New 24-105L MKII

[strobe monkey]

So is it true that there's an updated 24-105L soon??? (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html)

I hope there's no more CA.

[hennie]

I hope it is 2.8

[gasrocks]

Not all rumors pan out.

[4g63photo]

If true, I wonder what would be different. I have not noticed a significant amount of CA on my copy.

[AzzKicker]

My 24-105 was perfectly fine.

[p360]

Mine is flawless.

[tekkie]

I hope it is 2.8

agreed other than that I don't know what they will improve on

[Mike Bell]

To make it f2.8 it would have to be a lot bigger and heavier - a different beast altogether.

[tkoutdoor]

To make it f2.8 it would have to be a lot bigger and heavier - a different beast altogether.Agreed! Let's have one! ...and they darn well better keep it usable for full frame!

[kenwood33]

i would be happy with a 17-70 2.8 is.

[tkoutdoor]

i would be happy with a 17-70 2.8 is.Me too and I'd buy it before trying it if it were an L. :)

[Vascilli]

24-135 IS would be so much better.

[tkoutdoor]

24-135 IS would be so much better.

50-500 f/2L IS for $899 weighing 1.4 lbs. would be better. :cool:

Why not give the 28-135 IS a try?

[Collin85]

I hope it is 2.8

I don't. Exorbitantly hard to engineer and I wouldn't be looking forward to the wide-open performance. I'd be quite happy with something like a 24-80 f/2.8L IS... besides the price. :lol:

[CAL Imagery]

I hope it is 2.8
It would probably cost a few grand because it would have more length than the already $1,100 24-70, but with 35 more mm and IS.

[John_TX]

I'd rather it stay F4. Adding the latest 4-5 stop IS would more than make up for it not being F2.8. I want something lightweight, not Brick Mk II. :lol:

[Collin85]

I'd rather it stay F4. Adding the latest 4-5 stop IS would more than make up for it not being F2.8. I want something lightweight, not Brick Mk II. :lol:

I'm with ya John. I think f/4 is plenty for a standard zoom on FF.. I'd much rather they improve the performance at f/4 and add a better IS. I'd be sold on that.

[AzzKicker]

The 24-104 is ALREADY pretty heavy and bulky. Making 2.8 and IS would make it like having a water heater attached to your camera.

[p360]

24-105 is superb the way it is. Leave it alone. It's already not an inexpensive piece of glass. Add anything else, and it will be out of reach for many like me (cost-wise).

If f/2.8 is what you need, Canon designed the 24-70 just for you.

[John_TX]

Any updates? I really want to pick up the 24-105L, but not if Canon is about to update the IS or tweak the optics!

[seaside]

EF-S 24-105mm f2.8 L

[John_TX]

EF-S 24-105mm f2.8 L
Interesting idea, but make it an EF-S 15-65mm IS f2.8 (or 70mm). That way, it gives you the equivalent of a 24-104mm (or 112) lens on a crop camera.

IMHO, the 17-55IS just isn't quite wide enough nor long enough for a true walk-around on a crop camera.
The 24-105IS on the 5D is perfect!

[clipper_from_oz]

To make it f2.8 it would have to be a lot bigger and heavier - a different beast altogether.

If the 24-70mm 2.8 is know as the brick I hate to think what the 24-105 2.8 would be like!!!

[John_TX]

If the 24-70mm 2.8 is know as the brick I hate to think what the 24-105 2.8 would be like!!!

Cinderblock?

[yoyoboy]

what about f/3.2?