Comments on: 24-105 f/4L IS Replacement

By: Paul Smith Shoes

Paul Smith Shoes — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:03:27 +0000

Many people have alos become fans of Paul Smith Shoes since they came into the market. I also one of them , I very like Paul Smith Wallets and Paul Smith Belts,It designs very good.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:10:44 +0000

I’d much rather have them do 24-105 2.8 than some 20-135 4.0

By: Todd Wallace

Todd Wallace — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:02:26 +0000

Maybe because the 24-105 is a macro lens

By: Michal

Michal — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 04:35:12 +0000

Don’t see a reason for a refresh of this lens if the aperture stays the same. It’s a fine, sharp lens with little to improve. The new hybrid IS is of questionable value in a non-macro lens. If Canon really must make a new version of it so be it but I hope that the price will not increase.

By: Mucher

Mucher — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:44:40 +0000

28-85/4L can also covers FF cameras, x1.6 it is still a 45-136 and it can be in a lighter package than 24-105/4L as I can believe, so it would be a nice all around lense for almost everyone.

Current and future sensors are so dense and low light performance is and will be so good, there isn’t much point to carry a big piece of metal and glasses for this general purpose range.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:31:51 +0000

Just noticed mucher said virtually same thing ie. 28-85Lf4.
Canon are you listening?!

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:30:07 +0000

Bah

Can do without such nonsense. 24-70L is excellent, 24-105 is lighter and ok.

What I want is a small, light 35-90L f4 with perfect optics. I’d upgrade from my 24-70L f2.8 in a heartbeat.

By: Stark-Arts

Stark-Arts — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:46:16 +0000

i think you are wrong on the new IS needing more room – the 100 2.8 is minisculey larger than the older 100 2.8

By: Stark-Arts

Stark-Arts — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:45:19 +0000

you mean bokeh or DOF – the aperture is not the same. the light is doubled plus a bit more…

the real case in point is that the 135 is a better lens outside of a studio.

By: Stark-Arts

Stark-Arts — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:42:31 +0000

no. they are definitely talking about the range. for me I don’t need it any longer but a 20-105 f4 or better yet 2.8-4 (why does no one do this anymore) would be a very useful lens. the precedent has been set to expand at the wide end. 28-70 2.8 became 24-70 2.8 – no reason that we can’t get a bit wider…
JC

By: mucher

mucher — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:59:41 +0000

I am surprised that that 17-40/4L is not IS and I think a 17-55/4L IS, or 28-85/4L will be lovely.

By: Marc

Marc — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:58:08 +0000

Nothing is wrong. Take it easy.

I got a 7D since 4 days and did not have any issue qith the flash.

There may be 1 guy on a hundred thousands with an issue. That does not mean you should start being scared. Relax and enjoy this amazing camera.

By: Habemus_Nigh-kwon

Habemus_Nigh-kwon — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:18:04 +0000

Best post of the thread, hehe ;P. Back to topic: the 24-105/4 was only introduced in 2006, the 24-70/2.8 intro’ed in ’03 is the one that is in more need of an update, give it 4-stop IS & improve it optically to match or exceed the later-designed (2007) Zeiss 24-70 & Nikkor 24-70. After that, the 70-200/2.8 IS needs to get the newest 4-stop IS unit and also be improved optically to match the 70-200/4 IS.

By: catastradmos

catastradmos — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 00:46:59 +0000

EF 21-121mm F4 semi-Luxurious no-IS $1899
EF 15-55 F3.5-5.6 IS EFS-like-Hardly useable, (replacement of 17-40) $799