Canon, where is the 24-105 2.8 IS?

[kouasupra]

I'm waiting for this lens. My 24-70 is nice but doesn't have the extra reach. Sure I can slip on my 70-200, but that's just too much work between a photoshoot. So Canon when is this coming out, cause I'm ready to sell my 24-70 already.

[frankchn]

Probably not any time soon - optical design issues and cost (note that I believe no f/2.8 zoom (edit: for FF cameras) from any manufacturer has a zoom ratio of more than 3x). A 24-70/2.8 IS seem much more likely.

[Josh_30]

Hmm... if the 24-70 is "the brick" ... then I guess the 24-105 2.8 IS would be "the cinderblock" :lol:

[KenjiS]

Probably not any time soon - optical design issues and cost (note that I believe no f/2.8 zoom (edit: for FF cameras) from any manufacturer has a zoom ratio of more than 3x). A 24-70/2.8 IS seem much more likely.

wrong, Tamron made a 28-105 f/2.8 many years ago...

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

So its definately possible

[djvkool]

The reason why this lens won't exist IMHO

1. it will kill 24-70
2. it will be as big and heavy as 70-200 2.8
3. it will be expensive, VERY expensive...

[heycow]

The reason why this lens won't exist IMHO

1. it will kill 24-70
2. it will be as big and heavy as 70-200 2.8
3. it will be expensive, VERY expensive...
If they build it, people will buy it. Expensive and heavy are relative. :)

[KenjiS]

The reason why this lens won't exist IMHO

1. it will kill 24-70
2. it will be as big and heavy as 70-200 2.8
3. it will be expensive, VERY expensive...

I dunno about that..That Tammy is only 31.4oz...;) So a hair under 2 pounds, it would be close in weight to the brick then, its also 4.4 inches long, Thats not too big, the only bad part is it needs 82mm filters!

[krepta]

From CR:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/10/24-105-f4l-is-replacement/

Not f/2.8, but still a new version. Let the wild speculations begin anew!

[Ursyn]

You'll never see Canon 24-105/2.8 IS because they'll lose clients for Canon 24-70/2.8. They are not so stupid.

Canon rather makes new 24-105 but still 4 and new 24-70/2.8 maybe with IS. Then people who need brighter lens will buy 24-70 and these who prefer longer lens will choose 24-105.

But frankly speaking I wouldn't count for any spectacular changes. It's a Canon ;)

[frankchn]

wrong, Tamron made a 28-105 f/2.8 many years ago...

http://www.photographyreview.com/mfr...0_3128crx.aspx

So its definately possible

Interesting - I stand corrected. However I think the IQ on that lens isn't any good (see http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=72352). I believe this is an indication of too many optical compromises made in search of the 3.75x zoom ratio on an constant f/2.8 lens.

[RWatkins]

You'll never see Canon 24-105/2.8 IS because they'll lose clients for Canon 24-70/2.8. They are not so stupid.

Canon rather makes new 24-105 but still 4 and new 24-70/2.8 maybe with IS. Then people who need brighter lens will buy 24-70 and these who prefer longer lens will choose 24-105.

But frankly speaking I wouldn't count for any spectacular changes. It's a Canon ;)

I'm not marketing guy, so I might have missed something here. However, what is wrong with lost sales of the 24-70... provided they are made up by the 24-105 IS. I don't know the cost of engineering a new lens, and of course that has cost, but that is what the early adopter premium helps to cover.

[KenjiS]

I'm not marketing guy, so I might have missed something here. However, what is wrong with lost sales of the 24-70... provided they are made up by the 24-105 IS. I don't know the cost of engineering a new lens, and of course that has cost, but that is what the early adopter premium helps to cover.

In theory i think the market would support a 24-105 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/2.8 and a 24-105 f/2.8L IS easily...

The 24-105 f/4L IS is the lightest and the cheapest, not the fastest

24-70 is speedy and not much more than the f/4L

And the 24-105 f/2.8L IS is the best of all worlds, but its quite heavy and pricey..

I mean honestly, How many people think Canon needs -four- 70-200 lenses in production?

[krepta]

In theory i think the market would support a 24-105 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/2.8 and a 24-105 f/2.8L IS easily...

The 24-105 f/4L IS is the lightest and the cheapest, not the fastest

24-70 is speedy and not much more than the f/4L

And the 24-105 f/2.8L IS is the best of all worlds, but its quite heavy and pricey..

I mean honestly, How many people think Canon needs -four- 70-200 lenses in production?Agreed. The only reason why I think two 24-70's and two 24-105's are possible is because of the existence of the four 70-200's. I am not saying we will see this happen anytime soon, but rather that from a marketing standpoint it should be feasible (i.e. they wouldn't fear sales of one "eating" up another's, since each lens would serve a [slightly] different purpose and have both an advantage and disadvantage compared to the others).

So we could have:
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM [II?]
EF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM

The last one would seem very tempting, but it's almost a guarantee that it would be the most expensive and largest, heaviest of them. Since this poses a dilemma for some customers, they would look at the other options and choose what best suits them for the best value they can get. I really don't think [I]everyone would flock to a EF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM by default given the disadvantages such a lens would carry, so I would not be concerned about the existence of such a lens "cannibalizing" sales of the 24-70 lens(es).

[zoom_zoom]

I also agree that Canon can't be (or shouldn't be) holding back on the fear of sales of one lens eating up sales of another lens. Lets put it this way, if they're not going to be innovative and continuously improve their products, they are just going to eventually shoot themselves in the foot and it will be tough getting back up.

[Ursyn]

I'm not marketing guy, so I might have missed something here. However, what is wrong with lost sales of the 24-70... provided they are made up by the 24-105 IS. I don't know the cost of engineering a new lens, and of course that has cost, but that is what the early adopter premium helps to cover.

Canon isn't a charity institution. Do you really think that Canon would earn more selling 24-105/2.8IS than 24-105/4IS and 24-70/2.8 separately? I don't think so. Look also at the second hand market, how many people bought one of mentioned lenses then sold it and bought the second one. There are also people who have both lenses.

I don't believe that Canon could reduce amount of their L series lenses, especially that Nikon and other rivals become stronger.

[KenjiS]

Canon isn't a charity institution. Do you really think that Canon would earn more selling 24-105/2.8IS than 24-105/4IS and 24-70/2.8 separately? I don't think so. Look also at the second hand market, how many people bought one of mentioned lenses then sold it and bought the second one. There are also people who have both lenses.

I don't believe that Canon could reduce amount of their L series lenses, especially that Nikon and other rivals become stronger.

Actually Nikon proves this idea..you know how many NORMAL Zooms Nikon makes?

Lets see:

16-85 VR
17-55 f/2.8
18-55 VR
18-55 Mk II
18-70
18-105 VR
18-200 VR II
18-200 VR
24-70 f/2.8
24-85
24-120 VR

Now note, this is just their current list, Nikon has made an utter -ton- of normal zooms over the years...and that 18-70 of theirs was a real peach when i owned one ;) though its distortion figures are pretty bad

I also liked my 35-70 f/2.8 oddly enough...