New Superzoom Development? [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

An unknown source has told us that Canon is actively working to develop a superzoom to replace the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS. This is a lens that is rarely spoken about and I can’t remember a time when I’ve actually seen one in use. It’s big and weighs a lot (3.67lbs) and <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/319784-USA/Canon_9322A002AA_28_300mm_f_3_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">costs around $2500</a>.</p>
<p>We were told that the goal of any such lens would be a significant weight reduction and to make the lens wider, possibly to 24mm. Is it possible that diffractive optics could cure the weight issue? Weight could be definitely be reduced, but I’d have a hard time believing cost would be.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t normally post this sort of thing without digging a little further, but it might be a lens worth talking about. As some of you may know, I own a rental company and we do not stock the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS, as I think we’ve have 1 or 2 requests for it in 4 years.</p>
<p>Is an “L/DO” superzoom something photographers want? What would it take feature wise for you to purchase one of these. Is there a cost ceiling? <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26293.0" target="_blank">Sound off in our forum</a>.</p>
<p>Happy Friday.</p>

 

[Lee Jay]

I think what's wrong with this lens is that it's just too big for most people

I find that I use a range of 24-200 a lot more than 201-300, and when I do need the longer range, I generally plan for it with 400mm available.

Th 24-70 and 70-200 make a great pair, but what about in moderate to good light when you really don't need f/2.8?

In my view, a compact but high-performing 24-200/4-5.6L IS would be a pretty interesting lens. The 28-300 is optically quite good, but not wide enough, and too big and expensive.

 

[Maximilian]

Is an “L/DO” superzoom something photographers want? What would it take feature wise for you to purchase one of these. Is there a cost ceiling?

Hi Craig!

I suppose it would all depend on the package.
Great IQ in a lightweight package for a reasonable price surely would sell.

Personally I don't really believe in DO delivering Great IQ for a reasonable price. I've seen what a 70-300 DO can do (or can't) and I see what a 400 DO II costs.
If they could manage to built a 24-300 or maybe 24-250 that's lighter and smaller than the 28-300 and not more expensive I suppose they'd find a market for it.

Personally I got so much used to a two lens (or more) solution that I highly likely wouldn't be part of that market. But there are others.

 

[duppencf]

Hey, I just ordered a Tamron 28-300mm yesterday...so I'd say there's a market. but...

The old Canon 28-300mm wasn't on my radar because of weight. The reason for a full frame all-in-one is either travel or outdoors (hiking/skiing/etc.) where you might want another lens for low light or nice bokeh, but durring the day you don't want to change lenses. What do I wish the Tamron had?

24mm
F2.8 at the wide end only
higher IQ

I would take a slight weight penalty, but not a lot.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I have been considering this lens for some time and my application would be video use, specifically sports. The big thing that has kept me from pulling the trigger is the dust pump design which is not suitable for video use. You end up with movement from zooming and a HUGE weight distribution problem from wide to tele.

Technical excellence aside since it would likely be an L variety, this lens would need to have an an internal or mostly internal zoom, A zoom ring that would cover the full range with less than half a turn, ability to accept an extender, and have a fairly consistent weight distribution from 24-300.

Cost should be under 3000.00

 

[JonAustin]

I don't know how popular the 28-300 is, but I think it works against itself, in terms of its specs.

It's a range that many would like to cover without lens changes, but the wide range forces a number of optical compromises, particularly maximum aperture and optimum image quality. Those who are willing to accept those optical compromises are probably less likely to shell out the price to purchase, nor would they want to deal with its weight and bulk.

I don't see myself ever being in the market for a lens with such a wide range, for the above reasons.

 

[Cosmicbug]

I would seriously consider this lens!
I still use my 35-350L on my 5D3 for commercial use and find the range covers 95% of my needs on event shoots.
The one lens does all helps when time is at a premium. Lens and card changing is a killer in my work. The long end of the zoom is so useful and is instantly available without a swapout to another long lens.
...
I do think more ppl would like a zoom with a 10X zoom capability if they tried one for a while. Not for everyone but more useful than carrying a 70-300 alongside a wide zoom.

 

[matukas]

EF 24-240mm f/4L IS USM and 2500€ is a go for me :

 

[kphoto99]

The equivalent of 18-135 STM on crop for FF would be good for people moving from crop to FF.
So 28-220 range. A better bet would be 24-250.

 

[jcarapet]

I have always wondered why more people don't own this lens if they are willing to deal with the price and weight of the 70-200 f2.8. If in theory they hold to the same optical quality as all recent lenses, it would be a hard lens to pass up. Weight under 3 pounds is the key here as well.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I have always wondered why more people don't own this lens if they are willing to deal with the price and weight of the 70-200 f2.8. If in theory they hold to the same optical quality as all recent lenses, it would be a hard lens to pass up. Weight under 3 pounds is the key here as well.

70-200 II is sharp end to end, zooms the full range in just 1/4 turn, zoom and AF are all internal, lens is weather sealed, accepts 1.4 and 2x extenders, F2.8 through the entire zoom range. I believe it also maintains F2.8 cross type AF utilization, even with the extenders.

 

[Yankeedog]

I'd accept the current ~$2500 price point or even a bit higher if they can shave significant weight and offer good IQ over a 28-300 or even better a 24-300 range.

Speaking as an adventure traveler, I've definitely had situations out in the bush where I had e.g., a 70-300 mounted, and suddenly found myself wanting wider for an unexpected opportunity. Wildlife often doesn't wait around for you to swap lenses or bodies. Further, when you're manpacking your gear over long distances, carrying two DSLR bodies with lenses mounted usually isn't practical. Also, in dusty environments especially lens swapping risks contaminating your body. So there's certainly value for me in a "mount it and leave it" lens proposition.

This said, I'm not particularly optimistic in the practical feasibility of a lens which covers this focal range with good IQ across the entire range *and* has a light weight. We'll see, but from my layperson's understanding of optics, there are definite technical challenges.

 

[awinphoto]

Very Early on in my photography career, i had access to one of the earlier versions of this lens... Of course i had my 10D at that point and that was brand spanking new, with like a max ISO of like 800, 1600 was unusable. At the time, i loved that lens... a one size fits all L lens... But looking back at the archived photos i have with that lens, very few are actually tack sharp. It could be that my expectations and reality has changed from then to now... And perhaps with the newer cameras and higher ISO capabilities and higher shutter speeds I could probably get more keepers and better shots now... but alas i dont have that lens... anyone wish to donate it?

 

[exquisitor]

I would like to see rather consumer oriented super zoom. 24-200 or 24-250 would be totally fine. If it would have decent performance and be around $1000, I would go with it.
The super zooms are especially appreciated for travel. But this folk is rather hobbyists and enthusiast, so $2500 and big&heavy is not an option. Professional photographers from another side appreciate a high image quality much more. The one-super-zoom option would have much more shortcomings in IQ than two-zoom option. That's why 24-70 + 70-200 option is more much more popular.

 

[unfocused]

I always understood that this lens was intended for photojournalists trying to cover quickly changing scenes without having to change lenses.

Given the quality of APS-C these days, I wonder if a 15-240 APS-C lens paired with a 7DII wouldn't be a more practical and lighter solution.

 

[entoman]

Surely the whole idea of a superzoom is to be a hand-holdable, portable lens, that can be more or less permanently attached, replacing a bagful of primes, and with a reasonable price?

Thus lens doesn't meet any of those criteria - it weighs half a ton and is huge and unwieldy. It certainly couldn't be carried around for more than a few minutes without giving you severe neck pain. It's max aperture is very limited and the closest focus is unimpressive. Not only that, but it costs a bomb and is extremely unlikely even at optimum aperture to match any prime L glass.

I can't think of any type of photographer who would want this lens. Much much better to get 2 or 3 wide aperture primes, plus a long zoom for sports/action.

My ideal outfit would comprise of 17-40mm, 100mm IS macro, 180mm macro, 70-200mm and 100-400mm to complement my 5DMkiii and 7DMkii bodies.

Instead of wasting time developing this unwanted zoom, it would be far better if Canon were to add IS to some of the lenses where it is lacking e.g. the 180mm macro is incredibly sharp but very difficult to handhold due to the lack of IS.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

With the success of 70-300L, I see no need for 28-300L. It makes more sense one F3.5-5.6L 24-200mm more compact, lightweight and not so expensive.

 

[Etienne]

I always understood that this lens was intended for photojournalists trying to cover quickly changing scenes without having to change lenses.

Given the quality of APS-C these days, I wonder if a 15-240 APS-C lens paired with a 7DII wouldn't be a more practical and lighter solution.

+1

ENG is the main reason to have this lens. APS-C would make it a perfect match for the C100 / C300. Make it L quality, and f/4-5.6 would probably be fine given the great high ISO performance of the C video cameras.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've had the 35-350 L non IS and the 28-300mm L. That focal length is great, and the IQ is very good, but not as good as a 70-200 or 70-300.

The lens was originally used by PJ's who had to cover close and long photos of events, and did not want to have the extra lenses / bodies along.

Unfortunately, it has a small enough aperture that its not very useful in low light.

If there were a light weight DO version that was not priced out of sight, I'd be interested. However, I'm in doubt as to making the aperture significantly wider.

 

[hazitroll]

On APS-C it would be nice to add nex to my 10-22. I have two primes as well, but this could complete all my wishes. It's 1.7 kg, it is not heavier than a 70-200 2.8. So it is on my wish list already, but an upgrade, without the push-pull design would be even more on my list.