New L Series Lenses coming out with the 5D Mk3?

[kubelik]

That's one of the advantages of investing in an EOS system. Every single EF lens ever made, for example, will work on any new Canon EOS DSLR you buy today.

Interesting that you bring that up as a positive to buying Canon when Nikon and Pentax have a backward compatibility that spans 50 years or more. While Canon's is only 20 or so.

However, I don't disagree with you. I find that 20 years is plenty.

I don't think I'd wave the canon flag when it comes to discussions of lens back-compatibility. especially not to anyone who had to go through the FD-to-EF sea change. I hope that canon's learnt that lesson and we won't see that happen again in our lifetimes. a lot of the higher end glass canon produces is stuff that's meant to last a lifetime, so a 19-year life span for a lens mount is absolutely unacceptable.

 

[jdramirez]

I was thinking it'd be awesome if Canon offered an f/2.8 version of the 24-105mm that commonly accompanies the 5D as a kit lens. Has anyone heard anything about such a lens or any other new L glass coming on the market soon? I live in Japan and have asked some store clerks, but they don't seem interested in sharing any information about new gear given that the current stock is hardly moving.

It might be awesome, but it's pretty unlikely. More likely is a 24-120mm f/4L IS to match the Nikon offering, and a revised 24-70mm (MkII), with or without IS, has been rumored for a long time.

Store clerks would be just about the last people to know about any forthcoming products.

That's not entirely true. I'm in retail and we have company representatives come into the store and they talk about their products, features, and the like.

We don't have the most advanced up to date knowledge... but I would say your blanket statement is inaccurate.

 

[epsiloneri]

The 24-70/2.8 *IS* the 2.8 version of the 24-105/4.

But without the *IS*

 

[kevl]

The 24-70/2.8 *IS* the 2.8 version of the 24-105/4.

But without the *IS*

LOL exactly.... wish I could have replied with that.

Truth is if Canon released a 24-70 2.8L with IS the could charge whatever they wanted for it... I would dish it out. It would be the perfect video lens for me.

Kev

 

[DJL329]

That's one of the advantages of investing in an EOS system. Every single EF lens ever made, for example, will work on any new Canon EOS DSLR you buy today.

Interesting that you bring that up as a positive to buying Canon when Nikon and Pentax have a backward compatibility that spans 50 years or more. While Canon's is only 20 or so.

However, I don't disagree with you. I find that 20 years is plenty.

I don't think I'd wave the canon flag when it comes to discussions of lens back-compatibility. especially not to anyone who had to go through the FD-to-EF sea change. I hope that canon's learnt that lesson and we won't see that happen again in our lifetimes. a lot of the higher end glass canon produces is stuff that's meant to last a lifetime, so a 19-year life span for a lens mount is absolutely unacceptable.

At the time (mid 1980s), Canon was trying to keep up with Minolta and Nikon. The FL mount was mechanical and needed to be replaced to outpace the competition. Was it risky? Yes, but if you want to be successful in business, you have to take risks. Since they now have an electronic mount, it's highly unlikely that Canon will have to replace it anytime soon.

It's now 24 years later and Canon has sold more lenses (EF mount) than Nikon has in 50 years, so I would have to say yes, Canon has learnt their lesson.

 

[spaceheat]

It's not likely that anyone will produce a 24 - 105mm f/2.8 IS L.

That is likely what people were saying in late 80's when the 35-70mm f2.8 was being made, and again in the mid 90's with the 28-70mm f2.8, and now with the 24-70mm f2.8. Look at the progression, what makes you think it will stop?

UWA
20-35mm f2.8 (1989) -> 17-35mm f2.8 (1996) -> 16-35 f2.8 (2001)
Normal
28-80mm f2.8-4 (1989) -> 28-70mm f2.8 (1993) -> 24-70mm f2.8 (2002)
Tele
80-200mm f2.8 (1989) -> 70-200mm f2.8 (1995)

On top of that we could add the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 to UWA list, and the 35-70mm f2.8 to the Normal list. Also, we could look further back in history with the FD mount: (24-35mm f3.5 [1979] -> 20-35mm f3.5 [1982]). Constant aperture zooms have grown from less than 2x (24-35 is 1.46x, for example) to 5x (Nikkor 24-120mm f4).

You will notice that the short zooms coordinate with the long zooms on your list. If they were to produce a 24-105 f2.8, it would likely mean there would be a move to a 105-300 f 2.8.

The 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 are the perfect tag team. The 24- 105 2.8 is just too much overlap IMO, unless they were to add the 105-300 2.8... which would be a sweet lens!

 

[K-amps]

It's not likely that anyone will produce a 24 - 105mm f/2.8 IS L.

That is likely what people were saying in late 80's when the 35-70mm f2.8 was being made, and again in the mid 90's with the 28-70mm f2.8, and now with the 24-70mm f2.8. Look at the progression, what makes you think it will stop?

UWA
20-35mm f2.8 (1989) -> 17-35mm f2.8 (1996) -> 16-35 f2.8 (2001)
Normal
28-80mm f2.8-4 (1989) -> 28-70mm f2.8 (1993) -> 24-70mm f2.8 (2002)
Tele
80-200mm f2.8 (1989) -> 70-200mm f2.8 (1995)

On top of that we could add the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 to UWA list, and the 35-70mm f2.8 to the Normal list. Also, we could look further back in history with the FD mount: (24-35mm f3.5 [1979] -> 20-35mm f3.5 [1982]). Constant aperture zooms have grown from less than 2x (24-35 is 1.46x, for example) to 5x (Nikkor 24-120mm f4).

You will notice that the short zooms coordinate with the long zooms on your list. If they were to produce a 24-105 f2.8, it would likely mean there would be a move to a 105-300 f 2.8.

The 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 are the perfect tag team. The 24- 105 2.8 is just too much overlap IMO, unless they were to add the 105-300 2.8... which would be a sweet lens!

Lets say we were to frame at 70mm, would we choose the 24-70mm or the 70-200mm ? And why?

 

[unfocused]

The 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 are the perfect tag team. The 24- 105 2.8 is just too much overlap IMO,

I prefer having some overlap on zoom lenses. In the real world it makes shooting much easier, not having to stop and switch lenses when a subject moves or to get just the right framing.

 

[K-amps]

The 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 are the perfect tag team. The 24- 105 2.8 is just too much overlap IMO,

I prefer having some overlap on zoom lenses. In the real world it makes shooting much easier, not having to stop and switch lenses when a subject moves or to get just the right framing.

I always thouhgt that lenses are sub-optimal at their extremes, so overlap in lenses could make up for that perhaps?

 

[Loswr]

Look at the progression, what makes you think it will stop?

UWA
20-35mm f2.8 (1989) -> 17-35mm f2.8 (1996) -> 16-35 f2.8 (2001)
Normal
28-80mm f2.8-4 (1989) -> 28-70mm f2.8 (1993) -> 24-70mm f2.8 (2002)
Tele
80-200mm f2.8 (1989) -> 70-200mm f2.8 (1995)

Allow me to update your progressions so they are current:

UWA
20-35mm f2.8 (1989) -> 17-35mm f2.8 (1996) -> 16-35 f2.8 (2001) -> 16-35mm f/2.8 MkII (2007)
Normal
28-80mm f2.8-4 (1989) -> 28-70mm f2.8 (1993) -> 24-70mm f2.8 (2002) -> ?
Tele
80-200mm f2.8 (1989) -> 70-200mm f2.8 (1995) -> 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (2001) -> 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkII (2010)

So, as you can see from the above, in two of three classes the progression has stopped, and the remaining class of 'normal' zooms has three entries compared to four in the UWA and tele classes.

So, given that trend, and granted the n is low, the logical extrapolation is that the next normal zoom will remain a 24-70mm, with improvements in the optics, the addition of IS, or both, but no change in focal range.

Lets say we were to frame at 70mm, would we choose the 24-70mm or the 70-200mm ? And why?

Personally, I'd choose the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II over the 24-70mm f/2.8L for that shot at 70mm. Why? Three reasons - first, the IQ is better, second, if the shutter speed is marginal then IS might help get the shot, and third, I don't have a 24-70mm f/2.8L...

 

[EYEONE]

Lets say we were to frame at 70mm, would we choose the 24-70mm or the 70-200mm ? And why?

Personally, I'd choose the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II over the 24-70mm f/2.8L for that shot at 70mm. Why? Three reasons - first, the IQ is better, second, if the shutter speed is marginal then IS might help get the shot, and third, I don't have a 24-70mm f/2.8L...

I agree. I'd use the 70-200 over the 24-70. IQ is better.

 

[spaceheat]

The 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 are the perfect tag team. The 24- 105 2.8 is just too much overlap IMO,

I prefer having some overlap on zoom lenses. In the real world it makes shooting much easier, not having to stop and switch lenses when a subject moves or to get just the right framing.

The pair of the 24-70 and 70-200 implies that most people shoot with two bodies. Many working photogs, as well as others, prefer to use a crop with the 70-200 for extra reach, while using a FF with the 24-70. Constantly changing lenses during an assignment is a pain, I agree.

I would imagine that most would agree that they use the short zoom for close proximity and the long zoom for when they hang back to get the candids. I have personally have never wished for extra length on the short zoom because the type of shot that I would be getting with the longer focal length is covered by the long zoom.

If you ask me... Canon really needs to develop the 200-400 at f2.8 instead of f4. The combo of the 70-200 and 200-400 would be great for sports journalists.

 

[Loswr]

If you ask me... Canon really needs to develop the 200-400 at f2.8 instead of f4. The combo of the 70-200 and 200-400 would be great for sports journalists.

I'm not sure that a 200-400mm f/2.8 - a lens that would likely weigh >15 lbs and cost close to $20K - would be 'great' for anyone...

 

[Meh]

If you ask me... Canon really needs to develop the 200-400 at f2.8 instead of f4. The combo of the 70-200 and 200-400 would be great for sports journalists.

I'm not sure that a 200-400mm f/2.8 - a lens that would likely weigh >15 lbs and cost close to $20K - would be 'great' for anyone...

Totally agree with that. There is no panacea in optics... there is always a trade-off. The 400mm f/2.8L IS II is already 8.5 lbs so neuro's estimate is probably close and therefore it's just not portable or cheap enough for mass market.