Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Dropped to $1,299… Is it still too much?

Canon 24-70mm f4

The Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS USM appears to have received another $100 price drop. It was originally selling for $1,499 until it received a $100 price drop earlier this month. Now, it is showing up for $1,299 here at B&H Photo.

I suspect that Canon has had a hard time moving these at $1,500 a pop when the long-time favorite EF 24-105mm f/4L IS zoom is available for $1,149 retail and they’re always available refurbished for under $1000. In fact, right now, the Canon Store has a sale on refurb 24-105mm units at under $800.

The 24-105mm focal length range is fantastic for an everyday lens, with the ability to work at typical landscape and portrait focal lengths without changing lenses. That extra 35mm at the long end is probably too much for a lot of shooters to give up – particularly on top of the price difference noted above, and in spite of the smaller size.

Unless Canon drops the 24-70mm f/4 IS lens below $1,000 or kills off the 24-105mm entirely, I just don’t see it overtaking the 24-105mm. And maybe that’s not Canon’s plan, but is sure seemed that way when the lens was originally introduced.

Do you think the 24-70mm f/4L IS USM is priced right at $1,299? If not, what’s the right price?

Do you prefer it over the 24-105mm f/4 IS USM? Why or why not?

Sound off in the comments below…



  1. Jim L says

    Canon lenses are awesome, no doubt about it but over $2000 for the 2.8 version of 24-70mm is almost criminal. Now, move it up to a 4.0 and charge $1500…that IS criminal. I have Canon bodies and as much as i would love to have either lens, they simply outpriced me. I bought a Tamron version years ago and have been extremely satisfied… price at the time was $350. Back then I believe the Canon 2.8 version of 24-70mm was around $1500, almost 5 times the price. Sorry but the Tamron is not 5 times inferior. Canon’s pricing on many of their lenses is criminal but they are obviously selling them so why should they lower prices? I believe the 2.8 would be fair at $1600 and the 4.0 version would be fair priced at $900…. but hey, they will never go that low and so, i keep buying Tamron and/or Sigma and have not been disappointed yet.

    • greyhorse says

      agree with you 101%. Tamron’s newest 24-70 F2.8 is so far the wisest buy

  2. EricB says are offering the 24-105 for $749 Australian, (grey import) brand new. IMO this is a superb lens across its entire zoom range. Why on earth would I pay up to double for a lens with half the zoom range but same aperture? Given the clarity of the 24-105 what can the other lens offer me? What image improvement if any is going to earn me the price difference? What lens do I now need buy (and sell photography to pay for) to cover the lens range gap? A local camera store suggested than Canon intend to drop the 24-105 from their range (silly sales pitch I hope), if that were so I’d rush out and buy a backup or two of same.

  3. says

    Why they even made this lens is beyond me. Photographers have been begging for a 24-70 f2.8 IS lens. But f4 at a higher price than the 24-105 is just crazy! $999 would still be too high!

  4. Radek says

    I agree, this is ridiculous. First of all, who needs 24-70/4 when there is 24-105/4? If they would be selling 24-70/4 for about 700 dollars, then some might consider buying it. Photographers are waiting for 24-70/2.8 with IS, for improved version of ancient 100-400, for something like 200-400 but affordable or 120-300/2.8, but Canon wastes their time on developing worse duplicates of lenses they already make. I don’t get their strategy. But fine Canon, keep playing. Meantime I am getting 120-300/2.8 from Sigma. Sure it is not cheap, but even if Canon would make one, I am sure their price would be double, so… You are loosing devoted customer Canon. Wake up, start responding to the market needs and stop being greedy or competition will eat you. If Sigma or Tamron can make good lenses for hundreds, there is no reason why Canon should charge thousands.

  5. Tim Bambrough says

    I have used Canon bodies since before the D became part of SLR. But I with Jim and others. I do not understand why Canon would spend the time and money to develope a lens that fits into the range of another. It certainly seems silly and a waste of money. Maybe that is why Canon lenses are alway at the top of the price range. When I was looking for a wide angle lens aftdr doing my homework I could not justify by a Canon lens when the Tamron SP 17- 50 F2 Di II rated almost as good in every catagory and was about one thrid of the price. I shoot architecture for a living and this lens is my workhorse. For the price of the Canon versio of this lens I could by 3 from Tamron.
    I am now always looking at Tamron and Sigma first. Between these two companies I can get most of my lens needs taken care of and I dont have to take out a loan to pay for them. I also have a few Sigma lenes and they are very good lenses as well. Photography gear is expensive enough I certainly try to keep the costs down. So if it is in the lens area that I can save money at no cost to the photograph than I feel I am being the smart one.

  6. Leo says

    I never understood the 24-70 F4.0 in the first place. Something wrong with the 24-105 F4? Yes, the construction, creeps like mad,but I can live with that.

    So point one, no need for this lens.

    All the new lenses from Canon are overpriced. Maybe an professional 24-70 F2.8 will get away with that, but for me, I went for the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 with IS for half the price.
    The more amateur like 24-70 F4 cost nearly twice as much as the good old 24-105 F4.

    Point two, much to expensive.

  7. Radek says

    I would love to hear from people who actually bought that lens. What made you guys buy it? I am pretty sure Canon sold very few of those. It seems to me this lens is more of a collector’s item, than real photographer’s.

  8. Eugene Powers says

    I was going to write a long essay why this lens should not have been introduced at all at any price but I am going just to say this: CANON IS STUPID. And it is not just about this lens.

  9. says

    Well I guess I must be stupid then because I bought one and I love it. I have both the 24-70 f4 and the 24-105 f4. The 24-70 is sharper than the 24-105, the IS is much faster kicking in, and the macro is better. I tried the Tamron 24-70 2.8, and maybe I got a bad one but it didn’t come close to the Canon 24-70 in terms of sharpness or focus speed, I returned it and bought the Canon. It is my main lens for my Glamour/Portrait photography and I sold my Canon 24-70 2.8 MK I and bought the 24-70 f4 because I need the IS. I have not been disappointed!!

  10. FrancoisR says


    I’m trying to find a reason here. Maybe these new lenses are opening the way to the new high mpx bodies about to emerge from Canon? I had the 24-70 L f2.8 for three years and it’s a superb lens. Nothing compares to it’s built, IQ and sharpness from the aftermarket. Beleive me you must have owned one of these to appreciate. I did not switch to the MKII for almost twice the price cause the MKI is so great. So I suspect Canon has something up it’s sleeve that we cannot, poor mortals we are, understand yet. I have a D800 also and 36 mpx is a killer for older lenses. They dont have the resolution power and I had to renew quite a few of my previous lenses. I prefer L lenses all the way but recently I went on the market for a 200m f2 stabilised. I bought a Nikon instead because it’s almost $2K less for about same performance. Canon are overpriced yes but they have no equal period.

    • FrancoisR says

      I’m using a 5D MKIII that I upgraded from the MKII. Better than the previous version (FPS and AF)? Not that much really. But the D800 makes better pictures, given proper light, time, wind speed, luck etc… lol. My Canon bodies have been faultless so far. I cannot say the same for Nikon. My buddy uses a 5D MKII with Magic Lantern and he gets astonishing results with it. Just waiting for a non “Alfa” version for mine. The non compressed video is very interesting…