- Status
Are we talking about price or size here?
I can think of 4 EF-S lenses are are 'almost, but not quite L' . . . but they're priced that way too.
For pricing, as a lot of people here mention, it's partially WHEN something was built.
If you're talking price, you get what you pay for . . . I mean when you pay to have a zoom (vs a prime) then at the same price, the primes tend to be better built.
Notice how so many people just fell in love with the 40?
I can think of 4 EF-S lenses are are 'almost, but not quite L' . . . but they're priced that way too.
For pricing, as a lot of people here mention, it's partially WHEN something was built.
If you're talking price, you get what you pay for . . . I mean when you pay to have a zoom (vs a prime) then at the same price, the primes tend to be better built.
Notice how so many people just fell in love with the 40?
Upvote
0
P
pharp
Guest
dstppy said:
Size/weight and price [not so much]. My assumption is that many folks have migrated to the Sony NEX or MFT - many as second systems - primarily because of size/weight. Right? I'm also assuming that its at least a factor for standard DSLR users when deciding which camera to take out for the day. I'll assume thats why Canon made the 6D the way they did. My gut says that a smaller, lighter, probably slower - and presumably somewhat cheaper L zoom would sell well. I should think Canon would like that as well - there has to be more profit in these. I could be wrong.
To your other point - I really don't understand the 40 at all.
Upvote
0
The 40 is essentially weightless and is sharper and smaller than either of the 'budget' 50 offerings. (I've never tried the CM, so I'm talking about the 1.8 and 1.4 versions). Yes, it gives up a stop or so, but its more than an even trade for the IQ bump. Especially if you have a newer camera that is clean 2 or 3 stops higher in ISO than the ones from a few years ago.
-Brian
-Brian
Upvote
0
I dunno, they have the 24-105 f/4L that goes for $1150 retail (but really $800). And there is the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS that goes for $479 retail (but really like $300). So, yes, there is a gap for a $750ish retail zoom, but it would have to essentially be an IS-less version of the 24-105, or a variable aperture.pharp said:
I guess they could update the 28-135, keep that focal length, give it newer coatings, the newer IS, etc. It'd differentiate it from the 24-105 enough, but I'm not sure what the motivation would be. Sort of like looking for a problem that doesn't exist; since someone paying $2000 for their camera shouldn't be skimping on glass, and an APS-C user wouldn't have any use for that focal range. They'd get the 15-85 if they wanted the APS-C equivalent.
Upvote
0
I could definitely see Canon coming out with a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 IS USM in the near (within 12 months for announcement) future to match what Nikon is offering. Development of reasonable build quality, affordable FF zooms has completely died since 1998 (with the exception of 28-105mm II in 2000). Timeline of metal-mount non-L zooms:Halfrack said:
Wide angle:
20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1993)
Normal:
28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II (1988)
35-70mm f/3.5-4.5A (1988)
35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 (1988)
35-135mm f/4-5.6 USM (1990)
28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 I USM (1991)
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1992)
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1996)
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (1998)
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM (2000)
Tele:
50-200mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
70-210mm f/4 (1987)
100-300mm f/5.6 (1987)
100-200mm f/4.5A (1988)
70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1990)
100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM (1990)
75-300mm f/4-5.6 I/USM (1991), II/USM (1995), III/USM (1999) - non-Ring-type USM
75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (1995) - non-Ring-type USM
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (2005)
All-In-One:
28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 I/USM (2000) - non-Ring-type USM
Not everyone interested in a 6D (when it finally comes out) will be interested in spending $450 for the OK-but-old 28-135mm or $800 for the 24-105mm ($950 un-kitted). There is definitely room in there for a $400-600 modern (latest IS version, ring-USM) normal zoom and a wide zoom cheaper than 17-40mm (maybe 18-35mm?)with at least ring USM (if not IS aswell).
Upvote
0
Nothing interests me less than another average zoom lens that doesn't have a constant aperture..... 
If you're spending that much on a body, why compromise on a crappy lens? Or... why buy thebody if you don't buy the lenses to make the best use of it?
If you're spending that much on a body, why compromise on a crappy lens? Or... why buy thebody if you don't buy the lenses to make the best use of it?
Upvote
0
Why would the lack of constant aperture make a lens crappy? Are the 100-400 and 70-300L lenses crappy?Brymills said:Nothing interests me less than another average zoom lens that doesn't have a constant aperture.....
Upvote
0
dhofmann said:Why would the lack of constant aperture make a lens crappy? Are the 100-400 and 70-300L lenses crappy?Brymills said:Nothing interests me less than another average zoom lens that doesn't have a constant aperture.....
I'd sooner have primes to cover the 300 and 400 focal lengths.
Upvote
0
Well, a full-frame kit lens wouldn't need STM, as it wouldn't work for video AF for the 6D and 5dIII, as neither has the sensor that utilizes it.Halfrack said:
Yeah, I guess I could see it, I'm just not sure there is a strong push there. Maybe once the 6D is out and there are a lot of people put off by upgrading both glass and body to the tune of nearly $3k.KyleSTL said:
But if you think of what Canon has updated, they aren't really focusing on the budget end of full-frame in terms of lenses. And I can't see a 24-85 being popular in APS-C over the 15-85 for the same price. Limits the sales potential
Upvote
0
The 100 - 400 is certainly a dated design - the 70 - 300 is cracking though and well worth the money ... evidenced below ...dhofmann said:Why would the lack of constant aperture make a lens crappy? Are the 100-400 and 70-300L lenses crappy?Brymills said:Nothing interests me less than another average zoom lens that doesn't have a constant aperture.....
Attachments
Upvote
0
To the OP, the L24-105 f/4is is the answer. It weighs a lot less than the 24-70 f/2.8MkI and there are a pages of good reasons why this is one of the most highly and often recommended lenses in the Canon L range. It's light for what it does, it's sharp wide open, has IS and is just darn useful! Mine is way better overall than any of the four 24-70 f/2.8 MkI zooms I've had.
-PW
-PW
Upvote
0
dhofmann said:Why would the lack of constant aperture make a lens crappy? Are the 100-400 and 70-300L lenses crappy?Brymills said:Nothing interests me less than another average zoom lens that doesn't have a constant aperture.....
I'll chime in here, I guess it's convenience when shooting with a constant (stopped down) aperture and need some light. I don't mind an aperture range from f/3.5-4.5. You can stop that down to f/5.6 for the entire range for instance and still have a reasonably wide aperture. I usually do the same with an f/4 lens. A short zoom that ends in f/5.6 is not fun when struggling for light as that would result in f/8 to or so to get optimum sharpness especially with a cheapie.
Of course this all assumes that you need to stop down some for best sharpness as is the case with most zoom lenses. and there are a very few exceptions.
I love my 100-400 but almost always use it with apertures stopped down to f/6.3 at least.
Upvote
0
- Status
