24-105 f2.8IS

[wickidwombat]

Tamron made a 28-105/2.8 some time ago.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=242

The lens had a reputation for being very soft wide open.

But - it goes to show that an f/2.8 zoom with this range is not impossible.  Perhaps with modern lens design and the latest in high-refractive-index glass, one could design something that's useable.

yeah by all accounts it was softer than a marshmallow on a bonfire

[briansquibb]

Tamron made a 28-105/2.8 some time ago.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=242

The lens had a reputation for being very soft wide open.

But - it goes to show that an f/2.8 zoom with this range is not impossible.  Perhaps with modern lens design and the latest in high-refractive-index glass, one could design something that's useable.

yeah by all accounts it was softer than a marshmallow on a bonfire

 

[D.Sim]

Tamron made a 28-105/2.8 some time ago.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=242

The lens had a reputation for being very soft wide open.

But - it goes to show that an f/2.8 zoom with this range is not impossible.  Perhaps with modern lens design and the latest in high-refractive-index glass, one could design something that's useable.

yeah by all accounts it was softer than a marshmallow on a bonfire

that has to be the best description of a soft lens I've ever heard... 

[well_dunno]

yeah by all accounts it was softer than a marshmallow on a bonfire

LOL
+1 for that

[dilbert]

The 24-70/2.8 is the 2.8 version of the 24-105 f/4.0.

Just the same as the 24-105 is the f/4 version of the 24-70/2.8.

I know that might seem a bit strange, but there is only 1 f-stop difference.

um and 35mm of focal range which happens to cover the important 85 to 100mm

Are you going to say that the 5mm difference between the 16-35 and 17-40 is also important?

f/2.8
16-35
24-70
70-200

f/4
17-40
24-105
70-200

[wickidwombat]

The 24-70/2.8 is the 2.8 version of the 24-105 f/4.0.

Just the same as the 24-105 is the f/4 version of the 24-70/2.8.

I know that might seem a bit strange, but there is only 1 f-stop difference.

um and 35mm of focal range which happens to cover the important 85 to 100mm

Are you going to say that the 5mm difference between the 16-35 and 17-40 is also important?

f/2.8
16-35
24-70
70-200

f/4
17-40
24-105
70-200

nope of course not but the 16-35 vs the 17-40 have many more differences other than 1mm wide and 5mm long i dont like the 24-70 i'd rather use the 16-35 on a 1.3 crop and a 70-200 on FF gives me effectively 20mm to 200mm all at f2.8 the gap in the middle use feet zooming.
I dont know i really like the 20mm focal length for some reason much more than 24mm cant explain it other than just personal preference but i like that range of 20-48mm its really nice and both lenses zoom internallly
maybe i could be tempted to the 24-70II  if it lives up to its mtf chart but at the moment 16-35 is one of my favourite lenses

[Quasimodo]

I think a 24-105 F2.8L IS USM would kill the market for the 24-70 F2.8L II. I am not so sure if it would do so much for other lenses. I would still like to use my 50mm F1.4, and I will never stop using my 135mm F2.0L for any lens:)

[briansquibb]

I think a 24-105 F2.8L IS USM would kill the market for the 24-70 F2.8L II. I am not so sure if it would do so much for other lenses. I would still like to use my 50mm F1.4, and I will never stop using my 135mm F2.0L for any lens:)

My 24-105 and 70-300L are my walkabouts, the 135 is my favourite prime which I use for portraits of humans and animals.

A 24-105 fits nicely onto a 1.3 and ff so I would get one

[Quasimodo]

Brian.

I have been looking at the 70-300, but I have not gone for it yet. I have a 70-200 F2.8L  IS II, and I am planning on buying the 2x teleconverter mk III. Would it not cover it for me?

[briansquibb]

Brian.

I have been looking at the 70-300, but I have not gone for it yet. I have a 70-200 F2.8L  IS II, and I am planning on buying the 2x teleconverter mk III. Would it not cover it for me?

Yes it would, nearly.

The 70-300L is more of a walkabout/travel lens. Short and quite light. The bigger range means you dont have to change the lens so often - yet gives as good IQ as the 70-200II.

On a 1.3/ff it is a dual purpose lens - at the wide end it is a good portrait lens, at the long end a medium telephoto.

[Quasimodo]

Yes, thanks:)

I have a couple of lenses that I hope to buy in not a long time. I have been drooling over the MP-E65 for quite a while now, and the new 24 with is looks very nice too (don't understand what to use the 28 for, as it is not either or..?), and finally I have to make a plan on how to save for the new 24-70 which is extremly good according to my friend who had and used it the whole weekend.