How high are the chances of a 24-105 2.8 IS? and how much?

[fs454]

Alright, I know everything is pure speculation but I've heard rumors of Canon releasing a new 24-105 soon. Right now I'm using my 5DII with the current 24-105 as well as a 50mm 1.4 and soon to be a Canon 100mm 2.8 macro.

My situation is, I shoot a lot of no-flash photography and I love, love, love natural light shooting. The 24-105 is my first short-length L lens (70-200 F4L being my first L), and also my first IS lens. I love it. My dad also loves it on his XTi. Long story short, he wants one now. My opinion is that, despite its little documented flaws like barrel distortion on FF, I think this would be an absolutely and completely perfect lens for what I do if it were a 2.8.


So, my plan was, if Canon announces a 2.8 IS version of this lens, I could get that, and fund it with good old dad buying my current one. Only thing is I want to figure out exactly how much dough I'd have to be spending to grab it, and since nobody has this information, can anyone experienced with the pricing of fun lenses like this chime in with a good estimate? Would it be more than $1500?


......Or am I 100% dreaming?

Thanks

[james_in_baltimore]

I'm afraid you are dreaming. A lens with that zoom range at f/2.8 would be incredibly heavy and expensive. You are much more likely to see the 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS added.

I would ignore rumors in general until there is credible evidence. Rumors in lenses are about as unreliable as they get.

[Mystwalker]

f/4 improved to f/2.8 - maybe another $400+ (look at 70-200 examples?)

EDIT: Doh, just realized it already had IS :)

Maybe not soe expensive.

[shomat]

I'm not sure, but if anybody has the inside scoop let me know so I can sell my 25-105 f/4 before this super lens hits the market!

[timnosenzo]

Alright, I know everything is pure speculation but I've heard rumors of Canon releasing a new 24-105 soon.

This "rumor" gets rehashed every time we get near new product releases (August & February). I wouldn't hold your breath.

[versedmb]

We are more likely to see a 24-70 f/2.8 IS.

[k_wakasugi]

I would LOVE a 24-105 2.8 IS.

Unfortunately I HIGHLY doubt this will happen any time soon.

[p360]

I would LOVE a 24-105 2.8 IS.

I'd buy it, definitely..!!

Unfortunately I HIGHLY doubt this will happen any time soon.

I agree.

[Josh_30]

Same here... I'd love to have it, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

[wickerprints]

*facepalm*

I keep seeing this rumor rear its ugly head and it's all I can do not to yell. The people who bring this up have absolutely ZERO clue about the design parameters for such a hypothetical lens! If it were to be "L" quality, it would be massive, expensive, and without a doubt wider than 77mm front filter diameter! That last one alone is a dealbreaker at 24-105mm. You'd have a gigantic barrel and it *still* won't be as sharp as the existing 24-105/4L IS. The transition from f/4 to f/2.8 at that focal length range is enormous. All your internal elements have to get waaaay bigger. And then where do all the electronics go?

So stop fantasizing people. It won't happen until some serious improvements in optical glass fabrication and AF motor technology occurs. It won't be updated for at least another 4-5 years.

[bigcountry]

the chances are slim and none.

[McChook]

Chances are closer to zero than one out of 10.

If it happened, I think it would be a massive seller, but I think it's unrealistic

[woos]

It's doubtful. The 24-105 f4 IS already has some big design trade-offs (distortion comes to mind).

I bet they'll add IS to the 24-70 tho.

It also seems like a 24-105 f2.8 is and a 24-70 f2.8 is would be an odd combo for a manufacturer to make. How do they position them? is the 24-70 going to be a higher end offering because of better image quality and less distortion? Is the 24-105 going to be a higher end offering because of the extra reach (and need for extra expensive glass)?

I'm not delusional enough to believe that marketing entirely drives R&D but this does seem like one thing that would be...well, an odd move for them. It would be like say if canon kept making all 4 70-200 lenses. And then came out with say, a 70-150mm lens. Where would it be positioned in the product lineup?

[nuffi]

*facepalm*

I keep seeing this rumor rear its ugly head and it's all I can do not to yell. The people who bring this up have absolutely ZERO clue about the design parameters for such a hypothetical lens! If it were to be "L" quality, it would be massive, expensive, and without a doubt wider than 77mm front filter diameter! That last one alone is a dealbreaker at 24-105mm. You'd have a gigantic barrel and it *still* won't be as sharp as the existing 24-105/4L IS. The transition from f/4 to f/2.8 at that focal length range is enormous. All your internal elements have to get waaaay bigger. And then where do all the electronics go?

So stop fantasizing people. It won't happen until some serious improvements in optical glass fabrication and AF motor technology occurs. It won't be updated for at least another 4-5 years.


I came here to say this, but you said it sooo much better than I could have.


PPL who come here with these fantasy lens configurations don't understand the physics that go into lenses and their design.

[fs454]

I know I have no clue as to what it takes to build such a lens, that's why i'm here to learn!

I figure a 70-200 f/2.8L IS is possible, and for $1500, why not a 24-105 at the same spec... but you don't have to explain that one, that was just the logic in my head. I understand the technical aspect but I have no idea as to how a lens is designed and what it takes to develop a lens with such aperture. Just wanted to hear "maybe" or "not in your wildest dreams!"

I feel like 24-105 F/2.8 L isn't so much a fantasy lens as others I see on here, sure it'd be bigger but how much bigger?

[wickerprints]

The simple reason why the two cannot be compared is because aperture and focal length are linked constraints when designing a lens. The first thing you need to know is that because f-number = focal length / entrance pupil diameter, it follows that

front element diameter > focal length / f-number.

Now you may say, "Well, that doesn't constrain 24-105/2.8!" And you are partially correct. The above is only serves as a lower bound for how large the front end of a lens must be. However, a second consideration occurs, which is that as the angle of view increases, both chromatic and geometric aberrations become more difficult to correct. A wide-angle lens is a very different design than a telephoto lens, in part because of the need to create a rectilinear image at the wide end, minimize chromatic aberration in the corners, maintain sharp corner-to-corner performance, and reduce vignetting. A third consideration comes into play with wide angle lenses for SLRs, which is that the lens cannot protrude too far into the mirror box, or else it would block the mirror. This forces the use of retrofocus designs.

Now consider all of this is happening in a zoom lens that not only performs sharply at 24mm, but all the way out to telephoto @ 105mm. That means the lens design must encompass two very distinct types of lens (retrofocus *and* telephoto--two distinctly opposite designs), and everything in between. This is why comparisons to the 70-200/2.8 are, well, a bit naive. The 70-200 is all telephoto.

The 24-70/2.8L accomplishes its goal by restricting the long end to a more realistic value. And yet, it is a 2.5 pound lens *without* IS. I would say that it is far, far more reasonable to include IS in the 24-70/2.8, than to redesign the 24-105/4L IS to open up one more stop. But expect such a lens to weigh around 3 pounds, add on a little bit of length, and probably another $500 in price if not more.

[swblackwood]

A possibility but watch out, people. The weight may put you out. Look at the 24-70 f3.8 WITHOUT IS. It's really heavy. Plus look at the weight differential between the 70-200 f4 IS and the f2.8 IS. The weight is nearly doubled.

Of course, you can use a tripod but then you don't need IS!

[bomzai]

I feel like 24-105 F/2.8 L isn't so much a fantasy lens as others I see on here, sure it'd be bigger but how much bigger?

Umm.... 200mm F/2 IS bigger perhaps?

[mikeymike]

i can understand a 24-105 2.8 IS being a problem, but every problem has a solution and i am sure the demand will push ALL the lens makers to try and get one out. I am sure 15 years ago what we have today would almost see impossible.

If Canon makes a 24-70 2.8 IS i will be waiting in Japan running between Utsunomiya, Fukushima and Oita ready to pounce on the very first one.

[zaathrus]

i can understand a 24-105 2.8 IS being a problem, but every problem has a solution and i am sure the demand will push ALL the lens makers to try and get one out. I am sure 15 years ago what we have today would almost see impossible.

According to Wickets (who has more knowledge on this than I could hope to have!) we'd appear to need significant advances in materials and design. I'm not holding my breath for that long!

[krb]

What I (and I think most other people) want is -not- a version of the 24-105 that is enlarged to f2.8. What I want is a version of the 24-70 that has IS and has a little more on the long end. Something like a 24-90 or 24-95 f/2.8 IS, which is similar to the crop-adjusted range of the 17-55. But give it L build quality and make it work on full frame.

[2.8orfaster]

YES you will see a 24-105 2.8 or something similar some day. When? I do not know.

Tamron already made one. (28-105 2.8) i thought about buying one a few years back.

http://www.photographyreview.com/mfr/tamron/35mm-zoom/PRD_83610_3128crx.aspx

http://www.adorama.com/images/Product/TM28105.jpg

[2.8orfaster]

The only reason Canon is not making this lens, is because Canon would loose money in the big picture. Smart move if you ask me.

[RyanQ]

I'll take the current 24-105 if price is lowered :-D

[ceriltheblade]

wickerprints - you are right, *I* do not understand the physics it would take to build a lens like that. Short of a degree in optic physics and engineering, where can I learn about it? I wouldn't even know where to start looking in google....

Thanks for your thoughts