Why no L zooms between 35/50mm and 100/135mm?

[dirtcastle]

For me, 24-70mm is too short and 70-200mm is too long (and heavy).

On a full frame, it seems like a 35-85mm or a 50-100mm would be more useful/versatile for weddings and photojournalism.

Is there a reason why there is nothing between the 24-70mm and 70-200mm models?

 

[wickidwombat]

I agree, for me say a 35-85 f2L would be a perfect lens especially if it had IS I doubt it would ever leave my camera, it would be the absolute ultimate wedding / event lens. whatever it is it needs to be faster than f2.8 though, a solid sharp f2 would be ideal.
and for wider than 35 the 16-35 works nicely

 

[KeeFy]

Because typically event photogs use 2 bodies. 24-70 + 70-200. Or in my case 16-35 + 70-200.

 

[dr croubie]

Sigma (i think) has the 50-150 f/2.8, that's the closest you'll get.

I know they've made their cutoff at 70mm for some reason, and they're sticking with it, but I think a 40-120mm f/2.8 (or even a 40-100 f/2.0) would be a really good seller, a perfect portrait-zoom...

 

[dirtcastle]

The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 is an APS-C lens, and thus a 70-200mm equivalent. For crops, it would be a good alternative to a 70-200mm.

It does appear that Canon builds their line-up around the 70-200mm zoom. Alas, I don't build my personal kit around it. It's too heavy, and my 135mm gets the job done on the long end. Plus, the weight and size of the 70-200mm takes the fun out of it (for me). Honestly, I would rather just go all the way and rent a 200mm f/2 if I'm gonna break my wrist for an ultra-flat portrait with a creamy background.

All we are saying is give different focal lengths a chance.