24-105 looking for similar but faster

Hello,
I'm considering getting a faster lens for low light for my 5D3,
currently I have the 24-105 F4 IS on it.

I'm looking for something that is similar in zoom focal lengths,
and has IS, with a constant 2.8 aperture.

Anyone have any suggestions / experience to share?

thanks

f/2.8 constant aperture and IS? Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. 70-200/2.8L IS (or Tamron/SIgma equivalent).

No one makes a single lens that covers 24-105 with constant f/2.8, let alone with IS.

After that, it's time for the primes and/or start looking at lighting options.

marcosv wrote in post #16064732
f/2.8 constant aperture and IS? Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. 70-200/2.8L IS (or Tamron/SIgma equivalent).

No one makes a single lens that covers 24-105 with constant f/2.8, let alone with IS.

After that, it's time for the primes and/or start looking at lighting options.

Well said.

Going to 2.8 on a standard zoom makes a lens considerably heavier and more expensive, as evidenced by the 24-70 versus 24-105. It would just get more so if you extended out to 105 as the lens would have to have larger elements to accommodate 2.8 at that length. As mentioned above you arent likely to find what you want in a single lens option.

I have been campaigning for Canon to introduce the new 24-105L IS F2.8 II for several years now How much would you pay for that, huh??

Bonus - why do you think Canon won't do that?

gonzogolf wrote in post #16066763
Going to 2.8 on a standard zoom makes a lens considerably heavier and more expensive, as evidenced by the 24-70 versus 24-105. It would just get more so if you extended out to 105 as the lens would have to have larger elements to accommodate 2.8 at that length. As mentioned above you arent likely to find what you want in a single lens option.

1.77 lbs vs 1.47 lbs

Buckeye1 wrote in post #16066845
I have been campaigning for Canon to introduce the new 24-105L IS F2.8 II for several years now How much would you pay for that, huh??

Bonus - why do you think Canon won't do that?

I would love this.

Buckeye1 wrote in post #16066845
I have been campaigning for Canon to introduce the new 24-105L IS F2.8 II for several years now How much would you pay for that, huh??

Bonus - why do you think Canon won't do that?

Well, it wouldn't be a II, since Canon has never made that lens.

It would be very large and heavy and expensive.

Keyan wrote in post #16066956
Well, it wouldn't be a II, since Canon has never made that lens.

It would be very large and heavy and expensive.

I carry the 1D IV and 70-200L II for eight hours during wedding days, so this lens can't be heavier than that. I would pay $2500 for that lens as it will replace both the 24-105L and the new 24-70L II.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16066763
Going to 2.8 on a standard zoom makes a lens considerably heavier and more expensive, as evidenced by the 24-70 versus 24-105.

Perhaps the 24-70 f/4 IS versus the 24-70 f/2.8 would be a better comparison? That's a weight difference of 805g versus 600g, or an increase in weight of about a third to go from f/2.8 to f/4. The price increase is also about a third. This despite the fact that the former has IS.

The differences are bigger for the 70-200 lenses, where the f/2.8 IS II weighs and costs about twice as much as the f/4 IS.

marcosv wrote in post #16064732
f/2.8 constant aperture and IS? Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. 70-200/2.8L IS (or Tamron/SIgma equivalent).

No one makes a single lens that covers 24-105 with constant f/2.8, let alone with IS.

After that, it's time for the primes and/or start looking at lighting options.

This sums up your options.

Personally, I prefer supplementing the 24-105L with fast prime lenses. The 24-105L works great as a general purpose walk around lens on FF due to its focal range and IS. Usually, if I want something with a faster aperture, I want more than the one stop that a f/2.8 zoom would give me.

Tamron 28-105 f2.8 is what you want, but without IS.

Scott M wrote in post #16067759
This sums up your options.

Personally, I prefer supplementing the 24-105L with fast prime lenses. The 24-105L works great as a general purpose walk around lens on FF due to its focal range and IS. Usually, if I want something with a faster aperture, I want more than the one stop that a f/2.8 zoom would give me.

I agree.

Even after buying a 24-70/2.8L II, I decided I won't sell my 24-105. It really is a great general purpose lens with its IS. Plenty of times, I will be stopping down to f/5.6 or f/8 for greater DOF and the IS is always welcomed. The 24-105's corner sharpness is fine for most of the things I shoot.

In my situation, I like the option of going with a 24-105 with either the 35L or 85L. Excellent two lens combination when I might need a fast prime and don't need to go significantly wider than 24mm or longer than 100mm.

I never liked my 24-105. I wanted a faster lens in the 35-50 range so I swapped it for a 24-70 and have been very happy (yes, I've accepted the bulkiness). I used my 85 or 100 macro if I feel 70mm is too short (btw- if you don't have one already, the 100 macro is a very fun lens and worth having whichever way you go).

frankk wrote in post #16070749
I never liked my 24-105. I wanted a faster lens in the 35-50 range so I swapped it for a 24-70 and have been very happy (yes, I've accepted the bulkiness). I used my 85 or 100 macro if I feel 70mm is too short (btw- if you don't have one already, the 100 macro is a very fun lens and worth having whichever way you go).

Hmm...did you know it was F4 before you bought it?