Chances for a 24-105 2.8?

Wouldnt that be great?

I mean i know that the manufacturers are limited in lens design especially at such great ranges. But the 70-200 2.8 covers a 130mm range. I also know that the longer the focal range the 'easier' it gets.

It would be a damn heavy thing (i guess still not more than the 70-200 2.8), but i might be seriously interested in such a lens..

Sure, that would be interesting. I would prefer a 24-70mm f/2 though, since we're dreaming.

frugivore wrote in post #16107303
Sure, that would be interesting. I would prefer a 24-70mm f/2 though, since we're dreaming.

Ahh that would be a hell of a lens too

But since the 24-70 2.8 is enough heavy, i imagine that lens would come with a tripod collar

davidfarina wrote in post #16107309
Ahh that would be a hell of a lens too

But since the 24-70 2.8 is enough heavy, i imagine that lens would come with a tripod collar

a 24-105/2.8 would probably come with its own trailer to help wheel it around... :P

No Chance at all. canon would never make a single lens to destroy the market for several of their other lens in that focal range.

But while we are dreaming-- a 24-105 F/2.0 with IS would be awesome:p

BUT,, Sigma just made that 18-35 F/1.8 for 1.6 sensors

If they make one for full frame.. look out canon

Sigma has really stepped up

umphotography wrote in post #16107386
No Chance at all. canon would never make a single lens to destroy the market for several of their other lens in that focal range.

But while we are dreaming-- a 24-105 F/2.0 with IS would be awesome:p

Okey so its all marketing restricted. I mean a 24-105 lens just needs to have a 37.5mm aperture opening which will make the front diameter about 10cm..

Would weight a lot but i think it would be possible.

And i mean, if its all marketing they could list it for 3000$, so sigma or tamron can make a cheaper version :P

umphotography wrote in post #16107390
BUT,, Sigma just made that 18-35 F/1.8 for 1.6 sensors

If they make one for full frame.. look out canon

Sigma has really stepped up

Jep. But a 28-60mm (equivalent of the 18-35) would weight a hell!

Sigma just took a lot of market from canon with that 120-300 F/2.8. Its a great lens. canon could make one but they will want 10K for the darn thing ( Just look at the 200-400 )

Of course its possible. Im sure they could put one out next week if they wanted to. If Sigma and Tamron can put out quality products then canon will change its tune

Some recent releases give me a lot of hope

Sigma fine art series
sigma 35
sigma 85-- they need to retweek this a bit for focus inconsistency
Sigma 120-300

Tamron 17-50
Tamron 90 macro
Tamron 24-70--- its decent but not high on my list

These 3rd party MFG's are starting to get competetive.

umphotography wrote in post #16107403
Sigma just took a lot of market from canon with that 120-300 F/2.8. Its a great lens. canon could make one but they will want 10K for the darn thing ( Just look at the 200-400 )

Of course its possible. Im sure they could put one out next week if they wanted to. If Sigma and Tamron can put out quality products then canon will change its tune

Some recent releases give me a lot of hope

Sigma fine art series
sigma 35
sigma 85-- they need to retweek this a bit for focus inconsistency
Sigma 120-300

Tamron 17-50
Tamron 90 macro
Tamron 24-70--- its decent but not high on my list

These 3rd party MFG's are starting to get competetive.

About the macros of canon: is that really true? I heard that almost every third party macro lens is better as the macro lenses canon offer.

umphotography wrote in post #16107386
No Chance at all. canon would never make a single lens to destroy the market for several of their other lens in that focal range.

Well, they made the 70-200 2.8 IS II.

NemethR wrote in post #16107836
Well, they made the 70-200 2.8 IS II.

Sure but that covers the 135L, 85L and 100L.

a 24-105 would cover a 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 24-70L...

2.8 zooms pretty much have a roughly 3x range limit
very few lenses go beyond 3x

dunno why all 2.8 zooms out there top out at roughly 3x, must be a reason other than size/weight/cost because there are all kinds of lenses that are bigger/heavier/more expensive...

If the chances were that good, it would have been done already.

I think it would be possible, but it would have such a length and a front diametre so it wont really bring benefits with it.