NEW LENS: 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

[Rokkorfan]

There have been multiple posts around the web over the past few hours about the Canon Europe CPS magazine which was uploaded showing references to 4 new products - 5D, 1D MkII N, 430EX Flash and 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. Before the site was pulled this screen dump was taken:

http://www.p5freak.de/images/cps.gif

Looks pretty good to me!

[Savolpen]

Well How would CPS shut down their all pages?
Could this be a HOAX? :confused:

Pentti

[Camo 757]

If its real, that's the one for me.

[roanjohn]

YUP!!! On a full frame body!!! THis lens would be AWESOME!!!!

5D - $3500
24-105 L - $1200 (???)

Total of $4700!!!

YUP!!! Can't afford it!!!

:-(

Ro1

[luisv]

If's it's real, then the 24-105mm f/4 L IS will be on my need to try/buy list... :)

[tommykjensen]

Unless and until it has been announced offically by Canon it is a RUMOR.

Anybody with a little photoshop skills could have doctored that gif.

Hopefully a mod will merge this thread with all the other rumors.

[xc611]

17-40 out, 10-22 and 24-105 in, net cost: ~$1500...

[nosquare2003]

F/4 for this focal range 24-105? No thanks.

[RikWriter]

Think I'll stick with my Sigma 24-70 and Canon 70-200, both at f2.8 and together not costing as much as that lens...

[who me?]

If's it's real, then the 24-105mm f/4 L IS will be on my need to try/buy list... :)

Same here. That would go straight to the top of my 'to buy' list. IF it is real..
Actually, I could do without the IS for those focal lenghts (and additional cost) but hey, I guess it would not hurt. I can always turn it off.
OH, and hopefully it is a 77mm filter size. Gotta keep in the 77 club :D .
I will start saving now. Well, I am saving for a new lens anyway.

[DxHatchback]

looks interesting, but i call photoshop or fake

[LightRules]

This will be a high-selling lens, no doubt. Many were hoping for something like a 18-75 f4 L IS USM, but this is going to have to do.

[cdhender]

I'd buy one in a freaking heartbeat. But why is it f/4? If they can make the 70-200 f/2.8 with IS, why not the 24-70?

[roanjohn]

I'd buy one in a freaking heartbeat. But why is it f/4? If they can make the 70-200 f/2.8 with IS, why not the 24-70?

Wide angle is more difficult to manufacture than telephoto. (This is my uneducated guess).

And a constant 2.8 from 24-105 would make this lens gigantinum!!!

Ro1

[OceanView]

I hope it is real, light, sharp and affordable.

Another lens I have to try out to see if it fits my needs.

[cdhender]

Wide angle is more difficult to manufacture than telephoto. (This is my uneducated guess).

And a constant 2.8 from 24-105 would make this lens gigantinum!!!

Ro1


LOL. Yeah I didn't even think about size/weight. Considering how big the 24-70L is, I think you're right.

[lmh5107]

I think it's fake, all the four "coming up" products have their own topic?
and none of them have the subtitle? (others have)
all the four pics used the same background(black), coincidence?

[scr7b]

I think it's fake, all the four "coming up" products have their own topic?
and none of them have the subtitle? (others have)
all the four pics used the same background(black), coincidence?

I agree... I call bullsh*t too!!

[who me?]

The sad part is that this probably would be a big seller in the Canon line. Many on this string (me included) would be right there buying this lens. For me, it would be way before several lenses in my wish list.
It has many of the traits of a decent volume lens. Good range, IS for those who want it, decent F4 aperture and BEST of all, would fit ALL EOS bodies. I would think that it would see far more sales and usage across all levels of camera bodies...and yet, Canon makes a 60mm EF-S lens that has limited use and exposure to the EOS line....Go figure....

[cactusclay]

Berry, berry interwesting.

[Tom W]

Wide angle is more difficult to manufacture than telephoto. (This is my uneducated guess).

And a constant 2.8 from 24-105 would make this lens gigantinum!!!

Ro1

Yes, wide is more difficult, and a lens that transitions from wide (almost ultra-wide on FF) to medium telephoto is confronted with several design constraints. The characteristics that make a wide-angle lens good aren't the same as those that make a telephoto good.

[ddelallata]

Although this sounds like a good walk-around lens, optical quality must surely suffer with that much zoom. Those that buy it will undoubtedly appreciate the IS and L quality of this lens. :)

[MrChad]

And why is this lens so much better then say, the current
17-85mm IS f4-5.6or
28-135mm IS f3.5-5.6

I mean at F4 it clearly isn't that much faster, 24-105mm would be worth L price if the lens was IS and f2.8.

But if they sell this thing for current L pricing I don't see how it would truly be a new type of lens. The F4 doesn't do a thing for me.

I'll take 24-70 f2.8 over f4 + IS any day.....

[roanjohn]

I'll take 24-70 f2.8 over f4 + IS any day.....

I agree!!! It'll be interesting to see how CAnon will price this thing.

Ro1

[Rokkorfan]

I'll take 24-70 f2.8 over f4 + IS any day.....
Well I have the 24-70mm but will almost certainly get this as well. The IS will give me an effective 2 stop advantage over the 24-70, with extra dof as well. It would be a perfect event lens in my opinion - I am constantly looking for extra ambient light in my evening flash shots and I find that with the 24-70mm, even at f/2.8, I am restricted by shutter speed and end up having to have less ambient than I would like for a natural looking shot.

Add to that it's obvious advantage as a travel lens and I am sold.

Re. the other points (ie. too close to the 28-135mm etc.) I am of the opinion that if releasing this with the 5D Canon will have gone to great lengths to ensure it is of exceptional image quality - otherwise the FF 5D would show all its flaws. I don't feel the same way about the other non-L lenses.

[HKFEVER]

Canon lenses cover the whole range with Ls and regular lenses already.

But if they improve the sharpness, AF & with faster F value 2.0 with the DO:rolleyes: . Then it will be in my next lenes list.

[Tom W]

And why is this lens so much better then say, the current
17-85mm IS f4-5.6or
28-135mm IS f3.5-5.6

Assuming it is up to the L name (and is, in fact, a real lens), it will be better than either of the previous two for the same reason that the 17-40L is better than the previous two - better image quality and a more rugged build.

I mean at F4 it clearly isn't that much faster, 24-105mm would be worth L price if the lens was IS and f2.8.

And that that focal length range, and f/2.8 would be very difficult to design and very expensive to manufacture.

But if they sell this thing for current L pricing I don't see how it would truly be a new type of lens. The F4 doesn't do a thing for me.

I'll take 24-70 f2.8 over f4 + IS any day.....

You could conceivably have both. :)

[Citizensmith]

I'd love a lens like that, but

Definitely a fake. Just try searching the web according to google. The only references to that lens all refer to the screenshot of a page that doesn't exist, and never has according to the google cache. There are also references to a 24-105 f/2.8L but that was people fantasizing back in 2002 and it never materialized. Who knows, maybe a lens like that will show up sometime but that screenshot has definitely been photoshopped.

[cosworth]

Funny. We go through this every year with motorcycles. Sportbike manufacturers change their bikes in a 2 year cycle and when the pics are going to be released there is a flurry of photoshop fakes out there. Weird looking things that usually have artifacts from other bikes or bad manipluation. Lenses are a bit simpler to spoof and I'm sure that whatever info gets leaked from Canon is recognizable as real. The spoofers make it harder every year though.

[cactusclay]

Well, if it's not a fake, then I think it has the possibity of being a very nice wedding, portrait, carry around lens. I think the IS would make up for the 2.8 in most cases and as far as bokeh goes, f4 is no slouch, specially at 105 mm. The 70-200/4 has very nice bokeh in IMHO. The more I think about it, the more I tend to think that it may be exactly what the line up was missing, that is if it isn't too big and heavy, like a 2.8 lens would be. Now all we need is about a 700.00 $ 50 1.2L that's only a hair bigger than the 1.4.

[grego]

If it is true, I wish atleast they made a mistake on the f/4. Should be f/2.8. Oh well.

[Citizensmith]

If it is true, I wish atleast they made a mistake on the f/4. Should be f/2.8. Oh well.

If you google you'll find people have been dreaming about the f/2.8 since 2002. I don't see a 2.8 as very likely with the 24-70 already sitting there. But a 24-105 L, as others have said, would be a great people lens.

I'm sure the screen shot is a fake, but I'm still hoping that this lens will be hitting the market soon.

[grego]

If you google you'll find people have been dreaming about the f/2.8 since 2002. I don't see a 2.8 as very likely with the 24-70 already sitting there. But a 24-105 L, as others have said, would be a great people lens.

I'm sure the screen shot is a fake, but I'm still hoping that this lens will be hitting the market soon.

Yeah, good point, but then you also have a lens that could sell at a high price at 2.8 and become a best seller. From a finanical standpoint, it would do pretty well, especially if it has improved optics, since the 24-70 has been out for some years now. And with IS, you have good reason to charge higher(example 70-200 non IS vrs IS).

But then for the average shooter, yes, it can win there like the 17-40 f/4 and 70-200 f/4.

[SolPics]

I think this lens will weigh a ton, thats why the IS. Even if this lens is true, I'm very skeptical of the quality over such a large zoom range; from wide angle to over 100mm.