If Canon made this 105-200 f/4 IS lens would you buy it?

OK, so I have the 24-105 and, of course, it's only f/4 but,for most of my purposes, that's fine. I have the 135 f/2 and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS which is too heavy (and too white) for many of my trips.

A black 105-200 f/4 with IS by Canon would be nice.

It would be smaller than any of the 70-200 models, cost less than the f/4 version of the 70-200 IS but clearly cost more than the non-IS version of the f/4 70-200. Well, at least I am hopeful on the first two of those three statements.

It would be an L with L glass and specs.

I think it would find a large audience.

Am I nuts?

What do you think?

And what would it cost?

Being a full frame user, I'd then carry only two lenses for most of my non-professional uses.

24-70 and 70-200 work just fine for me...

Can't see this gaining much traction in a "just because" situation.

I would miss the 70-105 range too much on my 70-200/4 IS, I don't find it too heavy at all, and I could careless if it's white. So no interest here. Now a Canon 100-300/4 IS could temp me.

Eastport wrote in post #14675272
OK, so I have the 24-105 and, of course, it's only f/4 but,for most of my purposes, that's fine. I have the 135 f/2 and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS which is too heavy (and too white) for many of my trips.

A black 105-200 f/4 with IS by Canon would be nice.

It would be smaller than any of the 70-200 models, cost less than the f/4 version of the 70-200 IS but clearly cost more than the non-IS version of the f/4 70-200. Well, at least I am hopeful on the first two of those three statements.

It would be an L with L glass and specs.

I think it would find a large audience.

Am I nuts?

What do you think?

And what would it cost?

Being a full frame user, I'd then carry only two lenses for most of my non-professional uses.

Not sure the market would be what you think. I would miss the 70-105 too much to make a switch, I think it is too much overlap with the current lineup of 70-200's.

They do make one

70-200 F/4 is.... everything YOU want plus 30MM more

As is I find 70-200mm a little confining - a 105-200mm.... no thanks

FEChariot wrote in post #14675306
I would miss the 70-105 range too much on my 70-200/4 IS, I don't find it too heavy at all, and I could careless if it's white. So no interest here. Now a Canon 100-300/4 IS could temp me.

Well, try my 70-200 F/2.8 IS for a bit...

I would not get rid of the 70-200 which I do use extensively for theater, dance and even landscape.

So, I guess the 105-200 f/4 IS would just be a constant use lens for non-professional purposes. Making it black with IS and making it an L would attract a large audience I think. But maybe that's just me. While I had it (twice) I actually liked the consumer 70-300 IS (not the dreaded 75-300 models!) but the 200-300 range was not all that satisfying because, well that glass is just not that great.

umphotography wrote in post #14675321
They do make one

70-200 F/4 is.... everything YOU want plus 30MM more

It's too big, too long, too white, too much money. But, yes, a fantastic lens!

Eastport wrote in post #14675330
Well, try my 70-200 F/2.8 IS for a bit...

Well not yours but I did try a 2.8 version and it's a big reason I have the f4 version now.

Eastport wrote in post #14675334
It's too big, too long, too white, too much money. But, yes, a fantastic lens!

It would seem these opinions are the minority view, but what about the 200/2.8? in addition to your 24-105 and 135/2?

Weird focal length.... Why not just get a 70-200 f/4L IS? And a lenscoat if you want black!

FEChariot wrote in post #14675359
It would seem these opinions are the minority view, but what about the 200/2.8? in addition to your 24-105 and 135/2?

NO IS but the price is right. What do I do for the 136-199 range? A useful range, yes?

Eastport wrote in post #14675334
It's too big, too long, too white, too much money. But, yes, a fantastic lens!

I doubt that making it 105-200mm will change the length of the lens that much. For example, 200mm f2.8 prime is shorter than 70-200mm f2.8 but it is still very long.

I think long physical length is expected for a telephoto lens that remains constant length during zoom.

Eastport wrote in post #14675334
It's too big, too long, too white, too much money. But, yes, a fantastic lens!

Too big and too much money? Costs about the same as a 24-105 f4 IS... doesn't weigh much more... as for white... get a lens coat.

Or offer 70-200 black edition?

I personally dont care if they are white or black. It was just a thought.