Update for the EF 24-105 f/4 L ?

[Rokkor 58mm 1.2]

We've been treated to a lot of new products from Canon recently. I wonder if there have been any rumors about a new updated version of the EF 24-105 f/4 L . The current original version is 7 years old, and has some known issues, such as distortion and a tight zoom range on the wide end. Makes sense to me that a replacement would be in the works. I have the version 1 of the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L and like it very much. No doubt I'd like the version 2 even better, but both 24-70 f/2.8 lenses are on the heavy side, and I was thinking of getting a high IQ but lighter lens to use as a walkaround, general purpose lens. Has anyone heard anything about a replacement or would like to make a comment?

[M249]

First I would like to see new versions of:

50 1.4
50 1.8
35 1.4
35 2.0
100-400
28-135
400 5.6

 and some more maybe... 

[well_dunno]

Hi,

I would not expect any update on the 24-205. It is doing the FF kit lens duty well and the competition does not really have anything as good. Unlikely that any update on it will be prioritized.

My 2 cents anyway...

Cheers!

[Wiki Tango]

I have a copy from 2009 (taken from a 5D2Kit) that I selected at my local Frankfurt/M. dealer and I am quite happy with it on the 40D and 7D and I also think that Canon will update other lenses but not his one.

Of course a new design inherited from 70-200 2.8 L Mk II and the latest Mk II of the 24-70 would be nice...
but
let's hope they announce one next year so we probably see (and talk about) prototypes in 2014/15/16...

How long is the 100-400L on duty? And still no update... (well, let's ignore the 10k$ 200-400 1.4x converter monster).

Anyway this workhorse will continue as the walkaround lens for 5D/6D and 1D-families for quite some time.

In case someone wonders what to shoot with the 24-105L, you may have look here:
http://www.ipernity.com/tag/canon/keyword/294182

[preppyak]

You have to remember what its purpose is. As a kit lens for their pro camera bodies, the only real reason they would have to update it would be to make it cheaper to produce (increasing their profit on each kit).

And as others have mentioned, its better than any other standard walk-around other companies have, and while it has a few known issues, I'm not really sure they are easily avoidable in such a design (name me a 5x zoom Canon has that doesn't have HUGE barrel distortion on the wide end). Plus, would you really want to be paying $1500 for an update when the current version is easy to get at half that price?

And with them having just released both their full-frame bodies that would go with it, you've got probably 2+ years until another full-frame body where they would introduce a new kit lens.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its relatively new as lenses go, and a excellent lens.  Its possible we will see a new version, but there are many others that actually need a upgrade.

[ronderick]

I'd wager we see a new version of the 100-400mm before that (here's one lens from the last century).

Of course, if they do upgrade the 24-105mm, Canon has to do something about the ERR01 problem...

[RS2021]

Unlikely it will be updated anytime soon.

It is targetted toward a specific market as a kit lens. Fanatics with money to spare may own it, but will not be relying on it at f/4. They are likely to own 24-70L and a couple of primes in this range.

As a walk around lens, lack of viable competition in the price range favors Canon and they have no impetus to generate a new version of something that already seems to be hold its own. I am not holding my breadth.

[DanThePhotoMan]

Though I don't see this ever happening, a 24-105 f/2.8 would be my perfect lens.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Though I don't see this ever happening, a 24-105 f/2.8 would be my perfect lens.

Building a 4-1 zoom with a wide aperture is very difficult, and compromises will need to be made.  We's want one that was excellent, but its doubtful that it would be the equal of the 3-1 zooms. (except for price - $3500)

[Gino]

Though I don't see this ever happening, a 24-105 f/2.8 would be my perfect lens.

Building a 4-1 zoom with a wide aperture is very difficult, and compromises will need to be made.  We's want one that was excellent, but its doubtful that it would be the equal of the 3-1 zooms. (except for price - $3500)

Though I don't see this ever happening, a 24-105 f/2.8 would be my perfect lens.

If Canon could build a 24-105 f/2.8 with IS, keep the weight under 1,000 g, and have as good of IQ as the current 24-105 f/4, then I would be will to pay up to $3,000 for it.

[RS2021]

If Canon could build a 24-105 f/2.8 with IS, keep the weight under 1,000 g, and have as good of IQ as the current 24-105 f/2.8, then I would be will to up to $3,000 for it.

From a marketing view point, this is a non starter.  To justify a very high price and sell enough copies at that price (more than some new FF bodies) for a standard zoom, IQ has to be super great.  *IF* the IQ is that good....then just consider the number of lenses that will be in the line of fire in this range ...you could just get this one zoom and slay the Canon wide to mid ranges, several "basic" f/2.8 primes and even L level zooms... including the superstar 24-70L II f/2.8 they just introduced at a whopping $2300+ price.
 
If I were a Canon executive or marketing pro, I'll break out in rashes even reading about it.

[AndreeOnline]

As others have said, a 2.8 version is not realistic.

But if they'd make a II with same optical qualities as 70-200 2.8L IS II, I'd EASILY pay $2000+ for that.

My 24-105 isn't my best performing lens, but it one of my favorites for sure. Extremely versatile.

For commercial applications it's easy to find better alternatives, but for everyday life—hands down my best lens.

Take it on a trip and you're not missing many shots. Bring an extender if you're desperate.

[Random Orbits]

If Canon could build a 24-105 f/2.8 with IS, keep the weight under 1,000 g, and have as good of IQ as the current 24-105 f/4, then I would be will to pay up to $3,000 for it.

Probably closer to 3 lb.  The 24-70 II is a shade under 2 lb and the 70-200 II is 3.75 lb.  3 lb would be double the weight of current 24-105, which would definitly affect its portability.

[RS2021]

*sarcasm hat on*  Why don't we just go the whole hog and contemplate a 16-135mm f2.8 L?