WHy hasn't Canon made a Zoom Lens Below F/2.8

[DallasPhoto]

This may be a stupid question, but why haven't they? I don't know everything about how a lens works so is this not possible yet?

[ed rader]

This may be a stupid question, but why haven't they? I don't know everything about how a lens works so is this not possible yet?


size, weight and cost :D.

ed rader

[DallasPhoto]

Well, if they'll make something like the 1200mm beast they made that was $99,000, why wouldn't they make this zoom....?

I mean, I bet it would sell alot better

[picturecrazy]

It's the weight issue, really.

F/2.0 would only really be feasible in a normal range zoom. If you give it a reasonable zoom range that modern shooters have come to expect, like 28-70, it would be insanely huge and heavy.

Now, canon DOES have insanely huge and heavy lenses in the telephoto line, but they are not typically used as a walkaround lens. A normal range zoom is used MAINLY as a walkaround type of lens. Unless you're hulk hogan, users would probably find it too cumbersome to use that way.

They could reduce the weight be shortening the zoom range maybe, but then who would want that? If your zoom is so restricted, people would rather go for a lighter, sharper and much faster prime lens.

So really, there is no market for it.

[gryphonslair99]

Well, if they'll make something like the 1200mm beast they made that was $99,000, why wouldn't they make this zoom....?

I mean, I bet it would sell alot better

Because to have a 70-200 f1.4 lens designed and built that $99,000.00 would be pocket change. The science of optics is just that, Science. There are things that can be reasonalby be done and there are things that can be done if you want to pay for it. The problems and expense of building a quality zoom in a fast range such as 1.4 would suprise the average person. A good example of that now is the Canon 200mm L lenses.

Canon 200mm f2.8L = $639.95

Canon 200mm f2.0L = $5,999.99 (estimated street price)

Little bit of price difference for 1 stop faster.

Now do you really think that people would be willing to pay $15,000 or $20,000 for a 70-200 f1.4L lens?

Oh yeah, don't forget to add on $500 if you want IS. :lol:

[Stocky]

I have the same question:
If they have zooms with a constant 2.8 then why not make it a 24-70mm f/1.4-2.8 instead?

[Cadwell]

Insanely huge and heavy why?

As an example, the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom weighs almost exactly the same (and has similar dimensions) to the Canon 300mm f/2.8 prime so there's no particular reason why a zoom has to be bigger and heavier than a prime of the same focal length and aperture.

If the Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM prime isn't "insanely huge and heavy" (and it isn't) why would an f/2.0 xx-135mm f/2.0 zoom lens not be about the same size and weight?

[JoYork]

Olympus managed it a few years ago:

http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/1875

[El Duderino]

Great minds think alike:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=368509

[shutterfiend]

Canon L lens are all designed for full format. The olympus sensor is about a 1/4 of FF and still the f/2 zooms look pretty chunky. An f/2 zoom for FF would be H-U-G-E. It's not likely of Canon to design such a lens for 1.6 cameras either. Especially with all the complaints about not having a FF equivalent for 17-55.

[KAS]

I'm sure it's possible.....but the 70-200 2.8 is still selling like hotcakes.

It always costs more to start producing a new lens, compared to selling more of the same ones. also, why change anything when everyone wants what they are already making?

[JoYork]

It's a pity Canon don't start making IS units for their shorter primes... I'm so used to having lovely stabilised images that it seems weird when I go back to the fast primes and notice them wobbling all over the place!

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think it could be done,..

Look at the weight of the Tamron 28-75mm vs. the Canon 24-70mm.. the Tamron weighs like nothing.
If an f/2.8 Zoom can be that small, then someone (maybe SIGMA who has cornered the market on innovative zoom design) could maybe make a 24-60mm @ f/2?

You get to the telephotos, well then it becomes more obvious. 200mm @ f/2? we know how big that has to be. 6 pounds and counting with Zoom added.

[shutterfiend]

It's a pity Canon don't start making IS units for their shorter primes... I'm so used to having lovely stabilised images that it seems weird when I go back to the fast primes and notice them wobbling all over the place!

A 135 f/2 IS would be awesome!

[AngryCorgi]

Perhaps Canon sat down some time ago and decided that they could spend R&D money on (a) making really fast zooms or (b) making pretty fast zooms with excellent IQ wide-open. I think the historical performance of the L zooms shows that they have always placed supreme importance on IQ, not just speed. There are a lot of "wonder lenses" out there that are fast but soft. Look at the progression from 17-35L - 16-35L - 16-35LII --- each revision yielded a lens that was sharper across the entire frame. Same thing goes for the 28-80L - 28-70L - 24-70L progression. I think, if any speed increase occurs, you will likely see a Canon variable-max-aperture zoom (perhaps a 24-70/2-2.8L) before a static aperture if it comes down to a significant IQ variance.

[KAS]

Perhaps Canon sat down some time ago and decided that they could spend R&D money on (a) making really fast zooms or (b) making pretty fast zooms with excellent IQ wide-open. I think the historical performance of the L zooms shows that they have always placed supreme importance on IQ, not just speed. There are a lot of "wonder lenses" out there that are fast but soft. Look at the progression from 17-35L - 16-35L - 16-35LII --- each revision yielded a lens that was sharper across the entire frame. Same thing goes for the 28-80L - 28-70L - 24-70L progression. I think, if any speed increase occurs, you will likely see a Canon variable-max-aperture zoom (perhaps a 24-70/2-2.8L) before a static aperture if it comes down to a significant IQ variance.



great point! I think they made the right decision

[rhagen]

ive been thinking about this too and am wondering if anyone actually could explain why a f/2.0 zoom would be huge and heavy, instead of just saying that the 24-70 f/2.8 is kind of big and kind of heavy so a f/2.0 would be bigger and heavier.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Olympus has a cool 35-100mm f/2 Zoom :)

Now on an Olympus that gives a 70-200mm field of view, but think how cool a 35-135mm f/2 would be! Concert photography with one lens!
We knopw how big a 135mm f/2 is, so it would not be too large for the zoom.