New Lens Information for Photokina

[mackguyver]

Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm?

Not me, but people that want a light, cheap lens for landscape, travel, & studio use where shallow DOF is never used. 6D shooters would likely be the target for this lens.

Your logic makes about as much sense as saying who would want a crop sensor, or would want a camera any less tough than the 1D X.

There's this little thing called market segmentation. It's how big companies make money. Reference Canon's profits on the Rebel line vs. the 1D line.

Mac, I generally agree with your viewpoint, but I do wonder how Canon would slot this lens. Since the 24-105 "L" already sells for around $600 in white box form, it seems like it would be hard to make this lens competitive in price, unless it is really, really cheap.

Maybe they are looking to stop selling the 24-105 "L" as a kit lens, wait for the supply to dry up in the market and then in a few years introduce a 24-105 "L" II at a significantly increased price? If that happens, we'll all be patting ourselves on the back for getting the 24-105 "L" when it was cheap.

I'm not sure either, unless they sell this for $300-400 or something. Perhaps they see it as a 28-135 IS replacement more than a 24-105 replacement.

Also, some day the mythical full frame Rebel may actually be released

 

[Lee Jay]

I'm not sure either, unless they sell this for $300-400 or something. Perhaps they see it as a 28-135 IS replacement more than a 24-105 replacement.

Bingo.

 

[NancyP]

7D2 in October or later - they better bring it out at a reasonable price for pre-Christmas purchase.
I wish that they would refresh the (really clunky sounding) IS on the 300 f/4L. Then I could snap up a cheap copy of the original 300 f/4L, which is another classic lens like the 400 f/5.6L.

I was wishing for a lightweight 50mm, but I think that I am going to continue playing with my legacy lens collection, and keep thinking about the fabulous but HEAVY Sigma Art. Next up: Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 P-C. My current walk-around 50 MF lens is a Nikkor 50mm f/1.2.

People, the amateur videographers who don't do manual focus pulls will love the 24-105 STM.

 

[ScottyP]

Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm?

Not me, but people that want a light, cheap lens for landscape, travel, & studio use where shallow DOF is never used. 6D shooters would likely be the target for this lens.

Your logic makes about as much sense as saying who would want a crop sensor, or would want a camera any less tough than the 1D X.

There's this little thing called market segmentation. It's how big companies make money. Reference Canon's profits on the Rebel line vs. the 1D line.

Well, I am a 6d shooter, and I can assure you that I would never have invested the money to go full frame if I had any intention whatsoever of shooting a FF equivalent of the Rebel's cheapo kit lens.

If they want to offer a less-expensive kit lens with a FF camera, they should simply offer a kit that includes a 50mm f/1.4. That could be done in a white box for just a couple hundreds bucks over body-only price and might be very popular.

 

[Random Orbits]

Mac, I generally agree with your viewpoint, but I do wonder how Canon would slot this lens. Since the 24-105 "L" already sells for around $600 in white box form, it seems like it would be hard to make this lens competitive in price, unless it is really, really cheap.

Maybe they are looking to stop selling the 24-105 "L" as a kit lens, wait for the supply to dry up in the market and then in a few years introduce a 24-105 "L" II at a significantly increased price? If that happens, we'll all be patting ourselves on the back for getting the 24-105 "L" when it was cheap.

+1. I'm guessing the 24-70 f/4 IS will replace the 24-105 f/4 as the de facto kit lens. The 24-105 f/4 II would then sit between the 24-70 f/4 IS and 24-70 f/2.8 II.

I figure that the 24-105 is targeted to be sold it kits primarily. Think of a 1000-1500 FF kit with a this 24-105 consumer zoom.

 

[HaroldC3]

I'm really surprised Canon did not continue with the prime IS lens trend. Maybe sales weren't what they expected?

They could have released a 50mm f2 IS and 85mm f2 IS and done pretty good I think as long as they were reasonably priced.

 

[mackguyver]

Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm?

Not me, but people that want a light, cheap lens for landscape, travel, & studio use where shallow DOF is never used. 6D shooters would likely be the target for this lens.

Your logic makes about as much sense as saying who would want a crop sensor, or would want a camera any less tough than the 1D X.

There's this little thing called market segmentation. It's how big companies make money. Reference Canon's profits on the Rebel line vs. the 1D line.

Well, I am a 6d shooter, and I can assure you that I would never have invested the money to go full frame if I had any intention whatsoever of shooting a FF equivalent of the Rebel's cheapo kit lens.

I don't mean any disrespect to you or any other 6D shooter, but there are probably 4 6D owners looking for a reasonably-priced zoom for every 1 owner like you. Or at least that's what Canon is banking on if they release this lens.

 

[wtlloyd]

It's been 10 years since Canon brought out a lens with DO technology.

The 400 DO II would be a intriguing surprise.

 

[privatebydesign]

Wow! a new 400/4 with ISII and improved optics surely.

Light in weight so tough competition for the heavier 500/4 and the possibility of a good 560/5.6 - probably much better than the 300/2.8 with 2xTc.

I doubt if it will be much better than a 300 and 2xTC, but it certainly won't be noticeably better, it at all, than the 300 and 1.4 TC (to make 420mm and f4). Now if you like the horrible bokeh the DO can create and don't want a lens as flexible or as high quality as the 300 then have at it.

I cannot see a reason for this other than Canon's refusal to give up on DO, meanwhile there is a good market out there for other premium headline catching lenses, the MkII 100-400 will be a cash cow whatever price it comes in at and a 400 f5.6 with IS would clean the wallets of those scared off by a new 100-400 price point. The 45 and 90 TS-E's are desperately overdue, the 2.8 ultrawide zoom has been a sore point in the Canon lineup since, oh, ever, but they clearly can now make good ultrawides so what's the excuse for this delay? The MkII 800 is a headlining niche lens that is sorely wanted by those that need it, to have your longest lens outperformed by your second longest and a TC is an embarrassment. The 85 f1.2 could do with a spruce up, the 50 f1.4 is crying out for the "slow it down and put IS in it" treatment, it just goes on and on........

Canon's lens strategy gives me more concern than their sensor strategy.

 

[raptor3x]

Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm?

Not me, but people that want a light, cheap lens for landscape, travel, & studio use where shallow DOF is never used. 6D shooters would likely be the target for this lens.

Your logic makes about as much sense as saying who would want a crop sensor, or would want a camera any less tough than the 1D X.

There's this little thing called market segmentation. It's how big companies make money. Reference Canon's profits on the Rebel line vs. the 1D line.

Well, I am a 6d shooter, and I can assure you that I would never have invested the money to go full frame if I had any intention whatsoever of shooting a FF equivalent of the Rebel's cheapo kit lens.

I don't mean any disrespect to you or any other 6D shooter, but there are probably 4 6D owners looking for a reasonably-priced zoom for every 1 owner like you. Or at least that's what Canon is banking on if they release this lens.

Or maybe Canon is planning on creating a FF version of the rebel.

 

[Woody]

Why release an EF 24-105 lens with the 7D2? Makes little sense to me.

Personally, I am keen on a lightweight EF 28-300 lens like the Tamron version.

 

[thedman]

But wait! We were told in this CR2 back in May that the next "L" lens announcement would be the 100-400 replacement! Or wait, maybe it was this CR2 from January 2009.

The way this site keeps falling for rumors of a new 100-400 is becoming reminiscent of this:

 

[Zv]

The 24-105 could be a cheaper FF option. Some people were banging on about that here so I guess there might be a demand but seriously? So you fork out $1600 on a FF 6D right? Assuming you went body only. And then you go an pair it with, what I assume will be, a cheap kit lens with compromised IQ? Why? Why not just stick with a rebel and a 18-55 kit lens if you're a cheapo? Having a FF camera means you give a s___ about IQ. This rumor makes no sense.

I currently use the discontinued 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II for that purpose. Surprisingly, this is one of the lenses that the 5d3 and 6d have included for Automatic Lens Optimization. So Canon is obviously aware that there is a need. If this new one is small, light, and affordable, it will find its way into many bags. I'm hoping its street price comes in between the 28-135 (~$300) and the 24-70 f/4 (~$1000). Great for outdoor, walk-around, f/8-and-be-there kind of shooting.

This already exists - it's called an EF 24-105 f/4L IS and costs around $600 if you shop around.

 

[rrcphoto]

Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm?

Not me, but people that want a light, cheap lens for landscape, travel, & studio use where shallow DOF is never used. 6D shooters would likely be the target for this lens.

Your logic makes about as much sense as saying who would want a crop sensor, or would want a camera any less tough than the 1D X.

There's this little thing called market segmentation. It's how big companies make money. Reference Canon's profits on the Rebel line vs. the 1D line.

Mac, I generally agree with your viewpoint, but I do wonder how Canon would slot this lens. Since the 24-105 "L" already sells for around $600 in white box form, it seems like it would be hard to make this lens competitive in price, unless it is really, really cheap.

Maybe they are looking to stop selling the 24-105 "L" as a kit lens, wait for the supply to dry up in the market and then in a few years introduce a 24-105 "L" II at a significantly increased price? If that happens, we'll all be patting ourselves on the back for getting the 24-105 "L" when it was cheap.

I'm not sure either, unless they sell this for $300-400 or something. Perhaps they see it as a 28-135 IS replacement more than a 24-105 replacement.

Also, some day the mythical full frame Rebel may actually be released

oh exactly - this is totally an 28-135mm replacement.

@YuengLinger .. have you looked at most kit lenses for crop and full frame cameras (nikon's 24-85mm VR for instance) lately?

canon needs a small light full frame kit lens that is modern - they only had a 28-135mm. and the 24-105L isn't it either.

This allows them to make a lightweight full frame kit, and cheaper one.

 

[rrcphoto]

Wow! a new 400/4 with ISII and improved optics surely.

Light in weight so tough competition for the heavier 500/4 and the possibility of a good 560/5.6 - probably much better than the 300/2.8 with 2xTc.

I doubt if it will be much better than a 300 and 2xTC, but it certainly won't be noticeably better, it at all, than the 300 and 1.4 TC (to make 420mm and f4). Now if you like the horrible bokeh the DO can create and don't want a lens as flexible or as high quality as the 300 then have at it.

I cannot see a reason for this other than Canon's refusal to give up on DO, meanwhile there is a good market out there for other premium headline catching lenses, the MkII 100-400 will be a cash cow whatever price it comes in at and a 400 f5.6 with IS would clean the wallets of those scared off by a new 100-400 price point. The 45 and 90 TS-E's are desperately overdue, the 2.8 ultrawide zoom has been a sore point in the Canon lineup since, oh, ever, but they clearly can now make good ultrawides so what's the excuse for this delay? The MkII 800 is a headlining niche lens that is sorely wanted by those that need it, to have your longest lens outperformed by your second longest and a TC is an embarrassment. The 85 f1.2 could do with a spruce up, the 50 f1.4 is crying out for the "slow it down and put IS in it" treatment, it just goes on and on........

Canon's lens strategy gives me more concern than their sensor strategy.

it takes years to design and develop a lens. I think the last time any of the big two commented on how long was nikon - and they said it takes 7 years from start to finish.

DO is such a tactical advantage to canon - and we don't know if they correct bokeh related issues, and most that have used the later models of the 400DO have found it no wanting.

 

[privatebydesign]

Wow! a new 400/4 with ISII and improved optics surely.

Light in weight so tough competition for the heavier 500/4 and the possibility of a good 560/5.6 - probably much better than the 300/2.8 with 2xTc.

I doubt if it will be much better than a 300 and 2xTC, but it certainly won't be noticeably better, it at all, than the 300 and 1.4 TC (to make 420mm and f4). Now if you like the horrible bokeh the DO can create and don't want a lens as flexible or as high quality as the 300 then have at it.

I cannot see a reason for this other than Canon's refusal to give up on DO, meanwhile there is a good market out there for other premium headline catching lenses, the MkII 100-400 will be a cash cow whatever price it comes in at and a 400 f5.6 with IS would clean the wallets of those scared off by a new 100-400 price point. The 45 and 90 TS-E's are desperately overdue, the 2.8 ultrawide zoom has been a sore point in the Canon lineup since, oh, ever, but they clearly can now make good ultrawides so what's the excuse for this delay? The MkII 800 is a headlining niche lens that is sorely wanted by those that need it, to have your longest lens outperformed by your second longest and a TC is an embarrassment. The 85 f1.2 could do with a spruce up, the 50 f1.4 is crying out for the "slow it down and put IS in it" treatment, it just goes on and on........

Canon's lens strategy gives me more concern than their sensor strategy.

it takes years to design and develop a lens. I think the last time any of the big two commented on how long was nikon - and they said it takes 7 years from start to finish.

DO is such a tactical advantage to canon - and we don't know if they correct bokeh related issues, and most that have used the later models of the 400DO have found it no wanting.

It depends on what lens, it would take a design team about three hours to design a 50mm f1.8 IS, and considering they have the glass, they have the parts, they have everything, they could probably have a working model just after lunch.

Now the DO dead end has taken 13 years to come up with an update for a lens that will still appeal to about 20 people, which do you think would make Canon more money, selling a handful of 400 f4 DO's that still perform like crap and depreciate like a Syrian bankers domestic property portfolio, or a mass appeal 50 that costs next to nothing to make and can be slotted into the $499 slot?

Canon have stuck with DO because they want to, they want to make that square peg fit in out round lenses, and they will spend countless man hours on keeping it going for no other reason than they want to and they patented the heck out of it so they can. Sure in ten years (weren't we saying that thirteen years ago when the 400 came out) when DPP can "adjust" for the aberrations in post it might work, but seriously, who cares? When DO is ready for prime time then bring it to market, I am all for it, in the mean time keep the people who pay the bills happy (us customers) with lenses we want, we need, and we can afford.

 

[Zv]

It should be a 24-135 if anything with similar but better build quality to the current 28-135. That would make it mid priced. But again, why not just ship the 7D2 with the already existing 24-105L?? Surely the price difference can't be that much? If I was in the market for a 7D2 I'd want some weather sealed lenses to go with it. Maybe it's for a 6D kit?

Ah well not like I'm gonna buy one. It's nice to hear about new lenses so I guess it's a good thing.

 

[wildpix]

It's been 13 years, do you have any evidence to say DO isn't ready for prime time? It'll take a lens release to show it...

Canon have stuck with DO because they want to, they want to make that square peg fit in out round lenses, and they will spend countless man hours on keeping it going for no other reason than they want to and they patented the heck out of it so they can. Sure in ten years (weren't we saying that thirteen years ago when the 400 came out) when DPP can "adjust" for the aberrations in post it might work, but seriously, who cares? When DO is ready for prime time then bring it to market, I am all for it, in the mean time keep the people who pay the bills happy (us customers) with lenses we want, we need, and we can afford.

 

[Zv]

Wow! a new 400/4 with ISII and improved optics surely.

Light in weight so tough competition for the heavier 500/4 and the possibility of a good 560/5.6 - probably much better than the 300/2.8 with 2xTc.

I doubt if it will be much better than a 300 and 2xTC, but it certainly won't be noticeably better, it at all, than the 300 and 1.4 TC (to make 420mm and f4). Now if you like the horrible bokeh the DO can create and don't want a lens as flexible or as high quality as the 300 then have at it.

I cannot see a reason for this other than Canon's refusal to give up on DO, meanwhile there is a good market out there for other premium headline catching lenses, the MkII 100-400 will be a cash cow whatever price it comes in at and a 400 f5.6 with IS would clean the wallets of those scared off by a new 100-400 price point. The 45 and 90 TS-E's are desperately overdue, the 2.8 ultrawide zoom has been a sore point in the Canon lineup since, oh, ever, but they clearly can now make good ultrawides so what's the excuse for this delay? The MkII 800 is a headlining niche lens that is sorely wanted by those that need it, to have your longest lens outperformed by your second longest and a TC is an embarrassment. The 85 f1.2 could do with a spruce up, the 50 f1.4 is crying out for the "slow it down and put IS in it" treatment, it just goes on and on........

Canon's lens strategy gives me more concern than their sensor strategy.

it takes years to design and develop a lens. I think the last time any of the big two commented on how long was nikon - and they said it takes 7 years from start to finish.

DO is such a tactical advantage to canon - and we don't know if they correct bokeh related issues, and most that have used the later models of the 400DO have found it no wanting.

It depends on what lens, it would take a design team about three hours to design a 50mm f1.8 IS, and considering they have the glass, they have the parts, they have everything, they could probably have a working model just after lunch.

Now the DO dead end has taken 13 years to come up with an update for a lens that will still appeal to about 20 people, which do you think would make Canon more money, selling a handful of 400 f4 DO's that still perform like crap and depreciate like a Syrian bankers domestic property portfolio, or a mass appeal 50 that costs next to nothing to make and can be slotted into the $499 slot?

Canon have stuck with DO because they want to, they want to make that square peg fit in out round lenses, and they will spend countless man hours on keeping it going for no other reason than they want to and they patented the heck out of it so they can. Sure in ten years (weren't we saying that thirteen years ago when the 400 came out) when DPP can "adjust" for the aberrations in post it might work, but seriously, who cares? When DO is ready for prime time then bring it to market, I am all for it, in the mean time keep the people who pay the bills happy (us customers) with lenses we want, we need, and we can afford.

+1 the last thing anyone wanted to hear / read on CR were the words "diffractive" and "optics" this close to frikkin photokina!

 

[Slyham]

A lot of bad mouthing the 24-105 IS STM. Put this lens on a 6D II with DPAF and I am jumping to FF.

[list type=decimal]
[*]We are only talking about a 1 stop difference, from 4 to 5.6, between this lens and the 24-105 L.
[*]I expect the lens to be good optically. That is why I shoot with a DSLR.
[*]Being a T1i and 18-135 shooter, I am used to shooting at 5.6. Going FF will give me faster shutter speeds because of the ISO improvements.
[/list]