No compact 'standard' L zoom?

[pharp]

With the announcement by Canon of the 6D, it appears that they've at least acknowledged (are hoping) that there is a (big?) market for a FF camera, but in a smaller, lighter package. So, wheres the lens to go with it? There are currrently only 3 [out of 10] FF standard zoom lenses. Of the two L offerings, the 24-70 is by all accounts very good, but quite pricey and still not light [the brickette], the 24-105 is also pretty good, but still looks large on the 6D, especially as a walk around zoom. Canon makes FIVE versions of the 70-200!!! Why not something like a lighter, more moderately priced 24-70L /4?

and how about 35/2L and 24/2 or 2.8L

 

[Steve Campbell]

Actually, Canon has five versions of the 70-200, but I believe they are currently manufacturing only three of them. I don't believe the 70-200 2.8 non IS or the 70-200 IS version I are in production anymore. The 24-105 is not too large or heavy and is a great all round lens.

 

[Loswr]

Cheap, mediocre optics can be small and light. If you want good optical quality, you generally need more and often larger elements, and that means a larger, heavier lens. If you want a light general purpose zoom lens, pick up a used 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

 

[Aaron78]

Constant apetured lenses (24-105 and 24-70) are just larger and heavier than a variable apetured lens because of the glass involved. A 28-135 will be smaller and lighter, so maybe look there. My 70-200 2.8L IS II is my walk around zoom....

 

[crasher8]

Here ya go buudy

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MINT-CANON-AF-EF-24-85mm-3-5-4-5-USM-67mm-JAPAN-MADE-LENS-/230857110533?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item35c027f405

 

[señor Steve]

Cheap, mediocre optics can be small and light. If you want good optical quality, you generally need more and often larger elements, and that means a larger, heavier lens. If you want a light general purpose zoom lens, pick up a used 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

...or of fixed focal length or diffractive optics or aps-c. Always a compromise right?

 

[bbasiaga]

The 24-105 is a very handy lens. Doesn't even feel like its there, especially if you have used a 24 or 28-70 2.8L. Give it a shot I think you'll like it.

-Brian

 

[FunkyD3121]

I'd have to agree with Brian - I have had the 24-105 since 2007 & it practically stays on my 50D. Love that lens!

 

[vlim]

Have you think about the 70-300 F/4-5.6 L IS ?

 

[crasher8]

Pancake and sneakers?

 

[Loswr]

Pancake and sneakers?

Doesn't sound very appetizing...

 

[MK5GTI]

didn't even know there is a Canon 24-85 variable lens. must be old? how does it perform?

but the 24-85 Nikkor that comes with the D600 Kit is very compact, not tooo heavy as well.

i sure hope Canon can bring us some cheaper alternatives. maybe 24-85 F2.8-4 ? just like how Fuji "kit lens" has 2.8-4 on their 18-55.

 

[Loswr]

didn't even know there is a Canon 24-85 variable lens. must be old? how does it perform?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-85mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[mrsfotografie]

I have this Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II. A great little lens, from the old days. It is a crunchy old design but optically quite good, and is still a fun small (read: tiny!) zoom option on FF Don't use it much though :

Ø70mm x 76.5mm, 285 grams.

 

[preppyak]

I have this Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II. A great little lens, from the old days. It is a crunchy old design but optically quite good, and is still a fun small (read: tiny!) zoom option on FF Don't use it much though :

Yeah, I have a 28-80 that comes from the film days and optically its ok on APS-C, but it would fall apart on full-frame. But, since I use it in conditions where I wouldn't want to break/scratch my good lenses, I'm fine with the compromise

The real answer is the 28-135, but optically that is a compromise as well. And Canon already makes a 35/2 and 24/2.8 (in both IS and non-IS), no need for an L to double the price for no reason

 

[mrsfotografie]

I had a 28-135 but it wasn't too great. Eventually the wobbly lens barrel put me off.

The EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II in action. I like the colors (shot in neutral, AWB).

 

[Seanlucky]

I actually used to own the 24-85 lens, and thought it was a great little guy! After I found I wasn't using it that much I ended up giving it to a friend who had picked up a used 40D and had no glass. Since then I bought a 28-105 variable lens and it's a fantastic walk around! Fits super nicely on my 5DII and for a general walk around lens I find the optical quality perfectly acceptable. Would I use it in the studio? Hell no, hand me the L primes in that situation, those are the times where I'm demanding the absolute best out of everything I'm using. But as a, "tourist," lens it works great.

 

[Halfrack]

I think the OP has an unrealistic expectation that an L lens should be compromised. The moment you say "L" in Canonspeak, double the price, but expect a much higher build quality, and a long life of taking photos. At the same time, you're spending $2100 on the disposable half of a camera. The 24-105L is the perfect lens to butt up against a FF body on the cheap.

Don't want to spend L money - the 28-135 is the only other match up with current glass.

This is partly due to the last 5-6 years being all about the digital cameras, and APS-C has been like 90% of the cameras sold. The 10% buying a 5d/1ds were buying the high end lenses only, so why would Canon develop anything that's FF, yet 'cheap'. The 28-135 came out in 1998, so for it to have lasted it was the 'compromise'.

Hope that the new push for FF will encourage Canon to come out with a few more designs quickly, but don't hold your breath.

 

[pharp]

Interesting discussion, but ... I reject out of hand the notion that L glass [better build, weather sealed] have to necessarily be twice as much (especially since many have plastic bodies now) - e.g. 17-40, 70-200 f/4 non IS are both quite reasonable - cheaper than many EF-S lenses. It certainly wouldn't be a 'waste' to have a 35mm f/2 L or 28 f/2 L I don't think many folks really care about IS on such a lens, but would like weather sealing. I still contend that there is a market for some smaller, lighter L glass. Maybe I'm wrong and Canon may not make these, but they did make the 40mm pancake - why? Was anyone clamoring for this? Good IQ, but I've seen it on a 1D - and it looks silly.

 

[preppyak]

Interesting discussion, but ... I reject out of hand the notion that L glass [better build, weather sealed] have to necessarily be twice as much - e.g. 17-40, 70-200 f/4 non IS are both quite reasonable - cheaper than many EF-S lenses.

Actually, if you are going by retail price, only the 17-55 is more expensive than the 17-40. The 17-40 and 10-22 are basically the same. The 70-200 is cheaper because its 13 years old and got updated with IS in 2006.

New L glass is necessarily twice the price (or, at least a 50% premium). Old L glass might not be, but that is usually specifically because its a popular model with many copies out there. Even when Canon has updated older non-L glass, prices have gone up quite a bit with the addition of IS. Or if its cheap (pancake), it sacrifices a stop