24-105 f2.8 IS?

[bsmith6280]

Anyone? Anyone? Am I the only one?

[Jim G]

Good lord.. that thing would be huge :p

[bsmith6280]

Huge I can handle so long it is not like a 400 f2.8

[Blue S2]

Unless they go with DO maybe??

[Salleke]

Good lord.. that thing would be huge :p

It would be about 1.4 Kg and I would be happy to have such a lens and carry it allday offcourse.

I wisch us good luck ... ;)

[DenZ]

That would be godly... up the quality to 24-70 standards throughout the entire range while you're at it:p

[blackshadow]

And it would cut into the market of two of Canon's best selling L zooms - the 24-70 f2.8 and the 24-105 f4 IS... I doubt such a lens will be made and if so it would be priced accordingly - at least the price of the current 24-70 + 24-105IS. If anything new in this type of range comes out I'd reckon on a 24-70IS.

[Salleke]

And it would cut into the market of two of Canon's best selling L zooms - the 24-70 f2.8 and the 24-105 f4 IS... I doubt such a lens will be made and if so it would be priced accordingly - at least the price of the current 24-70 + 24-105IS. If anything new in this type of range comes out I'd reckon on a 24-70IS.

Look at te 70-200 L range from Canon. There are now 4 types.
Does this cutting not apply on these lenses?

I hope to see th 24-105 in 208 and IS but the 24-70 in 2.8 and IS would be a
dream lens too.

Good luck to all of us.

[calicokat]

It would kill off two of Canon's current lenses

[ipacmm]

I wouldn't mind upgrading my 24-105mm f/4 IS to an f/2.8 IS version. If they do come out with it, I am sure it will be expensive and will build a price range like the 70-200mm lenses.

[DenZ]

I wouldn't mind laying down 500 more bucks for an f/2.8 version that's nice and sharp. I'd put down even more if they released a 4-stop IS version.

[august23]

A 24-70 2.8 IS seems more likely. The 24-105 is newer, and it would probably cut into the sales of their f/4 IS version.

[SunTsu]

Judging by one of the other posts on the "lens kits", I don't think the 24-105mm will be replaced anytime soon. I'm saying this because I just took a quick glance and at least two kits came with the 24-105mm 4.0L

[darktiger]

That would a awesome lens IMO. A 24-105 2.8 IS. Imagine if they came out with a 17-105 2.8 IS.....That would be a killer lens....

[printsrich]

That would a awesome lens IMO. A 24-105 2.8 IS. Imagine if they came out with a 17-105 2.8 IS.....That would be a killer lens....

I'll take that 17-105 2.8IS !!! That's a dream walk-around/travel lens !!

[jsimon724]

A dream walkaround travel lens?

Are you serious? It would have to weigh about 5 lbs. That's not my idea of a travel lens.:lol:

Jim

[NickSimcheck]

A dream walkaround travel lens?

Are you serious? It would have to weigh about 5 lbs. That's not my idea of a travel lens.:lol:

Jim


Not if it was APS-C sized.

But for full frame, yeah that's a dream world.

[sandpiper]

It would kill off two of Canon's current lenses

Not really. Most people either opt for the shorter ranged, but faster 24-70 OR the longer ranged but slower and with IS 24-105. I imagine very few people would buy both, as they do broadly similar jobs, but there are occasions when you might wish you had the other one. One lens offering the best features of both would cost significantly more than either, and likely be bought instead of one of the others. I have the 24-105 as I rarely need a fast aperture for moving targets (with that lens) and the IS compensates with static subjects. I also have a couple of fast primes which can be used if I do need a fast lens, I wouldn't buy another zoom covering a range I already have just for a little extra speed.

If I had neither, I would currently have the normal dilemma shorter/faster or longer/slower/IS. If the 24-105 f2.8 IS existed, I would very seriously consider it instead of buying one of the others. Yes, it would take sales from each of them but, as it would be considerably more expensive I doubt Canon would mind, most people would still opt for one of the two current lenses anyway and save money. Besides, the lens range is so comprehensive most of canons lenses compete with at least one other, look at all the 70-200s that must take sales off each other. It's one thing I really like about Canon, there are so many lens options you can, generally, tailor you purchases to what you need.

As another comparison (OK, I'm ignoring the resulting size factor in this particular comparison, that would be less of a problem on the lens we are discussing): I have use for a 70-200 f2.8L IS and the 100-400 f4-5.6L IS because I use the 100-400 a lot but, when the light fades and I am shooting animals, I start to get motion blur as the shutter speed falls and the animal turns it's head. At this point I would ideally switch to the 70-200 for the faster aperture. Sadly, I don't have one as it's FL is basically duplicating what I already have and I can't justify the price for occasional use, in conditions where the light is just at that level where this lens is still usable but the 100-400 isn't. The 70-200 would never be bought instead of the 100-400, because I need the reach (85% of the time I am above 200mm). If Canon offered a 100-400 L IS f2.8-3.5 I would buy it, even if it cost the same as both the other lenses combined. It would give me f2.8 up to 200mm, probably a little more, plus a faster speed at the long end and would only involve carrying the one lens.

[AngryCorgi]

Not likely...Canon is not in the habit of stepping on its own feet. The current 24-105 f/4L is still wearing diapers; way too early for anyone in Canon to consider upgrading the same focal range. My guess would be the release of some lame EF-S lens.

[DVS_WiNdz]

that would be a nice lens

[unferth]

but... the 17-55 2.8 is already exists and would only be 7mm wider than a 24-105.... something that would make more sense in the EF-S world is 50-150 2.8 IS (and that would be sweet)...

[davidwegs]

I don't think this would be much use to most as the weight would kill the deal.

[JohnnyG]

Personally, I would see no need for a 24-105 2.8. I love my 24-105 as it is and couldn't care less about 2.8 on it. I wouldn't buy it if they did make it, just like I didn't buy the 24-70 2.8 because of it's short range compared to the 24-105.

To me, the 24-105 is as near a perfect lens as it is. Very sharp, colorful, and a great range.

[IB///M]

would a 17-70 f/2.8L IS be eaiser to make? i would prefer that since i'm using a crop body, 400D or 40D ;)

[Overkill]

I'll take that 17-105 2.8IS !!! That's a dream walk-around/travel lens !!


17-105 2.8IS at a 24-70 2.8 Quality level will be (at this time) impossible for a
payable price!

The 24-70 2.8 IS will be a logical option! (in the near future "all" Lenses will be
equiped with IS!

[dtngo]

I doubt Canon will ever release a f/2.8 lens with 4x zoom. The fastest 4x they've got is the 24-105 f/4. The others are variable aperture.

[vic6string]

I'll take a 24-105 f2.8-4. I am strongly considering a 24-105 now as a walkaround for my xti, but aside from the 24 being just a tad too long on the wide end (which I can live with) the f4 just isn't quite fast enough for me on the wide end. I love taking closeups of my kids in the 24-55 range at about 2.8 for the narrow DOF. Alot of the shots are also indoors which require the speed on the wide end. Once you go to the tele side, f4 is enough.

[Overkill]

I'll take a 24-105 f2.8-4. I am strongly considering a 24-105 now as a walkaround for my xti, but aside from the 24 being just a tad too long on the wide end (which I can live with) the f4 just isn't quite fast enough for me on the wide end. I love taking closeups of my kids in the 24-55 range at about 2.8 for the narrow DOF. Alot of the shots are also indoors which require the speed on the wide end. Once you go to the tele side, f4 is enough.


If you take more distance (at 105) the F4 will give you the same DOF (or somewhat shallower) than 2.8 at 55mm.

[vic6string]

If you take more distance (at 105) the F4 will give you the same DOF (or somewhat shallower) than 2.8 at 55mm.

Yeah, but indoors there are alot of times when I can't stand back far enough to make 105 (or even 55 for that matter) a viable option. Indoors I shoot primarily 24-50ish mm.

[SIMPLEPHOTOLT]

Yeah, but indoors there are alot of times when I can't stand back far enough to make 105 (or even 55 for that matter) a viable option. Indoors I shoot primarily 24-50ish mm.

Why don't you use the 17-55 2.8 IS EF-S? Or it can't be used on the xti?

[vic6string]

Why don't you use the 17-55 2.8 IS EF-S? Or it can't be used on the xti?

The 17-55is would be great, but the combination of cost and length did not work for me. Since I last posted on this thread, I purchased the Tamron 28-75 2.8. This gives me a bit of more length over the kit lens, the fixed 2.8 (and a very usable 2.8), and the cost is about 1/3 that of the 17-55 or the 24-105. It is also FF compatible, in case I ever go to a FF body.

I am very happy with the lens, and the money it saves me over the other 2 choices allows me to get a 430ex flash, and still put a bit away for my next lens (one of the 70-200's)

[Overkill]

The 17-55is would be great, but the combination of cost and length did not work for me. Since I last posted on this thread, I purchased the Tamron 28-75 2.8. This gives me a bit of more length over the kit lens, the fixed 2.8 (and a very usable 2.8), and the cost is about 1/3 that of the 17-55 or the 24-105. It is also FF compatible, in case I ever go to a FF body.

I am very happy with the lens, and the money it saves me over the other 2 choices allows me to get a 430ex flash, and still put a bit away for my next lens (one of the 70-200's)


But dont you miss the option of wide on a 28-? with a Crop Body!!!

[vic6string]

Actually, I pulled up a bunch of my pics (random sample of a couple hundred)and found that the vast majority were from 24-55 (with 55 being the most popular, and the longest since all I had was the kit lens and the 50 1.8). I mainly shoot my kids, not much scenery or landscape stuff. The difference from 24 to 28 is like taking a step back, so i don't lose many shots. For the few times I do want something wider, I still have my kit lens, and since those wide shots tend to be landscape type shots, they tend to be stopped down anyway, and the the kit lens stopped down is actually pretty good. So it all depends on what you like to shoot. Some people use the 10-22 as a walkaround, some use the 70-200, it is all about what you shoot and how you like to shoot it.

[jj_photography]

I wouldn't think canon would come out with a lens like this.

Cheers

[vic6string]

24-105 at 2.8 could happen, but I would think they'd have to make it a DO or EFS lens because if they tried to make a standard ef L lens, it would be huge. Since this is a walkaround lens, the size would be prohibitive. People don't mind so much with telephotos since they know those have to be big. Imagine the size and weight of this thing considering the size/weight of the 24-70 2.8 (non IS).

[JBaz]

I don't find the 24-70 f/2.8 to be that heavy. I do walk around with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS comfortably all day when doing sports. I'd rather see a 24-70 f/2.8 IS than a 24-105 because I don't need the extra telephoto length. If canon came out with an f/2.8 IS of either one, I'd would sell my 24-70 and upgrade in a heart beat. Even if the sucker was ungodly huge, weighed the same as the 70-200 and added another 400-600 on the sticker price.

[canotographer]

Yes.. make the 24-105/2.8L IS I will take it if the lens costs about the same as the 70-200/2.8L IS

[djeuch]

would a 17-70 f/2.8L IS be eaiser to make? i would prefer that since i'm using a crop body, 400D or 40D ;)

I'll second that... 16-18mm on the short side, 70mm on the long, and f/2.8L IS... and I'd pay as much as I did for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS...

That'd be awesome... from 16-18mm wide all the way to 200mm long at f/2.8, and NOT EF-S (even though I have a 40D now).

[Collin85]

24-105L f/2.8 IS? Unlikely anytime soon. That's a 4.37x zoom f/2.8 lens.. too many compromises to be made for it to hold up 'L' quality.

24-70 f/2.8 IS seems more likely, but like already mentioned would cannabalize Canon's own line-up to an extent. In other words, it'll be expensive.. atleast too expensive for me. :):(

[wernersl]

i think a good number of people would plunk down the extra coin. look at the 70-200. seems more people using the IS over non-IS. would bring the price down on the non-IS 24-70.

[datadump]

i would buy a 24-70L IS for ~1500$ -- seems fair since the 70-200's are around that range.

anything more, i would start to hesitate.

[wernersl]

yeah...unless the DID muster up a 24-105 2.8 IS (or anything longer than 70 for that matter). then i think they would be looking to get over 1600 for it.

[jj_photography]

It would be good if there is a lens like this so there wont be any debate with the 24-70 with IQ.

[Collin85]

It would be good if there is a lens like this so there wont be any debate with the 24-70 with IQ.

Huh? I don't see the relation.

If anything, a lens like this would be more likely to have worse IQ than both the 24-70 and 24-105.

There are certainly business related reasons why Canon would not consider such a lens, but the IQ of a f/2.8, 4.4x zoom good enough to hold up the L moniker along the likes of the 24-70 and 24-105 would certainly be another.

[Overkill]

Huh? I don't see the relation.

If anything, a lens like this would be more likely to have worse IQ than both the 24-70 and 24-105.

There are certainly business related reasons why Canon would not consider such a lens, but the IQ of a f/2.8, 4.4x zoom good enough to hold up the L moniker along the likes of the 24-70 and 24-105 would certainly be another.

Canon is absolutely capable to deliver a 4X + zoom in the range of 24-105 at 2.8 with superb IQ......

But is the consumer capable of paying a hughe amount of money for this lens and are we willing to carry the extra weight for a all purpose lens!?

[Collin85]

Canon is absolutely capable to deliver a 4X + zoom in the range of 24-105 at 2.8 with superb IQ......

But is the consumer capable of paying a hughe amount of money for this lens and are we willing to carry the extra weight for a all purpose lens!?

I think you've got your points precisely mixed-up. Is the consumer willing to pay for it in terms of price and weight? I bet they are. They'd sell like hotcakes.

As for the former point, I've got more doubts about that. I don't think you realise the difficulties in engineering a 4.4x f/2.8 lens with superb IQ - one good enough be king of both the 24-70L and 24-105/4L.

[Overkill]

I think you've got your points precisely mixed-up. Is the consumer willing to pay for it in terms of price and weight? I bet they are. They'd sell like hotcakes.

As for the former point, I've got more doubts about that. I don't think you realise the difficulties in engineering a 4.4x f/2.8 lens with superb IQ - one good enough be king of both the 24-70L and 24-105/4L.


I bet that the consumer is not willing to pay more than 1500 euro's for an all
purpose lens in the range from 24-105 at 2.8! I bet that the Pro Users are willing to pay that mutch! The weight will be an issue for people with a 400d and a 40D without the gripp!!!

[Collin85]

I bet that the consumer is not willing to pay more than 1500 euro's for an all
purpose lens in the range from 24-105 at 2.8! I bet that the Pro Users are willing to pay that mutch! The weight will be an issue for people with a 400d and a 40D without the gripp!!!

Put it this way: how often do consumers who consider one of these lenses consider the other? Pretty often. The 24-105 vs. 24-70 debate comes up very regularly. For many people, a lens which offers the best of both would pretty much solve their dilemma, and I bet many would pay that extra price for it. Right now we're forced to pick one or the other.. because a lens which offers the best of both worlds simply doesn't exist.

Secondly, it depends on how you define 'consumer'. If you're talking about photographers in general, then yes.. of course there will be 'consumers' capable of purchasing this lens.. and many of them would. Just look at the 7-2/4 IS vs. f/2.8 IS or the f/2.8 vs. f/2.8 IS. If it has both f/2.8 AND IS, it WILL be a highly desirable lens, obviously. On the other hand, if you're only talking about 'consumer' as a marketing term.. in contrast to the 'prosumer' or 'professional' moniker, then the answer would be no/maybe. But that's a subjective loophole, as many wouldn't agree that people who buy lenses like the 24-70 are generally even in the 'consumer' subset in the first place, by that definition.

[Overkill]

Put it this way: how often do consumers who consider one of these lenses consider the other? Pretty often. The 24-105 vs. 24-70 debate comes up very regularly. For many people, a lens which offers the best of both would pretty much solve their dilemma, and I bet many would pay that extra price for it. Right now we're forced to pick one or the other.. because a lens which offers the best of both worlds simply doesn't exist.

Secondly, it depends on how you define 'consumer'. If you're talking about photographers in general, then yes.. of course there will be 'consumers' capable of purchasing this lens.. and many of them would. Just look at the 7-2/4 IS vs. f/2.8 IS or the f/2.8 vs. f/2.8 IS. If it has both f/2.8 AND IS, it WILL be a highly desirable lens, obviously. On the other hand, if you're only talking about 'consumer' as a marketing term.. in contrast to 'prosumer' or 'professional', then the answer will be no/maybe. But that's a subjective loophole, as many wouldn't agree that people who buy lenses like the 24-70 are generally even in the 'consumer' subset in the first place, by that definition.


I agree.. but what i try to say that the lens can be made! but the price will be
to high to make it a mass product (like the 1200mm)!

[Tom W]

Canon is absolutely capable to deliver a 4X + zoom in the range of 24-105 at 2.8 with superb IQ......

But is the consumer capable of paying a hughe amount of money for this lens and are we willing to carry the extra weight for a all purpose lens!?

One point to notice - your best zooms in terms of IQ (corner-to-corner sharpness, light falloff, distortion, CA, etc.) tend to hover around a 3X ratio - 24-70, 70-200, 17-55 ((excluding the ultra-wides which are much more difficult optically to design)). When you stretch the zoom range, you have to deal with additional compromises that will effect overall IQ.

[Overkill]

One point to notice - your best zooms in terms of IQ (corner-to-corner sharpness, light falloff, distortion, CA, etc.) tend to hover around a 3X ratio - 24-70, 70-200, 17-55 ((excluding the ultra-wides which are much more difficult optically to design)). When you stretch the zoom range, you have to deal with additional compromises that will effect overall IQ.


Canon is capable to deliver this IQ (from corner to corner in a 4x zoom range)!

But as i said the price is to high!

[JBaz]

I agree.. but what i try to say that the lens can be made! but the price will be
to high to make it a mass product (like the 1200mm)!
You can't compare the 1200mm to a general purpose zoom lens. With a super telephoto, you are dealing with a very specialized piece of equipment. Not only that, but you also have to weigh in the cost of producing it. They take a large amount of highly specialized optics and they aren't cheap by the pound. Also, to note, the 1200 was not designed to be in the hands of "consumers". It was specially built on request and Canon reluctantly developed it. Anything that's going to be custom made is always going to be expensive and low volume.

The marketability of a general purpose zoom lens is much easier to implement because it's just that... general purpose. There maybe a huge engineering feat with designing such a long zoomed lens, but I'm sure Canon is capable of doing it. The L series is more for the advance/prosumers market and there would be a sufficient demand in the market place, but market research would need to be gathered first.

Cost and weight will be an issue, but people will still flock to it. Will it be a good walk around lens, maybe not, but people may tough it out and grow some muscles...

[Overkill]

You can't compare the 1200mm to a general purpose zoom lens. With a super telephoto, you are dealing with a very specialized piece of equipment. Not only that, but you also have to weigh in the cost of producing it. They take a large amount of highly specialized optics and they aren't cheap by the pound. Also, to note, the 1200 was not designed to be in the hands of "consumers". It was specially built on request and Canon reluctantly developed it. Anything that's going to be custom made is always going to be expensive and low volume.

The marketability of a general purpose zoom lens is much easier to implement because it's just that... general purpose. There maybe a huge engineering feat with designing such a long zoomed lens, but I'm sure Canon is capable of doing it. The L series is more for the advance/prosumers market and there would be a sufficient demand in the market place, but market research would need to be gathered first.

Cost and weight will be an issue, but people will still flock to it. Will it be a good walk around lens, maybe not, but people may tough it out and grow some muscles...

Thats what i mean!

[JBaz]

Thats what i mean!
You may mean that, but your previous posts is hard to infer what you really mean.

[Overkill]

You may mean that, but your previous posts is hard to infer what you really mean.

Than read my posts again! .........

[lowcrust]

I would be happy with 3.5 version... =)

[Collin85]

Than read my posts again! .........

There's no need to because JBaz pretty much nailed it.

I agree.. but what i try to say that the lens can be made!

...
Canon is capable to deliver this IQ (from corner to corner in a 4x zoom range)!


No, you don't agree. Like I said before, you far underestimate the difficulties in engineering a 4.4x f/2.8 zoom lens quality enough to hold the L moniker and good enough to best both the 24-70L and 24-105L. It's pretty much simple as that - but all I'm seeing is the repeated rhetoric 'the lens can be made! <under those criterias>'. It's highly likely that it CAN'T.

[JBaz]

24-70 f/2.8 with 4 stop IS and panning would be sweet...

[lowcrust]

Yeah, just adding IS to the 24-70 would be enough for the average joe to be happy (including me).