New Canon Lens: 24-70mm F/4 with IS

Canon is adding another lens to their lineup with a 24-70mm F/4L IS. According to this B&H product page, the new lens will run $1499 (seen here).

I'm not sure how well this lens will work out for the average consumer as there is already a Canon 24-105mm F/4L IS for $1149 (see here). What's your thoughts?

Canon 24-70mm F4 L
find-price-button Canon EF 24-70mm f/4.0L IS USM Standard Zoom Lens

23 thoughts on “New Canon Lens: 24-70mm F/4 with IS

  1. Ruth

    I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 on my 40D and now 7D. It didn't work from day one out the box. It has now been in for repair twice and every time it comes out works for maybe 100 shots and then fails again. As such I am considering the 24-70mm f/4 to replace it - hopefully I won't miss the wider 17-24mm range.

    Anyone else had problems with the 17-55mm?

  2. Emm

    Post author

    @Tyrone A. - The 17-55mm F/2.8 is great for non-full frame cameras. On a full frame you can't fit the EF-S 17-55mm and would have to use the 24-70mm. The Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 has image stabilization while the Canon does not which is handy for video.

  3. Tyrone A.

    So for video wise mainly is what I use my dslr for what would be a better buy the canon 24-70mm f/4 or the tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 would the extra cash be worth the money or would the extra stop be the game changer? Or I been told the 17-55mm f/2.8 is a good way to go.

  4. JOSE

    HIS is the $hit!!! I'm in love with my 100mm 2.8L IS, and i'm actually thinking of replacing my old 24-70 2.8L with this new 24-70 4L HIS... All from a video-lens perspective, of course! Stills-wise, probably not the best idea...

  5. Cinepixtor

    I must be the one one excited about this lens - the key for me is the "hybrid" IS that this one has - presumably the same "hybrid" IS that the 100mm 2.8L IS has. Let me tell you, the 100mm L rocks when shooting video hand held and IS is enabled. Can't wait - from the sounds of it there shouldn't be any shortages since just about everyone is disappointed with it.

  6. Emm

    Post author

    @Nemo Scrilla - I personally think the lens you are working with is one of the best for a 60D. I would try renting one first, but I think you're already getting great results from your current lens.

  7. Nemo Scrilla

    Looking to upgrade to "L" glass for my 60d. I currently have 17-55 f2.8 IS which I like. How would the 24-105 f/4 L IS or the 24-70 compare - a bit concerned about going from f 2.8 to f 4 on my 60d from low light and bokeh perspective. Would one of these lenses be a good replacement for my current 17-55 f2.8 IS? - thanks.

  8. Austin

    @Olphus I am glad you pointed that out because before I saw no point to this lens. Wish I could afford it but hey I might rent it in the future on projects where its needed (and I am working with a Canon camera, thats another problem with this lens.)

  9. Olphus

    OK, it's understandable that most have missed the one and only feature that makes this lens actually quite interesting - and that is: HIS (Hybrid Image Stabilization)!!!!!!!!!!!
    Those whom have tried the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro with Hybrid Image Stabilization say 'HIS' is miles apart from regular IS especially for video. V. Laforet has said about 'HIS' "it's almost like having a built-in gyro" and so have others.

    'HIS' is a little like 3D IS compared to regular 2D IS.

    F/2.8 is generally too shallow for following a subject. Also, with newer cameras with better ISO performance f/4 indoors and low light conditions is less of an issue.
    You still actually need f/4 and slower for greater depth of field in most situations (it's not all about pretty images.)
    For some reason image stabilization remains very unappreciated in the film community.
    The fact that Canon has introduced 'HIS' to a second lens should be very exciting for any filmmaker.

  10. @Zane

    7D + 17-55 f2.8 vs 5D3 + 24-105 f4

    I can tell you clearly that the 5d3 wins in every aspect.

    F4 on full frame is actually equivalent to f2.8 on APS-C in terms of bokeh (out of focus blur quality). Added to the fact that the L goes up to 105mm, the focal length adds to the bokeh quality as well and it just shines.

    The camera itself (5d3) works like a low light monster so it really just shrugs off the F4 aperture.

    All that being said, I do agree that a 24-105 f2.8 IS would be a really amazing lens to have.

    It'll also probably cost a bomb. xD

  11. Rob S.

    This is a newer lens design with a shorter zoom range so will probably have better IQ than the 24-105, which was never stellar to begin with. It's a good lens but it's never been one of Canon's best L offerings. Plus this lens is a macro with hybrid IS which is what the Canon 100mm macro has. That's not a bad combo and different than the 24-105 in more ways than one. It's an overlap but not as bad as everyone seems to make it out to be.

  12. Emm

    Post author

    @bkpr100 - The lens is actually more expensive so it's not making the camera bundle any cheaper. If paired with the 24-105mm F/4L IS the 6D kit would be cheaper than with this new lens.

  13. bkpr100

    I'd have to agree that their introducing this lens is more a result of them needing a new one to pair with the 6D. That way it keeps the kit at a competitive price point with a new L series lens. Otherwise making this lens available really makes no sense at all.

  14. A new 24-70mm f/2.8L without IS was unexpected and a big letdown. But a 24-70mm F/4L IS? That's just plain silly. What would be the advantage of getting this lens over the already available and reputable 24-105mm f/4L IS ?? Both have the same aperture, both have stabilization, both have the famous red ring, but the 24-105mm has more reach on the tele and is 350$ cheaper. Why would someone consider buying the new 24-70mm f/4L IS? Why would Canon even consider releasing such a lens? Are we missing something here? I'm getting more and more frustrated at Canon lately.

  15. Rob S.

    I think it's supposed to be a kit lens that's offered with the 6D. It's a lot cheaper than the 2.8 version, lighter and more compact and it has macro capability.

  16. Paul you probably don't have a mark III that is why you think 2.8 is the ish.
    if you can show me a noticiable difference of bokeh at 2.8 vs 4 your statement could be right :) ie. by looking at clips you can tell its a 2.8 or 4

    or do you have any other reason why you like 2.8?

    just my two cents

  17. JSS

    As someone that doesn't have either lens and a low budget I would definitely go for the 24-105. It has a great reputation, wider focal range and more importantly for me a lower price tag.

    Speaking of lenses and budgets, what are your guys' favourite lenses under 1k?

  18. What the heck!

    I gasped out loud thinking in my head that it was a 24-70 F2.8 with IS but instead canon shoves a 24-70 F4 when there is already CLEARLY a kit which reaches up all the way to 105mm and is even cheaper.

    Really don't understand why anyone would get this lens unless it has some kind of miraculous IS or superior image quality over the 24-105.

    I use my 24-105 IS quite a bit on my 5d3 and its been a really great workhorse all round lens for me. Would i buy the 24-70 F4 IS? No.

    Would i try it to give it a shot? Maybe.

    Meh. Disappointing first impression :(

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

RSS Feed Widget