How about a light weight, EF 24-200/250L, f4, USM, IS

[Steve Todd]

I'm probably not alone in wishing Canon would make a really nice "walk around" lens in the med wide to med long range. A Pro/semi pro lens, in say an EF 24-250, fixed f4, USM, IS, "L" package, would be very appealing to me. Right now I use a 24-105L for this purpose, but often feel the need for a little more reach without having to carry a second lens around, thus defeating the one-lens idea. I love my 28-300L for the one lens carry idea, but it becomes a real drag "no pun intended" after an hour or two on the trail or street! I used to use my ole 28-200 in the film days as a single lens carry. However, it just doesn't have the quality of glass needed for today's pro digitals. My short answer fixes right now, are to carry a 1D4 with the 24-105L on the body and my 70-300L in a small pouch. One of the things I really like about the new 70-300L, is it's compact size and light weight! My other fix, especially when changing lenses is out of the question (weather/environmental conditions prohibit it), is to carry a 5D2/1D4 with the 24-105L and another 1D4 with the 70-300L lens. This isn't the answer to my one body carry ideal, but it works OK, as long as I'm not walking too far!

 

[Loswr]

Re: How about a light weight, 24-200/250L, f4, USM, IS

A Pro/semi pro lens, in say a 24-250, fixed f4, USM, IS, "L" package, would be very appealing to me. Right now I use a 24-105L for this purpose, but often feel the need for a little more reach without having to carry a second lens around, thus defeating the one-lens idea. I love my 28-300L for the one lens carry idea, but it becomes a real drag "no pun intended" after an hour or two on the trail or street!

The 28-300 L is a 10.7x zoom lens, and has a variable aperture. An f/5.6 aperture at 300mm means a 53.6mm iris diaphragm and elements sized to support that. You're asking for a 24-250 f/4, similar zoom factor (10.4x) but at 250mm f/4, the iris diaphragm would need to be 62.5mm - 17% larger than the 28-300 L, and potentially requiring more glass to support that. So in all likelihood, your desired lens would be even bigger and heavier than the current 28-300 L. It certainly wouldn't be lighter.

Now...a variable aperture lens such as a 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, as a weather-sealed L-series lens, would be something to consider. A lens like that could likely be designed in a form factor similar to the newish 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS, although likely a bit heavier (with a 77mm filter diameter due to the larger front element needed to reduce vignetting at the wide end).

 

[Bob Howland]

I've always thought that a 28-200 f/2.8-4.5 L IS, weighing 1/2 to 2/3 of the 28-300 L IS weight, would be a very good idea. I'd prefer to have the extra speed and better image quality rather than the extra focal length, on both ends.