they would have just released an updated 24-105 in image quality and IS, maybe even 2.8 if possible.

Canon's been irritating me too. After supporting it for 4 years, collecting FF lenses, they just kept disappointing. The 6D was the last straw with its stupid video features that has no audio mic port; if i wanted to pay more than a D700 or a used 5D mk2 for a camera, it better have proper video functions like an elementary audio mic port.
I hopped over to Nikon and got a D700 on a discount. Never regretted it.

If it drops to the same price as the 24-105L, it'll be a good deal, especially having better sharpness and of course, macro, in addition to the smaller and lighter design. 

Jan Viktorin's picture

While I understand all your concerns, I feel like I need to defend the lens a bit :)
I'm almost exclusively a landscape photographer - this means lugging a backpack on long hikes, using tripod for most of my shooting and often being in a bad weather. 24-105 is a great lens, but I do not need the 70-105 range - that's where the 70-200 f/4 L IS comes in ... so if I can get a smaller, lighter, better built lens that has even better image quality than the 24-105 with better stabilization for the times when I'm not using a tripod, I'm quite happy. And the added value of very short MFD and   high maximum magnification is also great - I can leave the 100mm macro home on the trips where I usually take in "just in case", and now that is some weight saving (yes, the image quality remains to be seen for macro application, but I'm an optimist :) )
I don't shoot video, so I can't comment on that, but if I were, I would use faster primes anyway, not the 24-105.
Yes, the price is steep, but for me, it's more than justified... Heck, I've spent money on Zeiss wideangle that has no AF, is slippery as hell, freezing cold in colder weather, and I still feel like its one of the best investments I made ... and I think this new 24-70 might be the next one ...

Canon seems to be applying the "underpants business" lately...

oh....... but its the red ring that captures my imagination.....

The 24-70mm ƒ/2.8 is now discontinued according to my B&H cart.

Do they not have 4 flavors of the 70-200? how is this any different?

Victor's picture

I like this lens and already pre-ordered a copy from B&H. Leaving aside what other dislike is already evident. Less look at why I chose it. I don't have a lens in this range for my 5Dmk3 only Pancake, 100L and 70-300L. So have a lens in this range is very welcome for me. 2/ it sharper then the 24-105 and will probably have better contrast similar to the 24-70 ii. 3/ it has a macro mode I'm very curious to check since I love my 100L. plus by the discription of the Hybrid IS , could be the same as in the 100L. 4/ this has to be the best 24-70L for travel because of size and weight. 5/  the Tamron has focusing issues and soft at 70mm while this lens will be much sharper and evenly throught the entire range ( no uneven sharpness ). 6/ Even after trying Sigma's 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.4 I found so far only Canon lenses give all the full capabilities of the 5Dmk3's AF system, while all the others I have tried so far do not. 7/ I use a T4i as my back up for now and having a crop body only extends my range with all my lenses including this one. And last but not least I do agree this lens is over priced. Should be in the range of 1100-1200, not 1500 USD. 

I agree with vc_scorpion.  The lesser zoom ratio [than the 24-105] will likely also result in faster AF. And for those whose subjects include more DOF, the f4's sweet spot (f8-11) will provide more DOF than the f2.8's  f5.6-8. That, plus half a pound lighter, plus macro.  (I never see anyone complain about Canon's 70-200 f4 lens.)  I don't like the price either; perhaps I'll wait awhile until someone returns theirs in near-new condition and I can buy it "refurbished".  :) 

[Excuse me if this is a double-post; the website seems to have eaten up my first post]
I agree with vc_scorpion.  The 24-70mm's lower zoom ratio (than the 24-105) will likely result in quicker AF.  And those of us who like to shoot landscapes with lots of DOF will benefit from the f/4's sweet spot (around f/8-11) over the faster lens' sweet spot of around f/5.6-8.  That, plus half a pound lighter, plus macro.  And I'm guessing it's waaay finer glass than the 24-105.  We'll see.  Yes, the price sucks; I'm thinking of waiting till someone returns their near-new lens so I can pick it up "refurbished".  

I WILL admit that Canon got the whole IS thing backasswards...... those of us who'll be using the f/4 lens on a FF body on a tripod will have to turn off the IS anyway.....LOL......those who shoot weddings or other events handheld at f/2.8 are the ones who would've benefitted more from the IS, especially at 70mm.

Better image quality, improved IS, lighter, macro abilities. Apart from lacking one f-stop this looks like the perfect walk-around lens.

My EXACT thought when comparing the 6D with the 5D Mark III. Only ONE cross-type AF point vs the M3 having 41. Even the less expensive 7D has 19. But of course, for those making the move to full frame, they want consumers to buy the more expensive 5DM3.

This is an excellent lens. Yes, it was too expensive when originally released, but lately it is just a little bit cheaper than the old 24-104, and is a bit cheaper still than the upcoming 24-105 mk II.'

The way I see it Canon is offering different lenses for different needs, and you are free to choose the best one for your needs.

I've used the old 24-105 for three years and never loved it. It was adequately sharp on my 6D and 5D3 cameras, extremely versatile, but heavy for an f/4, and had too much distortion at the wide end to replace a 24mm prime.

The 24-70 mk II is simply outstanding in every way, but is heavier still, lacks IS, and is even more expensive, though it can and does easily replace a 24mm prime.

The upcoming 24-105 mk II looks to be a real winner, bringing all of the advantages of Canon's new generation IS and improved 24mm performance from this lens, with the longer reach of the old 24-105, though again with a penalty in weight and slightly higher cost.

What do you want in a standard zoom?

For me, I had a pre-order in on the updated 24-105, but decided to cancel it and buy this 24-70 f/4. I doubt the new 24-105 will be enough sharper or better corrected for distortion to justify the added cost ($400 over the $700 I paid for my brand-new 24-70/4) and the weight savings is significant for my primary use for a standard zoom, which is as a family travel (non-photography trips) lens and as a replacement for a dedicated 24mm prime. Sure, I like the added zoom range on the 24-105mm lenses, but for the family travel photos and books I make (never larger than 11X14") I have plenty of cropping potential from my 20 and 22 MP files to make do with 70mm. Such outings are always just two lens trips, with a fast prime (50/1.2 or 35/1.4) that stays in the hotel unless I'm going out at night, in which case I leave the zoom behind.

For photography-specific trips, I carry a four lens kit, with the zoom covering 24mm, and then 35mm, 50mm and 100mm (macro) primes. I find for serious photography that I use a 35mm lens more than any other, and no zoom lens comes close to Canon's new 35mm f/1.4 mk II at any aperture or distance. For family travel, I tend to again stay at 35mm on the zoom, but use the zoom ring when the location forces me step back or forward more than the environment allows. I'm just a 35mm prime kind of guy, and will often leave my entire Canon kit at home and just take my Leica with a 35mm lens and not feel in any way under-equipped.

So for my usage pattern, the 24-70/4 is the best option. Cheaper than the other two "modern" Canon 24-xxx zooms, and much better at the wide end than the old 24-105, while smaller and significantly lighter than any of them. Not perfect, but definitely the Goldilocks choice for my needs.