No compact 'standard' L zoom?

[pharp]

With the announcement by Canon of the 6D, it appears that they've at least acknowledged (are hoping) that there is a (big?) market for a FF camera, but in a smaller, lighter package. So, wheres the lens to go with it? There are currrently only 3 [out of 10] FF standard zoom lenses. Of the two L offerings, the 24-70 is by all accounts very good, but quite pricey and still not light [the brickette], the 24-105 is also pretty good, but still looks large on the 6D, especially as a walk around zoom.  Canon makes FIVE versions of the 70-200!!!  Why not something like a lighter, more moderately priced 24-70L /4?

and how about 35/2L and 24/2 or 2.8L 

[Steve Campbell]

Actually, Canon has five versions of the 70-200, but I believe they are currently manufacturing only three of them. I don't believe the 70-200 2.8 non IS or the 70-200 IS version I are in production anymore. The 24-105 is not too large or heavy and is a great all round lens.

[neuroanatomist]

Cheap, mediocre optics can be small and light.  If you want good optical quality, you generally need more and often larger elements, and that means a larger, heavier lens.  If you want a light general purpose zoom lens, pick up a used 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

[Aaron78]

Constant apetured lenses (24-105 and 24-70) are just larger and heavier than a variable apetured lens because of the glass involved. A 28-135 will be smaller and lighter, so maybe look there. My 70-200 2.8L IS II is my walk around zoom....

[crasher8]

Here ya go buudy

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MINT-CANON-AF-EF-24-85mm-3-5-4-5-USM-67mm-JAPAN-MADE-LENS-/230857110533?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item35c027f405

[señor Steve]

Cheap, mediocre optics can be small and light.  If you want good optical quality, you generally need more and often larger elements, and that means a larger, heavier lens.  If you want a light general purpose zoom lens, pick up a used 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

...or of fixed focal length or diffractive optics or aps-c.  Always a compromise right?

[bbasiaga]

The 24-105 is a very handy lens.  Doesn't even feel like its there, especially if you have used a 24 or 28-70 2.8L.  Give it a shot I think you'll like it.

-Brian

[FunkyD3121]

I'd have to agree with Brian - I have had the 24-105 since 2007 & it practically stays on my 50D.  Love that lens!

[vlim]

Have you think about the 70-300 F/4-5.6 L IS ?

[crasher8]

Pancake and sneakers?

[neuroanatomist]

Pancake and sneakers?

Doesn't sound very appetizing...

[MK5GTI]

didn't even know there is a Canon 24-85 variable lens. must be old? how does it perform?

but the 24-85 Nikkor that comes with the D600 Kit is very compact, not tooo heavy as well.

i sure hope Canon can bring us some cheaper alternatives. maybe 24-85 F2.8-4 ? just like how Fuji "kit lens" has 2.8-4 on their 18-55.

[neuroanatomist]

didn't even know there is a Canon 24-85 variable lens. must be old? how does it perform?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-85mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[mrsfotografie]

I have this Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II. A great little lens, from the old days. It is a crunchy old design but optically quite good, and is still a fun small (read: tiny!) zoom option on FF Don't use it much though 

Ø70mm x 76.5mm, 285 grams.

[preppyak]

I have this Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II. A great little lens, from the old days. It is a crunchy old design but optically quite good, and is still a fun small (read: tiny!) zoom option on FF Don't use it much though 

Yeah, I have a 28-80 that comes from the film days and optically its ok on APS-C, but it would fall apart on full-frame. But, since I use it in conditions where I wouldn't want to break/scratch my good lenses, I'm fine with the compromise

The real answer is the 28-135, but optically that is a compromise as well. And Canon already makes a 35/2 and 24/2.8 (in both IS and non-IS), no need for an L to double the price for no reason