Where's the beef (24-105 f2.8L IS)?

B

bluesgeek

Well-known member
With the proliferation of DSLR video shooters (in no small part due to Canon's own cameras), I'm wondering why we don't see the emergence of a Canon 24-105 f2.8L IS.

I'd be more inclined to pay $2000 for a 24-105 2.8 IS than a 70-200 2.8 IS, and I'm sure it would become my main lens.

It would be a perfect gap lens for the hole left by the 17-55 and the 70-200. I think it would drastically reduce my mid-shoot lens swapping, which is probably the biggest crippling factor I run into using DSLR for ENG-style corporate work.

This would also be a good market for a Tamron VC or Sigma.

I would have thought that one of these companies would have seen this need coming. and we'd have something by now. I'll bet such a stabilized lens would be a best seller.
 
Canon charges $1000 for the 17-55mm why would they charge so much for the gap after that?

Also I need a lens within that same range and constant aperture as well.
 
I'm thinking that the 24-105 might be a more expensive design, perhaps more comparable to the 70-200. But hey, $1000 sounds good!
 
Im with life4eva on this one. $1000 price point seems more reasonable. But at the same time they do sell the 24-105 f/4 l for $1249 so it would be hard to see them selling a faster lens on the same size for that price.
 
At $1k for a 24-105 f2.8 constant speed you would get crappy plastic mechanics and so so glass. $2k-3k is a much more reasonable price range for a decent lens. Would still only be 10% of the cost of a similar S35 cine zoom. Keep in mind that at f2.8, it will be twice the size and weight of the f4 version.
 
Yeah, J Davis, a Canon version of that Sigma would be nice.

For my work though, I am always getting nailed by that seam between zoom reaches at the 50mm point. I think I'd find myself having to swap out less at the 28mm point for a wider reach, or at the 100mm point for a tele reach. I was standing in a crowd and got nudged while changing from the Canon 55-250 IS to the Tamron 17-50 VC, and dropped one of them... on concrete... from shoulder high... attracting the attention of not only other photogs, but sympathetic bystanders. :crybaby: :violin:

I would stick the 28-105 on there and, unless I was in a tight spot where I couldn't back away to get framed up or couldn't get close enough for the CU, I'd probably leave it. (If it was 2.8 and IS).

And I think it would be a fave among ENG/doc shooters.
 
Seems strange to me why anyone would say " What are you Smoking" and other negative comments. To my understanding why would anyone want something to be more expensive?

$1000 for a lens seems very expensive for me and I highly doubt I would ever pay more than that for any lens that wasn't a Cine lens. Lighting is key and if that;s the way it's going to be then I would rather invest that extra $1000 into lights then.


But yeah lighten up people and stop sounding like you work for canon, think about the people and not the corporations for a second here
:happy:
 
I just called Canon tech support (800-652-2666) and asked them for Voice of the Customer and suggested 24-105 2.8 IS.
 
I also wrote to the lead tech Mr. Pat Simonetti at Tamron: simonetti@tamron.com

Here is the note from the Canon rep who took my call:

Thank you for calling us with your feedback. We appreciate you taking
the time to share your comments with us regarding your Canon product.

As a videographer, your comments concerning your needs for a mid-range
lens such as the EF 24-105, with a fast (fixed) aperture like 2.8, and
the addition of Image Stabilization is greatly appreciated. I found the
suggestion well stated and I can see your point and agree the suggestion
is a good one.

We have forwarded your comments to Canon USA through our Customer
Feedback process. This process allows us to capture important feedback
from our valued customers. As we constantly strive to improve our
products and services, your comments are vital to our continued success.


I hope this information is helpful to you. Please let us know if we can
be of any further assistance with your Canon Products.

Thank you for choosing Canon.
 
Take a look at a 300F4

now grab a 300 2.8

check the prices

£800, £3500 or something for one stop

now move that into zoom world

a 24-105 2.8 woule be massive and very costly

$3k - I would still buy it

The 24-105 is already at the edge of todays tech

it is flimsy when zoomed out - floppy

and at 24 is barrells like a fish eye

To me 24 is a great start point, 85 or suchlike is a good end point

The 24 - 105 is already imo a great idea that doesnt quite work - same with the nikon version 24-105 - thats crap too

best midrange is a 24-85 contax but super rare and needs a $1500 conversion not an adapter because its from a funny contax

if you are not talking full frame its a different story of course but then would not be a RnG lens - not wide enough a 17-55 would be needed - they already make that of course

S
 

As a videographer, your comments concerning your needs for a mid-range
lens such as the EF 24-105, with a fast (fixed) aperture like 2.8, and
the addition of Image Stabilization is greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

your comments...is greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
Sorry, automated replies with no grammar check irk me!

But you are so on the money that this would be a great lens and that there is an untapped market for the professionals. I would slaughter a herd of cute baby cows to get my hands on a lens with that range, speed, and with IS. It would replace my overused 7d kit lens (28-135mm f3.5-5.6) that works as my ~50mm seam-cover, as you put it.

I agree, though, that the optic technology just doesn't exist to put so much into a lens. Dare to dream...
 
morgan_moore said:
The 24-105 is already at the edge of todays tech

it is flimsy when zoomed out - floppy

and at 24 is barrells like a fish eye

To me 24 is a great start point, 85 or suchlike is a good end point

The 24 - 105 is already imo a great idea that doesnt quite work - same with the nikon version 24-105 - thats crap too
Click to expand...

Wow. I hope they address that when* they come out with the IS version.

* positive thinking
 
+1 on the guess that a Canon L lens like that would be $2K-$3K. That would be the first 2.8 zoom in that range AFAIK. Even if Sigma made such a lens for $1K they'd never keep up with the demand. The Canon 24-70 is already $1300 without IS. On the 70-200 2.8 the IS option alone adds $600... so once they add IS to the 24-70 I expect even that lens won't be $1300.

As for a 24-105... if it were me I'd sacrifice tele for wide. A 17-85 IS (even 17-70), with the mechanical build quality of an L... sealed... would be nice. If we're putting in requests, I wish they'd simply build the 17-55 IS like they build the 24-70 2.8L... since, with hood, it's really close to the same price. (seal that thing up, Canon)

It's too bad these 2.8 lenses are so expensive, but apparently they cost enough to make, and sell well enough that the price isn't going to come down. I've been into cameras for 25 years... 2.8 zoom canon/nikon glass has always been high. Looking on the bright side, that's also what separates many pros from regular enthusiasts. For example, if you shoot a wedding with a t2i it won't be at all unusual to have attendants with the same cam, but it's highly unlikely that any of them will have a fat 2.8 zoom on it.
 
An EF 24-105 2.8 is lens would be huge and very expensive. The 24-70 is already very heavy, and it would be much larger.

An EFS lens (suitable for the 7d/550d) with a zoom of say 17-70mm and f/2.8 would be much more doable. On the other hand, why not just get the 17-55 and a 50-150mm f/2.8 lens if you want 2.8 through the range and you don't need full frame? Not sure that there is a 50-150 with IS at the moment, but I guess one is much more likely to appear than a 24-105 2.8.
 
We might see a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS and we may see a 24-105mm f/2.8 but we ain't gonna see no 24-105mm f/2.8 IS. If lens manufacturers have the upstairs to create the feats of physics we all know and love, then they've certainly got their best interest covered as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top