My wish: 24-105 f/2.8 IS L ... feasible ?

[roli_bark]

Is this wish out-of-line ?
Is it feasible to manufacture & sell ?

[CoolToolGuy]

I don't think Canon would produce such a lens with the existing 24-105 L in the market. If it was an upgrade to that one, maybe. Add to that consideration the 24-70 L - too many lenses in a similar range.

As for a Brand-X manufacturer? Who can tell?

Have Fun,

[sjafari]

I agree with CoolToolGuy.. the 24-105L is too new for me to imagine Canon replacing it with an upgrade.. but damn it would be nice (and probably pretty heavy!).

[canoflan]

Your best hope is when Canon releases a new lens(es) next year, they may surprise you with a fast configuration. Assuming a FF L lens, I think they may release a 16-80 2.8 or, better yet, a 50-150 2.8 because the 50 is so popular, but people will kill for a range like this on a FF. Then again, what do I know...:confused:

[liza]

With the way lenses are currently manufactured, it would be too heavy. I wish they would come up with a way to produce such lens, however, as it's precisely what I need. :)

[Blue S2]

I think 16-80 or similar with IS and a 2.8 would awesome! I've always wished my 24-105L was 2.8. That would make things much easier for me!

[ScottE]

Doesn't Tamron have a 28-105 f/2.8? I think I looked at this lens when I was shooting film, but was not impressed by image quality.

[roli_bark]

...
it would be too heavy.
...


Look at the 70-200 f2.8 IS - it is heavy like a Tank, but still immenesly popular ! It is a marketting issue rather a technical one.

IMO,
50-150 f2.8 doesn't make sense, market-wise.
24-105 f2.8 IS makes sense, market-wise ... I think ... or does it ? :rolleyes:

[ScottE]

Look at the 70-200 f2.8 IS - it is heavy like a Tank, but still immenesly popular ! It is a marketting issue rather a technical one.

IMO,
50-150 f2.8 doesn't make sense, market-wise.
24-105 f2.8 IS makes sense, market-wise ... I think ... or does it ? :rolleyes:

50-150 f/2.8 EF-S makes a lot of sense because it would work well with the 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S and serve the same function that a 70-200 f/2.8 fills on a full frame camera.

24-105 f/2.8 EF is unlikely because it would be a 4.375x zoom and I am not aware of any EF f/2.8 zooms that are even 3x. I believe that the only f/2.8 zoom that exceeds 3x is the 17-55 EF-S and that is probably only because it is designed for a smaller sensor. Maybe some new advance in DO or other technology would make it possible but I won't hold my breath.

[roli_bark]

How about the EF 100-400 (4.000x zoom) which is a pretty darn-good piece of optics ?
[ also look at the Nikon 18-200 ] ...

I still believe it's not a Technical issue, but rather a Marketing one.

[jevidon]

did any of you see the 24-70 2.8 IS L that is rumored to come out? :drool:

[roli_bark]

did any of you see the 24-70 2.8 IS L that is rumored to come out? :drool:

Where did you see this ?

[jevidon]

Where did you see this ?

from this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2459589#post2459589):

I was reading northlight-images.co.uk and saw that they posted up a new lens rumor...

- Canon ef 200mm F/2.8 L USM IS -1000Eur
- Canon ef 400mm F/4 L USM IS -1400 Eur
- canon ef 10-24 F/2.8 L USM - 1200Eur
- Canon ef 24-70 F/2.8 L USM IS - 1000Eur
- Canon ef 100-400 F/4 L USM IS(3) -1200Eur

I was wondering what everyone thinks of this rumor. The 10-24 would be an interesting and would hurt the 16-35mm market which I don't understand why Canon would come out with this lens since the 16-35mm isn't that old of a lens. The 24-70mm would be a nice upgrade but I don't know how it would do with the 24-105mm close to the same price range. The new 100-400 would be a nice upgrade.

[AdamJL]

I don't think Canon would produce such a lens with the existing 24-105 L in the market. If it was an upgrade to that one, maybe. Add to that consideration the 24-70 L - too many lenses in a similar range.


ha. That's what everyone said when I thought Canon should introduce a 70-200 f/4 IS.

And look what happened ;)

[jevidon]

ha. That's what everyone said when I thought Canon should introduce a 70-200 f/4 IS.

And look what happened ;)pwned. ;)

[roli_bark]

If a 24-70 f/2.8 IS shows & is sharp, I'd buy it in a heart beat.

[jevidon]

If a 24-70 f/2.8 IS shows & is sharp, I'd buy it in a heart beat.That makes two of us...I wouldn't even care if I couldn't afford it...Buy first, ask questions later.

[thewavebb]

When it comes to buying camera gear...I find it easier to say sorry to my wife rather then asking permission. :D

[jevidon]

When it comes to buying camera gear...I find it easier to say sorry to my wife rather then asking permission. :Dcan't imagine having to explain this to the wife......so instead I'm buying all the gear long before I get married! :)

[Blue S2]

can't imagine having to explain this to the wife......so instead I'm buying all the gear long before I get married! :)

Thats right! :D

[Rokkorfan]

When it comes to buying camera gear...I find it easier to say sorry to my wife rather then asking permission. :D

Nah, you just don't let her know - as if she could tell the difference between the 24-70mm IS and non-IS ;)

[Salleke]

I don't think Canon would produce such a lens with the existing 24-105 L in the market. If it was an upgrade to that one, maybe. Add to that consideration the 24-70 L - too many lenses in a similar range.

As for a Brand-X manufacturer? Who can tell?

Have Fun,

To many in a similar range?

Canon have:

70-200 f2.8 IS
70-200 f2.8
70-200 f4 IS
70-200 f4

Isn't that to much in this range?

I hope deep inside that the 24-108 f2.8 someday will be made.

Good luck.

[CoolToolGuy]

To many in a similar range?

Canon have:

70-200 f2.8 IS
70-200 f2.8
70-200 f4 IS
70-200 f4

Isn't that to much in this range?

I hope deep inside that the 24-108 f2.8 someday will be made.

Good luck.

You make a good point, but IMHO the 70-200 range is the Number One "second lens" after the walkaround. Its used by just about every different type of photog, they each have their advantages, and Canon probably sells enough of them to justify all 4. Just a guess, but the demand for shorter focal lengths may be being satisfied with primes such that two (or four if you include the 24-70 L and the EF-S 17-55 IS) may be enough. Other than those points, I don't have a strong rebuttal.

I'm not against such a lens - in fact, the f/4 is one thing that has kept me from going after the 24-105 L IS. Let's hope you're correct.

Have Fun,