Superzoom Development Mentioned Again [CR2]

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I think Canon have from 28mm up to 400mm very well covered at the moment, and since Nikon have the 200-500 and Tamron/Sigma have their 150-600mm offerings, we can hope to see direct competition in that area (the 500mm+ area).
At least that’s what I’m hoping (read praying 8) ) for!!! Even if it’s a heavy 300-600 with IQ like the 100-400 II and costs around $3000 I’ll have one immediately.

But not one of these are super zooms (10X) which is the subject. A 300-600 is far from a Super Zoom.

 

[mrsfotografie]

...Personally, I do not like variable aperture and would rather have a constant 5_6 than a 4 or 4_5 to 5_6.

Why give up on the ability to have some wider apertures available at the wide end? It doesn't come at cost of a bigger and heavier build, you know. If this bothers you, just stop down to the aperture at the long end or smaller (F/5.6 in this case). I often treat variable aperture zooms that way for practical reasons. Hence I think of the 70-300L as a f/5.6 lens, and the Tamron 28-300 as a f/6.3 lens.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Regarding the 28-300L, remember that even with the L red ring, sturdy construction, etc. that physics is physics. Optically, this 10X zoom is not a strong performer:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/426-canon_28300_3556is_5d?start=1

However, for those that want it, perhaps the following improvements could be made:

• Strip it down for weight. This lens currently weighs over 4 pounds with a hood and collar on. Keep the metal mount, but put this lens on a diet like the 24-70 f/4L IS, which has the 100L's engineering plastic outside and a plastic sliding internal barrel.
  
  
• Bring the focal length multiplier back down to earth. [28 - anything] is frustrating on the wide end, so I agree with others that a 24-200 is about right.
  
  
• Try not to be premium and 'do it all' in one lens, as it will suck at both. I'd actually recommend losing the L moniker -- drop this thing down to non-L status like the 24-105 recently did. That will help justify the move to plastic.
  
  
  
• Keep it small. Forget f/3.5 or f/4 on the wide end. Perhaps going to an f/5.6 fixed max aperture will allow this lens to get lighter and more compact.

Having one lens to replace all your other lenses is a fantasy you can sell to crop owners. But once you've stepped up to FF, the premise of a superzoom (convenience at the cost of IQ & speed) nullifies the upside of a FF rig. It just never made sense to me.

And how on earth is this even a top 10 ask from the market right now? Surely, refreshing the L standard primes with that BR tech, a non-L 50mm & 85mm refresh and the 16-35 f/2.8L III are far, far bigger needs.

- A

For once I must disagree with you about lens wishes: I'd love a (24/28)-200 IS STM. Keep it black, STM, and plastic (but well-built) to keep the price down and prevent it from "challenging" any of the other lenses, but I'd rather have my 5D3 + that lens than my SL1 + 18-135 STM for walking the neighborhood (with the ability to shoot almost anything I see) and shooting my girlfriend's triathlons (as she bikes and runs from the distance to close, plus group shots with our friends). It's not about "replacing all my other lenses" at all (I would still want my 100L, 35 IS, and 50A particularly); it's about having the ability, in certain situations, to get decent IQ across a wide array of focal lengths without swapping or carrying extra lenses.

What I would do is get this hypothetical lens, sell my 70-300L (which is my current race-day lens) and if I miss the reach/ IQ, spring for the drool-worthy 100-400Lii.

 

[geekpower]

i would personally find something like a 30-240, constant f4, rather attractive, even if it was heavy, but rather doubt they would make such a thing, for various reasons

 

[ahsanford]

i would personally find something like a 30-240, constant f4, rather attractive, even if it was heavy, but rather doubt they would make such a thing, for various reasons

Constant f/4 for that would be pretty massive, wouldn't it?

- A

 

[Don Haines]

I must confess that I have a Canon superzoom lens..... the EF-S 18-200. The image quality is poor, but there are times when you really don't have the option of carrying around lots of lenses (can you say multi-day-hike-in-the-mountains) and the idea of one lens to cover most ranges starts to get very attractive. Materials, coatings, and manufacturing precision has improved since the 18-200 and the 28-300 were released. A new version of either lens would undoubtedly be much sharper..... not as good as a 70-200, but remember that the latest zooms are sharper than the old primes used to be. We are seeing almost continual improvements in Canon optics. It might even be a BR lens or have a DO element.....

 

[Gino]

I hope Canon comes out with an L quality super zoom for full frame cameras. The current 24-105L just doesn't have enough reach at the long end, and when I'm on vacation it can be a pain to lug around 2-3 different lenses with different focal lengths.

Hopefully Canon can produce an L quality lens in the 24-240mm focal range that produces decent photos, with a size and weight that is manageable i.e. the current size and weight of the 70-300L

 

[ahsanford]

I hope Canon comes out with an L quality super zoom for full frame cameras. The current 24-105L just doesn't have enough reach at the long end, and when I'm on vacation it can be a pain to lug around 2-3 different lenses with different focal lengths.

Hopefully Canon can produce an L quality lens in the 24-240mm focal range that produces decent photos, with a size and weight that is manageable i.e. the current size and weight of the 70-300L

I still think more modest FL multipliers would make Canon much more money. A 24-120 f/4L IS would sell like hotcakes.

Existing 24-105L folks -- including many that bristled at Canon for offering a non-L 24-105 'downgrade' rather than a better Mk II of the L version -- would snap up a 24-120L in a heartbeat.

- A

 

[Sabaki]

A question for the technically knowledgeable here:

8-15 has 7mm zoom range
16-35 has 19mm zoom range
24-70 has 46mm zoom range
70-200 has 130mm zoom range
200-400 has 200mm zoom range

Is there a physics or engineering based reason why the zooms have shorter zoom ranges based on their widest focal value?
And considering that, could a hypothetical 24-300mm be as good optically as a 70-200?

 

[Proscribo]

A question for the technically knowledgeable here:

8-15 has 7mm zoom range
16-35 has 19mm zoom range
24-70 has 46mm zoom range
70-200 has 130mm zoom range
200-400 has 200mm zoom range

Is there a physics or engineering based reason why the zooms have shorter zoom ranges based on their widest focal value?
And considering that, could a hypothetical 24-300mm be as good optically as a 70-200?

Well, how about not thinking it that way.
8-15: tele is 1,88x longer than wide
16-35: 2,19x
24-70: 2,92x
70-200: 2,86x
200-400: 2x
I'd think that it's more about the %-difference between shortest and longest f-lengths rather than absolute mm-values. However wide lenses are indeed more problematic to make vs. tele.

 

[mrsfotografie]

A question for the technically knowledgeable here:

8-15 has 7mm zoom range
16-35 has 19mm zoom range
24-70 has 46mm zoom range
70-200 has 130mm zoom range
200-400 has 200mm zoom range

Is there a physics or engineering based reason why the zooms have shorter zoom ranges based on their widest focal value?
And considering that, could a hypothetical 24-300mm be as good optically as a 70-200?

I'm not an optics expert at all but the engineering challenge is not the absolute focal length change but rather the ratio. This gives you the 'nX-zoom' figure.

The ratio can be found by dividing the focal length at the long (tele) end by the focal length at the short (wide) end.

Hence:

8-15 has 1.875X zoom
16-35 has 1.842X zoom
24-70 has 2.917X zoom
70-200 has 2.857X zoom
200-400 has 2x zoom

None of these are very high ratio's.

The 24-105L is pushing the ratio a bit more: 4.375X zoom.

A super-zoom has an even higher ratio, such as 1:10. Hence 28-300 has 10.714X zoom.

Your hypothetical 24-300mm would have 12.5X zoom, and is a lot more challenging to engineer than a 70-200 with 2.857X zoom. So if these lenses are not separated by ages of optical design experience (computer design and better manufacturing tolerances now really helps to improve the optics), a 24-300mm cannot be as good optically as a 70-200.

 

[Sabaki]

A question for the technically knowledgeable here:

8-15 has 7mm zoom range
16-35 has 19mm zoom range
24-70 has 46mm zoom range
70-200 has 130mm zoom range
200-400 has 200mm zoom range

Is there a physics or engineering based reason why the zooms have shorter zoom ranges based on their widest focal value?
And considering that, could a hypothetical 24-300mm be as good optically as a 70-200?

I'm not an optics expert at all but the engineering challenge is not the absolute focal length change but rather the ratio. This gives you the 'nX-zoom' figure.

The ratio can be found by dividing the focal length at the long (tele) end by the focal length at the short (wide) end.

Hence:

8-15 has 1.875X zoom
16-35 has 1.842X zoom
24-70 has 2.917X zoom
70-200 has 2.857X zoom
200-400 has 2x zoom

None of these are very high ratio's.

The 24-105L is pushing the ratio a bit more: 4.375X zoom.

A super-zoom has an even higher ratio, such as 1:10. Hence 28-300 has 10.714X zoom.

Your hypothetical 24-300mm would have 12.5X zoom, and is a lot more challenging to engineer than a 70-200 with 2.857X zoom. So if these lenses are not separated by ages of optical design experience (computer design and better manufacturing tolerances now really helps to improve the optics), a 24-300mm cannot be as good optically as a 70-200.

Well, how about not thinking it that way.
8-15: tele is 1,88x longer than wide
16-35: 2,19x
24-70: 2,92x
70-200: 2,86x
200-400: 2x
I'd think that it's more about the %-difference between shortest and longest f-lengths rather than absolute mm-values. However wide lenses are indeed more problematic to make vs. tele.

I'm so impressed! You guys are super smart! Thanks for the education

 

[sjprg]

My 28-300 has now graduated from my 1DS3 to my 5DS R, and will stay there unless my 100-400 goes on temporally. For all the naysayers of the 28-300 it is still a very good lens. I would be first on the block for the 24-300 if it ever gets released.