Why no lenses like 35-135mm anymore?

[VanWeddings]

often I wish there was a lens like 35-135mm f2.8. there are many situations where I don't need to be wide or telephoto, but there's no time to switch 70-200 to 24-70, for example.

I know these zoom lenses existed once upon a time. but as far as I know there isn't a pro f2.8 version of such lenses. anyone knows why no one seems interested in making these?

 

[Haydn1971]

24-135mm f4.0 IS L - come on Canon, I'm waiting for that patent to materialise !

 

[pj1974]

Yes, I could see a 35-135mm f/2.8 as being a very useful lens for some situations (eg street photography, candids at camps, events, etc)

There is the Tokina AF 50-135mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX - some reviews of it in different mounts at photozone.de - and it does well, particularly at the wide end across the frame, and tele end centre is great, just a bit soft in the corners wide open. But just 1 stop down the corners improve substantially.

There are also 3 versions of the Sigma 50-150mm, two of which are tested at SLRgear.com (they vII they appeared to have a very decentred copy). But the vI Sigma 50-150mm ƒ/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO they tested is amazingly sharp across the frame at all focal lengths, even wide open.

To me I know I would find a 35-150mm f/2.8 image stabilised lens 'ideal' for many of my purposes - that is, that focal length on an APS-C (Canon 7D). For FF I'd want to use a 70-200mm f/2.8 though.

Here's hoping!!! I have a 70-300mm L - which is what I use for my wildlife / bird photography (as I don't need fast glass for that)... and my walkaround is my Canon 15-85mm. A moderate fast (that is f/2.8) 35-150mm would be great for people photography or subject isolation.... so yes, it would also fill a niche for me.

At times I use my Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM macro for subject isolation (ie - not macro) - which does well in that too- but just at 100mm obviously!

Paul

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

often I wish there was a lens like 35-135mm f2.8. there are many situations where I don't need to be wide or telephoto, but there's no time to switch 70-200 to 24-70, for example.

I know these zoom lenses existed once upon a time. but as far as I know there isn't a pro f2.8 version of such lenses. anyone knows why no one seems interested in making these?

Most people liked to be able to go wider, back then zooms were tricky to design and going below 35mm made it a lot trickier so I think they were more apt to start at 35mm, with modern lens design it was easier to make zooms hit 24mm (although still tough to get a really huge ratio so they cut the top end down a bit) and people liked that better so they made those instead?


That's my guess.

 

[Zv]

Well there are a bunch of lenses that are close to that range, the 28-135 comes to mind. I think people want wider rather than longer as UWA lenses are a bit more expensive and it helps to have a budget zoom that covers some of wider focal lengths. For a lot of people 24mm is plenty wide, but I dunno about 35, especially for a walk-around or travel lens.

 

[seamonster]

I would prefer a 20-120 f/4 IS. Makes the 17-40 less necessary to get those wider angles.

 

[K-amps]

I would prefer a 20-120 f/4 IS. Makes the 17-40 less necessary to get those wider angles.

Or a 20-60mm f4 that is sharp in the corners & without distortion... I'd pay $1200- 1600 for one like this and up to 2000 for a F2.8 version.

 

[bholliman]

I agree with those above in saying that 35mm is really not wide enough for most photographers in a standard zoom lens. 24mm is the current standard at the wide end and for most people that is a good focal length.

Personally, 24-135 would be an ideal focal length range for me.