No compact 'standard' L zoom?

[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?

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

I'd sooner have primes to cover the 300 and 400 focal lengths.

[preppyak]

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!)

Well, a full-frame kit lens wouldn't need STM, as it wouldn't work for video AF for the 6D and 5dIII, as neither has the sensor that utilizes it.

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.

Yeah, I guess I could see it, I'm just not sure there is a strong push there. Maybe once the 6D is out and there are a lot of people put off by upgrading both glass and body to the tune of nearly $3k.

But if you think of what Canon has updated, they aren't really focusing on the budget end of full-frame in terms of lenses. And I can't see a 24-85 being popular in APS-C over the 15-85 for the same price. Limits the sales potential

[DavidGMiles]

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?

The 100 - 400 is certainly a dated design - the 70 - 300 is cracking though and well worth the money ... evidenced below ...

[pwp]

To the OP, the L24-105 f/4is is the answer. It weighs a lot less than the 24-70 f/2.8MkI and there are a pages of good reasons why this is one of the most highly and often recommended lenses in the Canon L range. It's light for what it does, it's sharp wide open, has IS and is just darn useful! Mine is way better overall than any of the four 24-70 f/2.8 MkI zooms I've had.

-PW

[tomscott]

If your going full frame why would you compromise on glass?? The whole point of FF is that it offers better quality but only when lenses resolve that detail.

Your better off buying a more compact camera with and APC sensor like a mirrorless.

[dhofmann]

The whole point of FF is that it offers better quality but only when lenses resolve that detail.

Do lenses with smaller apertures resolve less detail? Or lenses with variable apertures?

[mrsfotografie]

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?

I'll chime in here, I guess it's convenience when shooting with a constant (stopped down) aperture and need some light. I don't mind an aperture range from f/3.5-4.5. You can stop that down to f/5.6 for the entire range for instance and still have a reasonably wide aperture. I usually do the same with an f/4 lens. A short zoom that ends in f/5.6 is not fun when struggling for light as that would result in f/8 to or so to get optimum sharpness especially with a cheapie.

Of course this all assumes that you need to stop down some for best sharpness as is the case with most zoom lenses. and there are a very few exceptions.

I love my 100-400 but almost always use it with apertures stopped down to f/6.3 at least.