24-85mm Lens?

[dickgrafixstop]

I see that Nikon is pushing the 24-85mm image stablized lens with the D600 package.  Canon made
a fine 24-85mm lens that was bundled with the ill fated APS IX systems, but seems to have disappeared or discontinued.  Any reason?  I think it was too good for the price and took market share from the overpriced 24-70L.  Others have said it was "replaced" by the 28-135is.  Comments?

[RS2021]

I see that Nikon is pushing the 24-85mm image stablized lens with the D600 package.  Canon made
a fine 24-85mm lens that was bundled with the ill fated APS IX systems, but seems to have disappeared or discontinued.  Any reason?  I think it was too good for the price and took market share from the overpriced 24-70L.  Others have said it was "replaced" by the 28-135is.  Comments?

I wouldn't say it was too good or was bumped off so it won't compte with this that or the other...

As general purpose lenses go, this was rather a mediocre lens with harsh 6 aperture blades... Canon made several candidates in this variable aperture range (f3.5 -f4.5) and I would say the now also discontinued 28-105 USM II may arguably be an overall better performer and had 7 blades and a larger focal length range...nothing to write home about, but was inexpensive and produced decent images...

[AprilForever]

The 24-105 is much more welcome than this 28 -85 length. And, they had better not get ideas about killing it for the 24-70 IS f4...

[RS2021]

The 24-105 is much more welcome than this 28 -85 length. And, they had better not get ideas about killing it for the 24-70 IS f4...

Good copies of 24-105L are gems....great all purpose lens with IS!

[KyleSTL]

I think the replacement (by 28-135mm IS and 28-105mm II) is more likely what happened.  Here's the chronology of mid-level normal zooms:

EF 35-135mm f/4-5.6 USM (1990)
EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 USM (1991) - metal mount, Ring USM [unlike later versions]
EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1992) - metal mount, Ring USM [unlike f/4-5.6 versions]
EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM(1996)
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (1998)
EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM (2000) - metal mount, Ring USM [unlike f/4-5.6 versions]

When Canon annouced the 24-70mm f/4L IS USM, I was hoping it was going to be a competitor to the Nikkor 24-85mm VR.  Sadly it is not (based on price).  I'm sure Canon will need to come out with better full frame options for zoom lenses that are not L (and are much less than $1000 MSRP) in order to compete in the entry-level FF market.  Also disappointing is the fact there has only been 1 non-L ultra-wide zoom (EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - 1993).  I would love for Canon to come out with 14-24mm f/2.8L, 16-35mm f/4L and a 17-40mm f/3.5-4.5 (for less than the current f/4L).

[TeenTog]

I'm sure Canon will need to come out with better full frame options for zoom lenses that are not L (and are much less than $1000 MSRP) in order to compete in the entry-level FF market.

For sure! I bet a lot of people are turned off by the 6D because most of their lens options are 1K+. Canon won't be able to keep up with the D600 because of A) "non full frame" nikkor lenses can be used on full frame cameras. and B) canon doesn't have an affordable mid range zoom, among other ranges. I doubt canon will create a 17-40mm f/3.5-4.5L anytime soon, they aready make gobs of money from current version. 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm sure Canon will need to come out with better full frame options for zoom lenses that are not L (and are much less than $1000 MSRP) in order to compete in the entry-level FF market.

For sure! I bet a lot of people are turned off by the 6D because most of their lens options are 1K+. Canon won't be able to keep up with the D600 because of A) "non full frame" nikkor lenses can be used on full frame cameras. and B) canon doesn't have an affordable mid range zoom, among other ranges. I doubt canon will create a 17-40mm f/3.5-4.5L anytime soon, they aready make gobs of money from current version.

Did the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS cease to exist while I wasn't looking?

FYI, since we're talking about FF bodies, the 17-40mm is an ultrawide zoom, not a mid range zoom, unless you meant mid-range in terms of price, which describes the 28-135mm accurately.

[Zlatko]

Did the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS cease to exist while I wasn't looking?

It still exists.  It's mid-range.  And it's pretty affordable.  But somehow people are being "turned off by the 6D" because this lens doesn't exist.  How strange. 

[sdsr]

I'm sure Canon will need to come out with better full frame options for zoom lenses that are not L (and are much less than $1000 MSRP) in order to compete in the entry-level FF market.

For sure! I bet a lot of people are turned off by the 6D because most of their lens options are 1K+. Canon won't be able to keep up with the D600 because of A) "non full frame" nikkor lenses can be used on full frame cameras. and B) canon doesn't have an affordable mid range zoom, among other ranges. I doubt canon will create a 17-40mm f/3.5-4.5L anytime soon, they aready make gobs of money from current version.

As others have pointed out, they do make an affordable mid-range zoom; it just happens to have longer reach than such zooms often have.  Besides, when Canon makes the 24-105L part of a kit, it becomes, in effect, precisely such a lens, costing not much more, if at all, than the kit lens for the D600, a lens to which it is evidently superior.  When you add in such inexpensive lenses as the 70-300 non-L and the handful of inexpensive primes in the <100mm range, I wouldn't have thought the prices of Canon's lenses were much of a deterrent.  Sure, you can use DX lenses on a D600, but if that's all you're going to use on it, what's the point of going full-frame at all?  You would be better off with any of their DX bodies.  How many affordable and good FX lenses does Nikon make?

[KyleSTL]

Fair point, neuro.  It absolutely does count as a mid-range (price) normal zoom lens.  However, in comparison to lenses like Nikon's 24-85mm VR it: 1) looks antiquated (1998 vs 2012), 2) has generation 2 IS which is noisier and much less affective, 3) is large and heavy and 4) does not go to 24mm.  Heck, even compared to the EF-S 15-85mm the image quality, features, and build quality seem to be lacking.  Something in the same price range for full frame is needed. 

I mentioned the 17-40mm only because it is the cheapest new-in-box UWA option from Canon. If Canon could undercut the Nikkor 18-35mm with better build quality and image quality it would be huge.  Additionally, Canon will definitely be coming out with a 14-24mm f/2.8 and something to compete with the 16-35 VR (and you can bet they'll both be substantially more expensive than the lenses they replace) which is all the more reason to come out with affordable, modern, non-L zooms.

[dilbert]

The 24-105 is much more welcome than this 28 -85 length. And, they had better not get ideas about killing it for the 24-70 IS f4...

Good copies of 24-105L are gems....great all purpose lens with IS!

Hmm, so now it is a lotto draw as to whether or not you get a 24-105L that's worth keeping.

Great.

Think I'll buy Tamron in future and spend less to enter the lens lottery.

[dilbert]

I mentioned the 17-40mm only because it is the cheapest new-in-box UWA option from Canon. If Canon could undercut the Nikkor 18-35mm with better build quality and image quality it would be huge.

Except that you don't want to use the 17-40mm at anything less than 21mm if you can help it and even then the corners suck.