New STM 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS

Heya,

Dunno, I just don't see a place for this lens. I don't see the 24-105L going up in price even if it was discontinued. It will probably stay about the same. I wouldn't pay $800~1k for that lens, ever. I won't even buy it at $600. I'm sure someone would. This lens doesn't make as much sense on APS-C either, as the 18-135 STM. So if this is more of a full frame lens, it could be useful, but again, I just don't see a lot of people after this thing with those apertures. It screams "I'm an F8 lens" to me. So... landscape?

I guess this is why I'm not much of a zoom kind of guy. So probably why I don't get the appeal of the lens with those apertures.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17157254
Heya,

Dunno, I just don't see a place for this lens. I don't see the 24-105L going up in price even if it was discontinued. It will probably stay about the same. I wouldn't pay $800~1k for that lens, ever. I won't even buy it at $600. I'm sure someone would. This lens doesn't make as much sense on APS-C either, as the 18-135 STM. So if this is more of a full frame lens, it could be useful, but again, I just don't see a lot of people after this thing with those apertures. It screams "I'm an F8 lens" to me. So... landscape?

I guess this is why I'm not much of a zoom kind of guy. So probably why I don't get the appeal of the lens with those apertures.

Very best,

I wouldn't pay $600 for a 24-105, either. Between my 28-135 and 28-75, I can match the 24-105's mediocre performance. If this lens focuses quickly and is optically superior to the 24-105L, I'll likely get one. If I have to go to f/8 for IQ, I'll just keep the 28-135. It is adequate when I need an IS zoom. I have the 28-75 when I need faster. And primes.

Oh, it would be for my 6D. I already have the 15-85 for the 60D.

i'm not sure why you think it would be optically better than the L...

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17157286
I wouldn't pay $600 for a 24-105, either. Between my 28-135 and 28-75, I can match the 24-105's mediocre performance. If this lens focuses quickly and is optically superior to the 24-105L, I'll likely get one. If I have to go to f/8 for IQ, I'll just keep the 28-135. It is adequate when I need an IS zoom. I have the 28-75 when I need faster. And primes.

Oh, it would be for my 6D. I already have the 15-85 for the 60D.

Heya,

That's the thing, it will not be optically better than the 24-105L.
It's a whole stop slower, F5.6 at 105mm is not interesting to me.
Hopefully it's at least acceptably sharp wide open, otherwise, 1 stop down is F8.
If I were to have this lens, it would probably live at F11~F22 for landscape.

It's only advantage is STM. But again, the slow aperture makes it even LESS interesting as a cinema lens.

My only curiosity at all about this lens is the 24mm performance, if it will have the same properties as the 24-105L, as that's it's weakest focal length.

I don't like any of the kit(ish) lenses though that are F5.6 at their long ends while not being really long (makes sense at 200mm, but at 85mm? 105mm? 135mm? Bleh).

But this is in the context of a $600 lens. It's properties are just so... not special, at all, for $600. It really just seems to be the "kit" STM version for full frame, instead of the EF-S 18-55 STM. Probably optically quite good. But again, slow aperture, and a very general range of focal lengths.

Very best,

It makes sense for ff users

*who wants to spend less on kitlens/first lens on FF. It's half the price of a new 24-105 L
*who wants lighter gear. Slighly lighter than 24-105 L.
*Silent & smoother focus than 24-105 L, which is a big plus if doing movies

Optically I expect it to perform pretty well (as all STM lenses have been more than good so far).

Personally if I would get a FF today I would get the 6D + 24-105 STM rather than 6D + 24-105 L for above listed reasons.

But for crop this lens is pointless as there is already the 18-135 STM

Hermelin wrote in post #17157912
It makes sense for ff users

*who wants to spend less on kitlens/first lens on FF. It's half the price of a new 24-105 L
*who wants lighter gear. Slighly lighter than 24-105 L.
*Silent & smoother focus than 24-105 L, which is a big plus if doing movies

Optically I expect it to perform pretty well (as all STM lenses have been more than good so far).

Personally if I would get a FF today I would get the 6D + 24-105 STM rather than 6D + 24-105 L for above listed reasons.

But for crop this lens is pointless as there is already the 18-135 STM

These are all excellent points.

But, if I am not primarily a video user, and I went to the trouble/expense of buying a full frame, I doubt I am going to use this lens as my primary walk around. I can't believe the optics will approach those of the f/4.

No one pays much more than $600 for a mint copy of the 24-105 f/4 these days. And the weight difference of 525g vs. 675g is not that substantial. (The 15-85 is 575g - not that anyone cares because no way do I see this as a reasonable alternative walk around to the 15-85 or the 18-135 STM on a crop).

we all know that prices will drop and new will settle around 400 and used market around 300. For 300 bucks it will be a decent option for people on a budget like people buying 5Dc or 5d2 or even the 6D.

Still.... They already have a 28-135 and there is really nothing wrong w/ that lens. This is kinda a STM version is all.

Oh well.

I'm curious to see image comparison's to the L. Also surprised this is not an EF-S.

this is the "kit lens" that should have came out at the same time as the 6D and packaged with the 6D. likely for whatever reason, it wasn't ready in time.

hw_ wrote in post #17158155
this is the "kit lens" that should have came out at the same time as the 6D and packaged with the 6D. likely for whatever reason, it wasn't ready in time.

On the one hand, you are probably right.

But, on the other hand, that does not say a lot for the 6D, does it?

Giving this release a bit more thought, many of us (certainly myself included) have complained forever that there is no inexpensive walk around for the Canon FF. (Of course, this was before the prices on the f/4 24-105 tanked to around $600-$700 range).

So, I guess this new 24-105 answers that call. No need to keep making the 28-135 IS (which I personally think is a very good walk around on the FF), and no great rush to buy the Tamorn 28-75 (which, while it is a 2.8, test results are not kind to its IQ).

Eastport wrote in post #17158120
These are all excellent points.

But, if I am not primarily a video user, and I went to the trouble/expense of buying a full frame, I doubt I am going to use this lens as my primary walk around. I can't believe the optics will approach those of the f/4.

No one pays much more than $600 for a mint copy of the 24-105 f/4 these days. And the weight difference of 525g vs. 675g is not that substantial. (The 15-85 is 575g - not that anyone cares because no way do I see this as a reasonable alternative walk around to the 15-85 or the 18-135 STM on a crop).

The main point is still the price. We are only talking about new retail price here. If the 24-105 L is $600 for mint condition then the 24-105 STM maybe will be $300 eventuelly. But we can only compare brand new retail price here.

For the price of a new 24-105 f/4 ($1149) which only has f/4 anyway you can now get a general purpose lens 24-105 STM ($599) AND a lowlight lens; Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM ($599).
Makes more sense now? Way better deal if you ask me if you gonna buy brand new starting kit if you ask me.

Talley wrote in post #17158142
we all know that prices will drop and new will settle around 400 and used market around 300. For 300 bucks it will be a decent option for people on a budget like people buying 5Dc or 5d2 or even the 6D.

Still.... They already have a 28-135 and there is really nothing wrong w/ that lens. This is kinda a STM version is all.

Oh well.

I expect the 24-105 STM to perform equally or better than the 18-135 STM and the 18-135 STM outperforms the 28-135 on crop big time!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0

i don't think that many people, if any are paying full price for the 24-105mm...it's not even mint condition...you're talking brand new for $650 from sites that split the kits

gossamer88 wrote in post #17158150
I'm curious to see image comparison's to the L. Also surprised this is not an EF-S.

Why would it be a EF-S when you already have the excellent 18-135 STM

Hermelin wrote in post #17158504
The main point is still the price. We are only talking about new retail price here. If the 24-105 L is $600 for mint condition then the 24-105 STM maybe will be $300 eventuelly. But we can only compare brand new retail price here.

For the price of a new 24-105 f/4 ($1149) which only has f/4 anyway you can now get a general purpose lens 24-105 STM ($599) AND a lowlight lens; Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM ($599).
Makes more sense now? Way better deal if you ask me if you gonna buy brand new starting kit if you ask me.

I think the main point about the 24-105L being f/4 is that it is constant aperture, which imo is something that I'd like to have on my own lenses (and I'm very likely not alone in that). Had Canon made a new, cheaper 24-105 STM with constant f/4 (without the build quality or necessarily the same IQ) it would at least make it a compromise for those who want a starting level lens for FF.

However, I personally can't see anyone having spent some time on crop wanting to "upgrade" to a lens that is only marginally better than what they already optically (let's say the 18-135 STM) which, when they will want a more advanced lens, will be stuck with a lens with a low resale price. I certainly wouldn't want that lens if I were to move to FF, preferring the Sigma 24-105A.