howiewu wrote in post #14677895
I don't get it, there is already the 70-200 f/4 IS, why would you want to cut the focal length range?
Well, in response to the question I initially posed, "Am I nuts?", the answer seems to be a unanimous "Yes"!!!
But in response to your question - and that of others - would it not make sense that a smaller, lighter, shorter lens with less range that did not have a fixed barrel might actually cost less?
I am amazed Canon released the 24 and 28 f/2.8 IS lenses. I figured no one would be interested. The jury is still out on those. I was surprised at the release of the 70-300 L when they already had a perfectly fine 100-400 that just needs updating and they have some really excellent 70-200 lenses already.
The fine L, the 24-70 pairs well with any of the 70-200 lenses.
The not so fine 17-85 and much better 15-85 paired well with the also not perfect 70-300 IS (non-L).
I was trying to think of a nice kit that the 24-105 would work with without the overlap and without the - for some folks - unnecessary 200-300 range.
How could a 105-200 f/4 IS L not cost at least $250 less than the 70-200 f/4 IS with its fixed barrel and additional range of 70-104?
But, again, the question was - if it could be made - would you buy it? Clearly not if you already have the 70-200 f/4 IS. But I don't think owning a 70-200 f/2.8 IS (which I own and love) would prohibit people from buying the 105-200 for situations where 2.8 is not needed and where a smaller kit was desired.
The color of the lens would be on the bottom of the list of reasons to buy it. But people do seem infatuated with the color discussion.
