No compact 'standard' L zoom?

[mrsfotografie]

I had a 28-135 but it wasn't too great. Eventually the wobbly lens barrel put me off.

The EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II in action. I like the colors (shot in neutral, AWB).

[Seanlucky]

I actually used to own the 24-85 lens, and thought it was a great little guy! After I found I wasn't using it that much I ended up giving it to a friend who had picked up a used 40D and had no glass. Since then I bought a 28-105 variable lens and it's a fantastic walk around! Fits super nicely on my 5DII and for a general walk around lens I find the optical quality perfectly acceptable. Would I use it in the studio? Hell no, hand me the L primes in that situation, those are the times where I'm demanding the absolute best out of everything I'm using. But as a, "tourist," lens it works great.

[Halfrack]

I think the OP has an unrealistic expectation that an L lens should be compromised.  The moment you say "L" in Canonspeak, double the price, but expect a much higher build quality, and a long life of taking photos.  At the same time, you're spending $2100 on the disposable half of a camera.  The 24-105L is the perfect lens to butt up against a FF body on the cheap. 

Don't want to spend L money - the 28-135 is the only other match up with current glass.

This is partly due to the last 5-6 years being all about the digital cameras, and APS-C has been like 90% of the cameras sold.  The 10% buying a 5d/1ds were buying the high end lenses only, so why would Canon develop anything that's FF, yet 'cheap'.  The 28-135 came out in 1998, so for it to have lasted it was the 'compromise'.

Hope that the new push for FF will encourage Canon to come out with a few more designs quickly, but don't hold your breath.

[pharp]

Interesting discussion, but ... I reject out of hand the notion that L glass [better build, weather sealed] have to necessarily be twice as much (especially since many have plastic bodies now) - e.g. 17-40, 70-200 f/4 non IS are both quite reasonable - cheaper than many EF-S lenses.  It certainly wouldn't be a 'waste' to have a 35mm f/2 L or 28 f/2 L I don't think many folks really care about IS on such a lens, but would like weather sealing. I still contend that there is a market for some smaller, lighter L glass.  Maybe I'm wrong and Canon may not make these, but they did make the 40mm pancake - why? Was anyone clamoring for this? Good IQ, but I've seen it on a 1D - and it looks silly.

[preppyak]

Interesting discussion, but ... I reject out of hand the notion that L glass [better build, weather sealed] have to necessarily be twice as much - e.g. 17-40, 70-200 f/4 non IS are both quite reasonable - cheaper than many EF-S lenses.

Actually, if you are going by retail price, only the 17-55 is more expensive than the 17-40. The 17-40 and 10-22 are basically the same. The 70-200 is cheaper because its 13 years old and got updated with IS in 2006.

New L glass is necessarily twice the price (or, at least a 50% premium). Old L glass might not be, but that is usually specifically because its a popular model with many copies out there. Even when Canon has updated older non-L glass, prices have gone up quite a bit with the addition of IS. Or if its cheap (pancake), it sacrifices a stop

[pharp]

Canon will probably price them that way, but I absolutely, positively disagree that they have to be. 

[preppyak]

Canon will probably price them that way, but I absolutely, positively disagree that they have to be.

Oh yeah, they don't have to be. Especially when many of the lenses arent using larger glass, and most of the improvements are R&D used over a wide swath of lenses. But it is the trend, sadly.

[dstppy]

Are we talking about price or size here? 

I can think of 4 EF-S lenses are are 'almost, but not quite L' . . . but they're priced that way too. 

For pricing, as a lot of people here mention, it's partially WHEN something was built. 

If you're talking price, you get what you pay for . . . I mean when you pay to have a zoom (vs a prime) then at the same price, the primes tend to be better built.

Notice how so many people just fell in love with the 40?

[pharp]

Are we talking about price or size here? 

I can think of 4 EF-S lenses are are 'almost, but not quite L' . . . but they're priced that way too. 

For pricing, as a lot of people here mention, it's partially WHEN something was built. 

If you're talking price, you get what you pay for . . . I mean when you pay to have a zoom (vs a prime) then at the same price, the primes tend to be better built.

Notice how so many people just fell in love with the 40?

Size/weight and price [not so much].  My assumption is that many folks have migrated to the Sony NEX or MFT - many as second systems - primarily because of size/weight.  Right? I'm also assuming that its at least a factor for standard DSLR users when deciding which camera to take out for the day.  I'll assume thats why Canon made the 6D the way they did.  My gut says that a smaller, lighter, probably slower - and presumably somewhat cheaper L zoom would sell well. I should think Canon would like that as well - there has to be more profit in these.  I could be wrong.

To your other point - I really don't understand the 40 at all.

[bbasiaga]

The 40 is essentially weightless and is sharper and smaller than either of the 'budget' 50 offerings.  (I've never tried the CM, so I'm talking about the 1.8 and 1.4 versions).  Yes, it gives up a stop or so, but its more than an even trade for the IQ bump.  Especially if you have a newer camera that is clean 2 or 3 stops higher in ISO than the ones from a few years ago.

-Brian

[preppyak]

My gut says that a smaller, lighter, probably slower - and presumably somewhat cheaper L zoom would sell well. I should think Canon would like that as well - there has to be more profit in these.  I could be wrong.

I dunno, they have the 24-105 f/4L that goes for $1150 retail (but really $800). And there is the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS that goes for $479 retail (but really like $300). So, yes, there is a gap for a $750ish retail zoom, but it would have to essentially be an IS-less version of the 24-105, or a variable aperture.

I guess they could update the 28-135, keep that focal length, give it newer coatings, the newer IS, etc. It'd differentiate it from the 24-105 enough, but I'm not sure what the motivation would be. Sort of like looking for a problem that doesn't exist; since someone paying $2000 for their camera shouldn't be skimping on glass, and an APS-C user wouldn't have any use for that focal range. They'd get the 15-85 if they wanted the APS-C equivalent.

[KyleSTL]

Hope that the new push for FF will encourage Canon to come out with a few more designs quickly, but don't hold your breath.

I could definitely see Canon coming out with a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 IS USM in the near (within 12 months for announcement) future to match what Nikon is offering.  Development of reasonable build quality, affordable FF zooms has completely died since 1998 (with the exception of 28-105mm II in 2000).  Timeline of metal-mount non-L zooms:

Wide angle:
20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1993)

Normal:
28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II (1988)
35-70mm f/3.5-4.5A (1988)
35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 (1988)
35-135mm f/4-5.6 USM (1990)
28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 I USM (1991)
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1992)
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1996)
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (1998)
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM (2000)

Tele:
50-200mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
70-210mm f/4 (1987)
100-300mm f/5.6 (1987)
100-200mm f/4.5A (1988)
70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1990)
100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM (1990)
75-300mm f/4-5.6 I/USM (1991), II/USM (1995), III/USM (1999) - non-Ring-type USM
75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (1995) - non-Ring-type USM
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (2005)

All-In-One:
28-200mm f/3.5-5.6   I/USM (2000) - non-Ring-type USM

Not everyone interested in a 6D (when it finally comes out) will be interested in spending $450 for the OK-but-old 28-135mm or $800 for the 24-105mm ($950 un-kitted).  There is definitely room in there for a $400-600 modern (latest IS version, ring-USM) normal zoom and a wide zoom cheaper than 17-40mm (maybe 18-35mm?)with at least ring USM (if not IS aswell).

[Brymills]

Nothing interests me less than another average zoom lens that doesn't have a constant aperture.....    If you're spending that much on a body, why compromise on a crappy lens?  Or... why buy thebody if you don't buy the lenses to make the best use of it?

[dhofmann]

Nothing interests me less than another average zoom lens that doesn't have a constant aperture.....    If you're spending that much on a body, why compromise on a crappy lens?

Why would the lack of constant aperture make a lens crappy? Are the 100-400 and 70-300L lenses crappy?

[Halfrack]

If they're going to do a non-L lens, would they do it as an USM or a STM instead??  If they're going to push video AF, they're really lacking other than the kit lens and the 40 (which I LOVE!)