Canon Announces a New 24-70mm Midrange Zoom – Would You Sacrifice Aperture for Image Stabilization?

Image via Canon.com

After much speculation, Canon has officially announced a brand new lens, the EF 24-70mm f/4 , its first-ever midrange zoom with Image Stabilization (IS). The new lens will feature a constant f/4 aperture and a new macro function with a maximum magnifcation of .7x, allowing for the ability to achieve beautiful bokeh blurring for portraits and up-close images. Additionally, an all-new IS system will be featured on this lens, reducing camera shake and ensuring sharp imagery at all focal lengths. The autofocus (AF) performance has also been enhanced on the new lens, allowing for quiet and immediate autofocusing. In terms of external build, the EF 24-70mm f/4 IS USM is constructed of high-grade materials resistant to dust and moisture.

Prior to the 24-70mm f/4, Canon's bread and butter was the 24-70mm f/2.8 , a favorite midrange zoom that recently had a second version released for nearly $1,000 more than version I. Canon first introduced the 24-70 to its line in the 1990s and has never implemented Image Stabilization (IS) in order to keep the len's constant f/2.8 aperture. This new version of the 24-70mm trades aperture for stabilization, and in this case, a brand new hybrid IS system that will compensate for both shift and angular shake. As a result, the new 24-70mm f/4 comes with a hefty price tag of $1500, just several hundred dollars shy of its f/2.8 sibling, and several hundred dollars more expensive than the $1,299 Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 which does include image stabilization.

What do you think, Canon fans? Would you pick the f/4 version of the 24-70mm over the f/2.8 version, or would you dare stray to a third party lens vendor? For those interested in pre-ordering the 24-70mm f/4, click here!
¬

The price on this thing doesn't make sense.

If I was a Canon owner I would rather go with the f/2.8, the f/4 is nice, but I would want the low light performance.

I'll stick with the 2.8

Scotty wrote: The price on this thing doesn't make sense.

Who in their right mind would buy this over the 24-105? Same aperture, both have IS, and the 24-105 gives you more focal range for less money - you can find it as low as ~$900 fairly often.

Perhaps Canon is getting a head start on price increases. Seriously what about the quality of the glass in this?

rmeyer7 wrote:

Scotty wrote: The price on this thing doesn't make sense.

Who in their right mind would buy this over the 24-105? Same aperture, both have IS, and the 24-105 gives you more focal range for less money - you can find it as low as ~$900 fairly often.

It's more than likely sharper. Probably has better controlled distortion etc. A lot of people would sacrifice 105mm for sharpness.

Personally I AM going to buy the 24-70 2.8L II (waiting for Canon to get it in so I can get a discount). 2.8 is more important to me than IS. I shoot people more than static things and having the speed is more important than counteracting my movements.

This might appeal to some people, especially people who like to shoot video with IS.

go for the 2.8 if you have the extra $$

on the f2.8

True, some would sacrifice the 105 for sharpness. But it would have to be quite a bit sharper - my 24-105 is already excellent. Unless this new lens puts out results like the 135L at all lengths there wouldn't be enough sharpness improvement to be worth the price (for me).

And if I were looking for a 24-70 there's no way I'd choose this over the f/2.8. It just seems like Canon was trying to fill a hole in their lens lineup that wasn't really there.