Since canon refuse to make a 24-105 f2.8 IS I think sigma should step up to the plate and make one their recent build quality of the latest lenses has improved alot from the last generations they could do well in this space.
24-105 f2.8IS
- Thread starter wickidwombat
- Start date
- Status
Maybe can hope from Tokina or Tamron? 
Tokina seems to be leaving "wide angle only" kind of approach so who knows...
Canon would charge us north of 3K if not 4K with such a lens for sure... :
Tokina seems to be leaving "wide angle only" kind of approach so who knows...Canon would charge us north of 3K if not 4K with such a lens for sure... :
Upvote
0
I would devestated if it was tamron as I think their quality is horrible, sigma seem to be a large margin in front in this department, I guess we will see if tamron have stepped up their game with the new 24-70 IS they have coming out.well_dunno said:Maybe can hope from Tokina or Tamron?
if canon made it I would pay that especially if it was internally zoomingwell_dunno said:Canon would charge us north of 3K if not 4K with such a lens for sure... :
(as much as it would hurt)
Upvote
0
I am hoping that Tamron's quality will improve over time but quality goes up, price goes up... I do agree Sigma is more close to it. Besides Nikon's corresponding lens leaves much to be desired I heard so there seems to be a market if third party alternatives came out.
internal zoom + 2.8 + IS + improved optics and I would be interested too even for north of 3K as I really like the f/4... I should try the lottery a little more frequently, want to have the 200-400 f/4 too when it comes out ;D
internal zoom + 2.8 + IS + improved optics and I would be interested too even for north of 3K as I really like the f/4... I should try the lottery a little more frequently, want to have the 200-400 f/4 too when it comes out ;D
Upvote
0
wickidwombat said:I would devestated if it was tamron as I think their quality is horrible, sigma seem to be a large margin in front in this department, I guess we will see if tamron have stepped up their game with the new 24-70 IS they have coming out.well_dunno said:Maybe can hope from Tokina or Tamron?
Judging by the exterior of Tamron's new 24-70mm f/2.8 IS lens, it certainly appears that they've put more effort into it. It will be interesting to see how it stacks up. Not that I think it'll be close to Canon's 24-70mm f/2.8L II, but if it's better than the Mark I, with IS, it could be option, depending on the price.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
um and 35mm of focal range which happens to cover the important 85 to 100mm
1 stop is a lot especially when you are shooting high iso i prefer to keep iso as low as possible
Upvote
0
well_dunno said:Canon would charge us north of 3K if not 4K with such a lens for sure... :
I'd pay it.
Upvote
0
Axilrod said:wockawocka said:well_dunno said:Canon would charge us north of 3K if not 4K with such a lens for sure... :
I'd pay it.
I can think of too many awesome lens combinations for $4k to justify paying that for 1 zoom.
If it had the internal zoom, I'd pay. Especially if it was f/2.8.
I took it to BM on my 5d2, and when I sent it off to Canon to get cleaned, they apparently had to replace some parts of the barrel, I'm guessing the part that gets exposed, due to it being pretty scratched up from all the dust. It's just there are so damn few internal zooms!
Upvote
0
I wouldn't have the lenses I do if that lens existed. I would have just bought that one and only used it all the time. It would just be too easy, but the pictures I get now are much more interesting with the lenses I have, even though I have to spend time to swap them.
Upvote
0
yup, i'm in. would pay the price for a lens like that, and prepared to sell internal as well as external organs for it.
Upvote
0
Tamron made a 28-105/2.8 some time ago.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=242
The lens had a reputation for being very soft wide open.
But - it goes to show that an f/2.8 zoom with this range is not impossible. Perhaps with modern lens design and the latest in high-refractive-index glass, one could design something that's useable.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=242
The lens had a reputation for being very soft wide open.
But - it goes to show that an f/2.8 zoom with this range is not impossible. Perhaps with modern lens design and the latest in high-refractive-index glass, one could design something that's useable.
Upvote
0
wickidwombat said:yeah by all accounts it was softer than a marshmallow on a bonfire
LOL
+1 for that
Upvote
0
nope of course not but the 16-35 vs the 17-40 have many more differences other than 1mm wide and 5mm long i dont like the 24-70 i'd rather use the 16-35 on a 1.3 crop and a 70-200 on FF gives me effectively 20mm to 200mm all at f2.8 the gap in the middle use feet zooming.dilbert said:
I dont know i really like the 20mm focal length for some reason much more than 24mm cant explain it other than just personal preference but i like that range of 20-48mm its really nice and both lenses zoom internallly
maybe i could be tempted to the 24-70II if it lives up to its mtf chart but at the moment 16-35 is one of my favourite lenses
Upvote
0
I think a 24-105 F2.8L IS USM would kill the market for the 24-70 F2.8L II. I am not so sure if it would do so much for other lenses. I would still like to use my 50mm F1.4, and I will never stop using my 135mm F2.0L for any lens
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Deleted member 380853
- Lenses