Patent: Canon EF 24-300mm f/3.5-5.6

[unfocused]

The original intended buyers for the lens were PJ's who had to cover both wide and telephoto, and switching lenses was impractical. Those buyers have gone away, replaced by smart phone photos, or still grabs from video. This leaves me wondering if they would actually produce one. Canon does not just make products with the hope that there are buyers, so they will not produce it without a fairly certain market.

While the photojournalist market has shrunk, it's not gone away completely and, as I noted on an earlier thread about this lens, Canon may see a growing demand among a certain kind of photojournalist – war zone photographers.

Unfortunately, with U.S. foreign policy in a shambles, Canada lurching toward isolationism, Saudi Arabia and Iran marching toward war, Russia invading its neighbors, China looking to expand into disputed territories, North Korea being North Korea, regional wars in Africa and Islamic fundamentalists across the Mideast, Europe, Africa and Asia promoting terrorism, the market for war photographers remains strong. The market has changed, in that many more are now local free lancers rather than working as staff photographers. But the demand remains and unfortunately, the conditions under which they work means the cycle tends to be rather short.

 

[sunnyVan]

A superzoom for M mount would be more practical. It's more economical to produce and is way smaller. And if it's gonna be a slow lens anyway, may as well make it for a smaller sensor/slower camera system. I personally favor a full frame system that delivers uncompromising quality, and a super lightweight system that is ultra portable and delivers decent quality.

 

[H. Jones]

A surprising number of posters here have owned the 28-300 or the 35-350. On FF, 28mm is reasonably wide, but the lens is cumbersome and heavy, so its definitely for a buyer who has the need for a one lens does it all. The original intended buyers for the lens were PJ's who had to cover both wide and telephoto, and switching lenses was impractical. Those buyers have gone away, replaced by smart phone photos, or still grabs from video. This leaves me wondering if they would actually produce one. Canon does not just make products with the hope that there are buyers, so they will not produce it without a fairly certain market.

As a PJ I don't think I've ever had the 28-300mm on my mind. I'd much rather have the quality/wide aperture from my 24-70 and 70-200mm. Or if it's daylight, a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 II would go well on a second body. I'm sure there's some PJs that shoot differently than me and would enjoy this lens, but I've never found any issues with a two-body set up. I'd also say that the PJ market really hasn't disappeared, there's still enough of us out there, somewhere. The 35mm f/1.4 II replacement comes to mind in that regard, since the 35mm f/1.4 was the workhorse of countless PJs and I'm sure Canon knew that there were countless of us begging for weathersealing.

As was mentioned before, I think the real market for this lens is war PJs who don't want to be bogged down with multiple camera set ups or lens changes. I'm not sure that market is big enough to sell the lenses, but I'm pretty sure they could put whatever price would make it profitable and war PJs would still buy it, even if it's $3200.

 

[Gino]

I'm probably in the minority, but I'd love to have this type of lens....I've been holding off purchasing the Tamron 28-300 lens with the hope Canon would come out with a new full frame superzoom model, which would be nice to have for travel! I just hope Canon makes the new lens L quality, and they are able to keep down the size and weight compared to the current 28-300L.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I had the 'current' 28-300L for a while, I quite liked it but ultimately opted for the better IQ of the 24-70/2.8 II plus the 70-300L. If they can bring a 24-300L with the IQ of the 70-300L, I'd strongly consider it.