24-70 Please R.I.P.

B

Bart

Guest
Why wont they just replace the darn thing already?

This lens is so in a need for an update but nada, there is not one verifiable rumor that it will be replaced in the next 2 years, what gives?
 
P

pazuzu

Guest
I'm wondering if they're trying to marry the 24-70 and the 24-105 into a single lens: 24-105 2.8L IS. Perhaps that's why it's taking so long to bring a lens in that category to market. In my humble opinion, a 24-105 2.8L IS lens would be the ultimate standard zoom lens and would complement my 70-200 2.8L telephoto zoom lens perfectly. I certainly wish Canon would be more forthcoming with news about lenses. I get stuck in this sort of paralysis waiting for lens updates that I refuse to buy any new lenses for fear that a newer, better alternative is right around the corner. I love shiny new toys!
 
B

Bart

Guest
I think Tamron had a 28-105 2.8 and it was huge and very slow. The filter was 82mm I think, ouch. I knew a guy who shot it and had all kinds of wrist problems.
 
P

pazuzu

Guest
Bart said:
I think Tamron had a 28-105 2.8 and it was huge and very slow. The filter was 82mm I think, ouch. I knew a guy who shot it and had all kinds of wrist problems.
Ah, true - I would hope that they could keep the 77mm filter size while maintaining a relatively lightweight lens. I'm sure I'm dreaming at this point. That being said, I've done all day shoots with the 70-200 free-hand and sure it's heavy but not overly so. If they kept the weight for a 24-105 2.8 IS less than or equal to the 70-200 along with a 77mm filter size, I'd be happy thrilled with that. Again, I'm probably dreaming...
 
B

Bart

Guest
It's more the weight of the front element that kills ya, it put the balance way off and you always fighting to bring the front of the lens up. Just destroys your wrists.
 
D

DetlevCM

Guest
Bart said:
Why wont they just replace the darn thing already?

This lens is so in a need for an update but nada, there is not one verifiable rumor that it will be replaced in the next 2 years, what gives?

Why? Because it's still good and gives great pictures - and it's sharp too.

Simply because there is nothing wrong with it :) at least I cannot find anything wrong with mine.
 
T

tzalmagor

Guest
Considering that 105mm / 2.8 = 27.5mm, why did Tamron have to make the front element 82mm ?

I thought the only reason Canon made the EF 24-105mm front element's size 77mm is to allow L glass owners to use the same filters, and collect $200 for passing through 'oversized front element' square.
 
B

baronfizzy

Guest
DetlevCM said:
Bart said:
Why wont they just replace the darn thing already?

This lens is so in a need for an update but nada, there is not one verifiable rumor that it will be replaced in the next 2 years, what gives?

Why? Because it's still good and gives great pictures - and it's sharp too.

Simply because there is nothing wrong with it :) at least I cannot find anything wrong with mine.
For a moment there, I thought you were talking about the 24-70 f/2.8L, something must be wrong with my monitor. ;D
 
D

DetlevCM

Guest
baronfizzy said:
DetlevCM said:
Bart said:
Why wont they just replace the darn thing already?

This lens is so in a need for an update but nada, there is not one verifiable rumor that it will be replaced in the next 2 years, what gives?

Why? Because it's still good and gives great pictures - and it's sharp too.

Simply because there is nothing wrong with it :) at least I cannot find anything wrong with mine.
For a moment there, I thought you were talking about the 24-70 f/2.8L, something must be wrong with my monitor. ;D
I am talking about the 24-70mm f2.8 USM L lens - I've got it.
 
J

J-Man

Guest
DetlevCM said:
baronfizzy said:
DetlevCM said:
Bart said:
Why wont they just replace the darn thing already?

This lens is so in a need for an update but nada, there is not one verifiable rumor that it will be replaced in the next 2 years, what gives?

Why? Because it's still good and gives great pictures - and it's sharp too.

Simply because there is nothing wrong with it :) at least I cannot find anything wrong with mine.
For a moment there, I thought you were talking about the 24-70 f/2.8L, something must be wrong with my monitor. ;D
I am talking about the 24-70mm f2.8 USM L lens - I've got it.
You missed his sarcasm.
And no they won't merge the 24-70 with the 24-105, the 24-70 is a natural match with the 70-200.
 
D

DetlevCM

Guest
J-Man said:
DetlevCM said:
baronfizzy said:
DetlevCM said:
Bart said:
Why wont they just replace the darn thing already?

This lens is so in a need for an update but nada, there is not one verifiable rumor that it will be replaced in the next 2 years, what gives?

Why? Because it's still good and gives great pictures - and it's sharp too.

Simply because there is nothing wrong with it :) at least I cannot find anything wrong with mine.
For a moment there, I thought you were talking about the 24-70 f/2.8L, something must be wrong with my monitor. ;D
I am talking about the 24-70mm f2.8 USM L lens - I've got it.
You missed his sarcasm.
And no they won't merge the 24-70 with the 24-105, the 24-70 is a natural match with the 70-200.
Something I'm bad at detecting I'd guess.
And you are right about the match with the 70-200.
And don't forget the 16-35mm - which does have an 11mm overlap.
 
K

kplagens

Guest
Any chance this might still be announced at Photokina or is it dead yet again?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,318
1,669
kplagens said:
Any chance this might still be announced at Photokina or is it dead yet again?
Dead yet again? When was it ever alive? I'm sure Canon does have this lens on their dashboard, slated for release right after the 16-600mm f/4L H-IS lens. Both of them should be available in time to capture the pigs during their annual migration flight.
 

studio1972

EOS T7i
Sep 17, 2010
76
0
46
Wirral
sarahmcdonnell.co.uk
tzalmagor said:
Considering that 105mm / 2.8 = 27.5mm, why did Tamron have to make the front element 82mm ?

I thought the only reason Canon made the EF 24-105mm front element's size 77mm is to allow L glass owners to use the same filters, and collect $200 for passing through 'oversized front element' square.
The maximum aperture size is not the sole decider of the width of the lens, this is why zoom lenses are larger than primes with a similar maximum aperture.
 
S

spanish_z

Guest
The 70-200 2.8 L IS has a 77mm filter. So I don't see why the 24-105 2.8 would need a larger filter?
I plan on buying a 24-70 2.8 and I was hoping for the IS version to come so that the non IS version would drop a little. It is such a good lens! I don't know if the IS would add anything to it. Its a bright and short focal lens; sure an f1.4 would be great, but then, you'll need a cart to carry that one, and of course, a big checking account to pay for it. :)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,318
1,669
spanish_z said:
The 70-200 2.8 L IS has a 77mm filter. So I don't see why the 24-105 2.8 would need a larger filter?
The 16-35mm f/2.8L II has an 82mm filter size. OTOH, the MkI version of that lens has a 77mm filter - same focal length, same max aperture, yet a bigger filter on the MkII - why? 'Cuz that's what Canon decided to do.

BTW, for the mathematically inclined, 35/2.8 = 12.5mm, so clearly there's more involved than just focal length and aperture in determining the size of the front element. Presumably, there are also marketing and aesthetic decisions - the 100mm non-L macro uses a 58mm filter, and the 100mm L macro uses a 67mm filter, but the front elements are very similar in size, there's just a lot more 'dead space' around the front element on the L version.
 
D

DetlevCM

Guest
neuroanatomist said:
spanish_z said:
The 70-200 2.8 L IS has a 77mm filter. So I don't see why the 24-105 2.8 would need a larger filter?
The 16-35mm f/2.8L II has an 82mm filter size. OTOH, the MkI version of that lens has a 77mm filter - same focal length, same max aperture, yet a bigger filter on the MkII - why? 'Cuz that's what Canon decided to do.

BTW, for the mathematically inclined, 35/2.8 = 12.5mm, so clearly there's more involved than just focal length and aperture in determining the size of the front element. Presumably, there are also marketing and aesthetic decisions - the 100mm non-L macro uses a 58mm filter, and the 100mm L macro uses a 67mm filter, but the front elements are very similar in size, there's just a lot more 'dead space' around the front element on the L version.
The diameter for the filter thread was increase as apparently thicker filters or stacked filters showed up in image causing vignetting.

At least that is what I heard.
 
S

spanish_z

Guest
neuroanatomist said:
The 16-35mm f/2.8L II has an 82mm filter size. OTOH, the MkI version of that lens has a 77mm filter - same focal length, same max aperture, yet a bigger filter on the MkII - why? 'Cuz that's what Canon decided to do.
You have a point there. I was only thinking logically, and not marketing wise.

I still remember the FD 85-300 lens. Now that lens' filter was really special, or still is.......
 
R

RogerC

Guest
I would imagine that the reason for the non emergence of the 24-70 F2.8 IS after many years waiting is there is very little demand for it. With usable iso’s doubling every year or so I can only see interest in it declining. IS is very useful at 200mm but not much called for at 70 mm.

Canon would be better off working to dispel all the talk that the 24-70 F2.8 is the worst of all its ‘L’ lenses with focussing problems. Better still, as has been previously suggested Canon would be better devoting their energies in producing a 24-105 or 125 F2.8 IS. This would stop Nikon in its tracks.

I used Tamrons 24-105 F2.8 for many years. Its focussing was sluggish, the lens was heavy. It eventually became inoperable and refused to autofocus despite two trips back to the distributor.
 
N

ngiaquinto

Guest
I sold my 24-105 in August expecting a new release of the 24-70 or a 24-105 with IS. I AM SO PISSED...
:mad: