varying aperture zoom lenses

[Marsu42]

all people were hootin' and hollarin' about was the fact that they wanted an affordable FF.  i'm sure that when canon does release one people will complain about that not having all the features of the 5Diii or 1DX.

It's off topic, but I won't complain if Canon delivers a complete package that makes sense and does not leave out key elements like the afma on the 60d to make more expensive alternatives look better.

100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L, variable aperture, costs $1600.  200-400mm f/4L, constant aperture, costs $11,000.  Reasonable compromise, IMO.

Are variable aperture lenses built completely different from fixed ones? Or could for example the 24-105/4L actually be a 24-105/3.5-4L but they disabled the 3.5 because its iq is not up to the standard or people want a constant f4?

[pwp]

I don't have anything critical to say about variable aperture zooms. Generally they offer good value for money in a slightly more compact package. The 70-300L is a good example. As a user of the 17-40 f/4 I certainly wouldn't mind if the new model was a 17-40 f/2.8-4 configuration. Why not? If that does not appeal there's always the 16-35 f/2.8.

Try to take the opposite viewpoint and see the wide end as an advantage rather than seeing the darker end as a negative? That gives you more "whoo-hoo!" moments in your life. As a good friend once told me, it only takes a little bit of imagination to turn a lemon into a lemonade.

Paul Wright

[dr croubie]

A while ago there was a suggestion the the 17-40 f/4 would be upgraded to a 17-40 f/2.8-4, if this happened I would stick to the f/4 edition

Well, you could always set the aperture to f/4, then when you zoom out it doesn't go out to f/2.8 it just stays at f/4.
Noone's forcing you to use the f/2.8, but if the max is f/2.8 at the wide end and you're only using it at f/4, then it'll probably be sharper than using an f/4 lens at f/4.
(of course, it'll probably be more expensive, but that's another story)