Going going…..
I just received an email in regards to a replacement of the 24-105 f/4L IS. The email says the new lens is slightly wider and longer while retaining the f/4 aperture. The new Hybrid IS will be implemented in the lens.
The writer of the email claims to have seen the lens.
This is the first I’ve heard of it. I’ll ask around.
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
My personal hope, right now, is that the older IS of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS will be improved… Since I currently don’t own that lens (but wish to) I think that’s my current holdout/belief.
hmm, interesting. Figured the 24-70 would be first, but doesn’t totally surprise me. I wonder what the 100-400 would be like with an updated hybrid IS….
While i would love an update to the 70-200 eventhough i have the current one already I am worried about how much it’s going to end up costing.
Wasn’t the new lateral IS that is the new part of the hybrid IS most useful for macro? Why put hybrid IS on non-macro lenses?
Well, it’s another one the the wish list. How about 16-200 f/2.8 IS. One lens does all. Cheers!
Sounds like an interesting lens. Something I’d like too see especially if it does indeed have hybrid IS.
sure, it will only be super massive, lol
One of the great things about that lens is its size. You can carry it round all day. It would be a shame if they made is wider and longer.
I might be mistaken, but I think by wider and longer he meant the focal range – not the physical size..
If they improve on the original it will be a sure hit. I’m not convinced they needed to change the focal length, but the distortion @ the wide end, and the softness at 105 need to be improved.
Hmm, I have the current one and am perfectly satisfied with it’s IS capabilities right now. Since it’s staying F4, to me, it would be more wise to upgrade other lenses first….like the 24-70 f2.8 to include IS!
So it basically means both :) Doubt so anyway, 24-105 is already a very long range
two things that would be nice: IS version of the 24-70 (or 2.8 version of the 24-105, I’m not picky) Second, stop going up in price, what the heck, some of the lenses have gone up so much the used price is more than the new price last year, retarded canon, retarded. Take a super old lens and charge more for it over and over, it aint grandmas antique here. Is the CEO of Canon personally signing the 70-200 2.8 IS, cause the jacked up price of that thing deserves a little icing on the cake or something, dang. Ok, Soap box step down.
not if they added the DO technology to it. :p
someone told me 24-105 2,8 wasnt possible…
other 18-135???
I would give a CR0 score to this rumor.
Then it’d be super expensive heh.
Hmm I think I have to agree… there are so many other lenses out there that Canon could upgrade. This one is still relatively new…
I’m for a 27-70 2.8L IS.
As for the pricing of Canon gear I expect it to be ***double*** what it is now in nominal dollars within 4 to 8 years.
This is not because the overall value of the Canon lens rises — but rather the value of the dollar goes down as govt’s inflate their money supplies, i.e., “legally counterfeit” dollars. See what this has done in Zimbabwe.
Since paper dollars can be printed at political whim, and lenses actually take work to create you can expect the value ratio (“price”) between lenses and paper money to be in the lenses favor.
In other words holding Canon lenses is like holding gold.
Wow, if this is true I might have to sell my 24-105 and get this. I use mine on a crop body and I always wish I was wider. But I might go for the 24-70 2.8 IS intead (if that’s also tue). A lot of ‘ifs’ in here…
no, if they produce it in mass
Huh?!
Can someone point me to good tutorial on hybrid IS? Is this a Canon exclusive, or?
I found dpreview article
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072207canonhybridis.asp
Says hybrid IS very helpful in macro work. Couldn’t confirm if new 100mm 2.8 IS USM macro is hybrid or not. If not, why not?
Wider than 24mm ??…I don’t believe it
wider AND longer…
that would be impressive for an FX lens.
It sure would be popular tho.
The 100L does have a hybrid IS.
Possible, just very expensive with dubious image quality.
that’s what puzzles me about this rumor. it claims to widen and lengthen at both ends. how the heck is that going to improve image quality
How about 135mm f2 L USM? any news about it?
I believe they’re talking about physical size, not mm range.
On the question of whether wider and longer is a reference to physical size, or to focal length, I think we have guidance from the context. The statement was, “The email says the new lens is slightly wider and longer while retaining the f/4 aperture.”
A focal length increase would challenge the constant f4 aperture. Increasing physical dimension doesn’t challenge the constant f4, it aids it. Much more sense in the focal length interpretation over the physical dimension interpretation, IMO.
Except for the 1200mm monster, I’m pretty sure most lens we see and hear of are already “mass produced”, and it doesnt stop them from being extremely expensive.
After the announcement of the 15-135, 15-85 and 100 macro. Any lens announcement to me is really unlikely. But I dont know… the 1D4 will be released 1st though.
The new HIS system needs more room inside a lens. So it makes it longer physically, but ‘wider’ might be a mistranslation from Japanese IMO.
It would be great to see a 135 f2 L IS USM. If not I will get next year this lens
For that, you might better use the 85mm 1.2L USM and the new 7D…. Same reach, bigger aperture
My standard walk-around set on the 40D is this lens plus the 10-22.
Unbeatable!
No, wider would mean it starts lower than 24mm, and longer would mean it finishes higher than 105mm.
FX? Are you one-a them dang Neekon queers?
The 85/1.2 has pretty much the same effective aperture on APS-C as the 135/2 does on 35mm actually.
I would love a 24-105/2.8 IS.
Canon can do a decent 70-200/2.8, so why not a 24-105/2.8?
Maybe because “most useful for macro” is not the same thing as “only useful for macro”.
It’s very labour intensive (there is a video here: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/l_plant/index.html). However, the competitive DSLR market only goes so far. You cannot stick a Nikon lens on a Canon EOS body (not conveniently, anyway), so there is far less competition in the lens market. What competition there is is mostly at the lower end.
The manufacturers have a virtual monopoly on their “system” and don’t have to share the spoils, so dealers make very little profit on lenses (see http://www.photoreporter.com/article.asp?issueID=&num=03&vol=17&articleType=ltte&articleID=2711).
Unless there comes a time when there is an open, standard lens mount, lenses will always be expensive. Anyone think that will happen in their lifetime?
There’s a Tamron 28-105 f/2.8. It’s not great…
It is probably more like holding gold jewellery. The test of value would be if your lens could be traded in for a new one without additional cost. That will not be the case. Real gold is probably a better investment.
In Zimbabwe, they have knocked twenty-five zeros off the denominations of their dollar in the last decade. If you bought a stick of gum with a 1 cent coin before the collapse and wanted to pay for the same stick of gum in the same 1 cent coins today, there would not be enough atoms in the Earth to make all those coins!
Countries need to buy US dollars to ensure they can buy oil, so the US dollar is worth more than the US economy alone can justify. That will remain so while oil-producing countries trade in US dollars. Were they to accept other currencies, the dollar would be weakened. That’s the problem with Iran: they insist that you pay for their oil in something other than US dollars (e.g., Euros). Once they get “the bomb”, there is very little anyone can do to stop them from undermining the US dollar. Venezuela toyed with the idea of trading oil in Euros, too, a few years ago, so the CIA were sent in to try to depose Chávez. It worked, but only for a few weeks.
Cross-posted to “www.petro-dollar-rumours.com”, of course. ;-)
“Unless there comes a time when there is an open, standard lens mount, lenses will always be expensive. Anyone think that will happen in their lifetime?”
you mean like Four Thirds?
Guess what? 4/3 lenses are still expensive. Fact is, it ain’t the mounts, it’s the flangeback distance & communication protocols. Canon’s not changing EF any time soon…
“stop going up in price, what the heck, some of the lenses have gone up so much the used price is more than the new price last year, retarded canon, retarded.”
Blame the bankers for tanking the $US. The price in Yen hasn’t changed.
“Canon can do a decent 70-200/2.8, so why not a 24-105/2.8”
The non-IS 24-70 f/2.8 is already a brick and only feels “balanced” on an also-extremely-heavy 1-series camera.
Between IS and the extra 35mm of reach, that’s probably another 200g or so at the very least…
“The new HIS system needs more room inside a lens. So it makes it longer physically, but ‘wider’ might be a mistranslation from Japanese IMO.”
Hmmm. This suggests that the mention of wider/longer physicality has a technical premise. I’m skeptical. (You tipped your hand to the stretch of your position by the Japanese translation thing.)
The guy off the street who’s never handled anything but a P&S would describe a SLR lens by physical dimension. I don’t think a techy addressing an audience of photogs is going to do that. IMO (not humble)
f/2.8 zoom lens ratios
200/70 = 2.857x
70/24 = 2.917x
35/16 = 2.188x
Hypothetical f/2.8 24-105mm zoom:
105/24 = 4.375x
I have 2 copies of this lens & both exhibit a lot of CA on edges of anything against a bright background such as mountain outline. Although it can be removed with post- processing on DPP, this does nor occur with other L lenses I have namely 16-35 mkII, 70-200L F4 IS & 400L F5.6. This is particularly prominent on my 5d mkII. Also test on 40d & 50d with similar effects. Wrote to canon & never replied.
I don’t get ya, how are the flange back distance and the communication protocols not related to the mount?
I was implying that lenses for Canon cameras would remain expensive (this is the Canon Rumors site, after) while EOS is proprietary, but I take your point: I had forgotten about the 4/3 mount. However, there does not seem to be the seamless compatibility between Olympus and Panasonic 4/3 lenses that the standard promised, so there is still some expensive lock-in–not all lenses are created equal for any given camera. The market is also too small and too new to really see what effect it will have on prices. It will be interesting to see how it pans out over the next decade.
What makes more sense to me is to put IS on the non-IS lenses…24-70, 17-40 etc. With the new video option on all the new DSLR’s, aren’t IS lenses needed to get decent handheld video? On an APS-C, the 17-40 IS seems to make great sense for wide and video.
It could also compensate for low frequency movements like breathing or swaying motions, at very long shutter speeds that might make sense.
That would be a lens that doesn’t require high shutter speeds in the first place, so improvements in that area could count.
look this vid about the 7d,,,,, whats wrong??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dpmPojCXZs
If you look to Nikon, a lens “EF 80-400 f/4-5.6 EF IS L” would be first. A lens “90-300 f/4 EF IS L” would make sense in combination with “24-105 f/4 EF IS L”. I would prefer this one. I would prefer a lens “xx-300 f/4 EF IS L”.
EF 21-121mm F4 semi-Luxurious no-IS $1899
EF 15-55 F3.5-5.6 IS EFS-like-Hardly useable, (replacement of 17-40) $799
Best post of the thread, hehe ;P. Back to topic: the 24-105/4 was only introduced in 2006, the 24-70/2.8 intro’ed in ’03 is the one that is in more need of an update, give it 4-stop IS & improve it optically to match or exceed the later-designed (2007) Zeiss 24-70 & Nikkor 24-70. After that, the 70-200/2.8 IS needs to get the newest 4-stop IS unit and also be improved optically to match the 70-200/4 IS.
Nothing is wrong. Take it easy.
I got a 7D since 4 days and did not have any issue qith the flash.
There may be 1 guy on a hundred thousands with an issue. That does not mean you should start being scared. Relax and enjoy this amazing camera.
I am surprised that that 17-40/4L is not IS and I think a 17-55/4L IS, or 28-85/4L will be lovely.
no. they are definitely talking about the range. for me I don’t need it any longer but a 20-105 f4 or better yet 2.8-4 (why does no one do this anymore) would be a very useful lens. the precedent has been set to expand at the wide end. 28-70 2.8 became 24-70 2.8 – no reason that we can’t get a bit wider…
JC
you mean bokeh or DOF – the aperture is not the same. the light is doubled plus a bit more…
the real case in point is that the 135 is a better lens outside of a studio.
JC
i think you are wrong on the new IS needing more room – the 100 2.8 is minisculey larger than the older 100 2.8
Bah
Can do without such nonsense. 24-70L is excellent, 24-105 is lighter and ok.
What I want is a small, light 35-90L f4 with perfect optics. I’d upgrade from my 24-70L f2.8 in a heartbeat.
Just noticed mucher said virtually same thing ie. 28-85Lf4.
Canon are you listening?!
28-85/4L can also covers FF cameras, x1.6 it is still a 45-136 and it can be in a lighter package than 24-105/4L as I can believe, so it would be a nice all around lense for almost everyone.
Current and future sensors are so dense and low light performance is and will be so good, there isn’t much point to carry a big piece of metal and glasses for this general purpose range.
Don’t see a reason for a refresh of this lens if the aperture stays the same. It’s a fine, sharp lens with little to improve. The new hybrid IS is of questionable value in a non-macro lens. If Canon really must make a new version of it so be it but I hope that the price will not increase.
Maybe because the 24-105 is a macro lens
I’d much rather have them do 24-105 2.8 than some 20-135 4.0
Many people have alos become fans of Paul Smith Shoes since they came into the market. I also one of them , I very like Paul Smith Wallets and <a Paul Smith Belts,It designs very good.