Will there ever be a 24-105 mkII? or 24-120?

[Loswr]

In other words, I think that range would make an amazing "grab it and forget it" lens, particularly if equipped with a decent IS system.

I think your size estimates are reasonable...for a non-L lens. There was an EF 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 USM that was a bit over 1 lb. and less than 4" long when retracted. The issue is the IQ would likely not be good enough for Canon to put a red ring around it - the 28-200 delivered pretty poor IQ. A 24-200L with good IQ (like the 28-300L) would need lots of 'extra' elements to correct all sorts of aberrations...meaning more weight and bulk. Your comparison

The reason there are so many 18-xxx zooms for APS-C is that there are a lot of APS-C cameras and a lot of users buying them after owning a superzoom P&S. As FF cameras become cheaper, we may see a non-L EF superzoom, but the optical quality will likely be no better than the small image circle superzooms of today. As I said, if you want L-series IQ and build with the FF image circle, you're going to pay for it...in cost as well as weight/size.

 

[dgatwood]

In other words, I think that range would make an amazing "grab it and forget it" lens, particularly if equipped with a decent IS system.

I think your size estimates are reasonable...for a non-L lens. There was an EF 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 USM that was a bit over 1 lb. and less than 4" long when retracted. The issue is the IQ would likely not be good enough for Canon to put a red ring around it - the 28-200 delivered pretty poor IQ. A 24-200L with good IQ (like the 28-300L) would need lots of 'extra' elements to correct all sorts of aberrations...meaning more weight and bulk.

My estimates were based on comparing EF-S to L lenses, though perhaps I didn't go quite long enough. If I had compared the 55–250 with the 70–300L, I would have gotten a factor of about 2.4. Even with that multiplier, though, it would still be approximately the same weight as a 70–300L. And a big part of the reason the 70–300L weighs as much as it does is because it has a lot more metal than the 55–250. If they made a 24–200 out of plastic, I'd be shocked if it didn't come in under two pounds.

 

[Loswr]

My estimates were based on comparing EF-S to L lenses, though perhaps I didn't go quite long enough. If I had compared the 55–250 with the 70–300L, I would have gotten a factor of about 2.4. Even with that multiplier, though, it would still be approximately the same weight as a 70–300L. And a big part of the reason the 70–300L weighs as much as it does is because it has a lot more metal than the 55–250. If they made a 24–200 out of plastic, I'd be shocked if it didn't come in under two pounds.

Have you noticed that all the superzooms start at a FF equivalent of ~28mm? I suspect widening to 24mm is a substantial design issue. With a telephoto design, the front element size is the focal length / f-number, but with other lens designs, that's not the case, particularly with wide angle lenses (35mm f/2.8 with 77/82 mm filter sizes). When the 35-350L was updated to the 28-300L, the filter size went from 72mm to 77mm. A 24mm wide end might mean 82mm filters, and a corresponding weight increase from the larger elements.

I also think you're avoiding a logical comparator - the 28-300L's nearest EF-S equivalent is the 18-200. That gives a factor of 2.8. Now, apply that to the EF-S lens most equivalent to the 24-xxx zoom you want, the EF-S 15-85 (L-series optical quality, zoom starting at 24mm). A factor of 2.8 applied to a 20.3 oz (plastic!) lens, and you have an estimate that's a mere 3 oz lighter than the current 28-300L, and still well over 3 lbs. Yes, a 24-200/3.5-5.6 could be plastic and have fewer and smaller elements to make it lighter - but then it wouldn't be an L lens in build or IQ. I think a 24-200L would not be the small/light lens you're thinking about.

We could go back and forth about estimates that very wildly, but the real question isn't whether or not they can make such a lens, it's whether or not they will make such a lens. While mechanical and optical engineering are a part of that decision, marketing is a bigger part. I don't see both a 24-200L and a 28-300L in the lineup, but they widened both ends of the 35-350, so maybe they'd do so again. I think we could see an EF 24-200 non-L as a consumer superzoom, but not until FF bodies come down into the consumer price range (xxD or cheaper). That's the sane reason we haven't seen an EF non-L zoom lens released/updated for over 10 years, with the exception of the 70-300mm (where there's very little benefit to a smaller image circle).

 

[lomenak]

I got the 24-105L in the kit and never thought that I would keep it. I was quite used to shoot with primes, but this lens is so useful! I love it! If it had less distortion at 24mm it would be just perfect!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The 24-70 F4 doesn't really look "better" than the 24-105 judging by

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/1074/(lens2)/164/(brand1)/Canon/(camera1)/836/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/836

It looks much worse at 50mm on TDP as well:

Copy 1: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Copy 2: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=2&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Copy 3: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=2&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

It remains worse even at f/11.

Yeah well try it ANY other focal length other than 50mm (the one weak spot of the 24-70 f/4 IS). What about something like 24mm where no FF zoom used to ever deliver, even at f/8, until the 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS.
(also I don't have tons of faith in TDP)

 

[Loswr]

Yeah well try it ANY other focal length other than 50mm (the one weak spot of the 24-70 f/4 IS). What about something like 24mm where no FF zoom used to ever deliver, even at f/8, until the 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS.
(also I don't have tons of faith in TDP)

Good point. The TDP review of the 24-70/4L IS even states, "That this lens performs its worst at a mid-focal length vs. an extremity focal length is unusual. Since most people shoot their highest percentage of images at the focal length range extremes of a lens, the 24-70 L IS weakness is perhaps well placed. Roger at LensRentals.com has confirmed the 50mm weakness in his vast stock of this lens."

It's always possible to use carefully selected and excerpted data to support whatever point we are trying to make...

 

[captainkanji]

I've had good results with the 24-105. It's a fantastic all around lens. I don't see the need for faster shutter speeds with that range so f/4 seems like a wide enough aperture, but I would like the DOF of a Sigma 35 1.4 (maybe next year). It's the longer range where I really would like a wider aperture. I have the 70-200 f/4L USM, and to get 1/200 for a staged event, I have to shoot 12,800. It's no problem with the 6D (I think they are quite usable), but I think 6400 shots are much cleaner and sharper since they require less NR. The 135 f/2L will be my next lens

 

[shashinkaman]

My estimates were based on comparing EF-S to L lenses, though perhaps I didn't go quite long enough. If I had compared the 55–250 with the 70–300L, I would have gotten a factor of about 2.4. Even with that multiplier, though, it would still be approximately the same weight as a 70–300L. And a big part of the reason the 70–300L weighs as much as it does is because it has a lot more metal than the 55–250. If they made a 24–200 out of plastic, I'd be shocked if it didn't come in under two pounds.

Have you noticed that all the superzooms start at a FF equivalent of ~28mm? I suspect widening to 24mm is a substantial design issue. With a telephoto design, the front element size is the focal length / f-number, but with other lens designs, that's not the case, particularly with wide angle lenses (35mm f/2.8 with 77/82 mm filter sizes). When the 35-350L was updated to the 28-300L, the filter size went from 72mm to 77mm. A 24mm wide end might mean 82mm filters, and a corresponding weight increase from the larger elements.

I also think you're avoiding a logical comparator - the 28-300L's nearest EF-S equivalent is the 18-200. That gives a factor of 2.8. Now, apply that to the EF-S lens most equivalent to the 24-xxx zoom you want, the EF-S 15-85 (L-series optical quality, zoom starting at 24mm). A factor of 2.8 applied to a 20.3 oz (plastic!) lens, and you have an estimate that's a mere 3 oz lighter than the current 28-300L, and still well over 3 lbs. Yes, a 24-200/3.5-5.6 could be plastic and have fewer and smaller elements to make it lighter - but then it wouldn't be an L lens in build or IQ. I think a 24-200L would not be the small/light lens you're thinking about.

We could go back and forth about estimates that very wildly, but the real question isn't whether or not they can make such a lens, it's whether or not they will make such a lens. While mechanical and optical engineering are a part of that decision, marketing is a bigger part. I don't see both a 24-200L and a 28-300L in the lineup, but they widened both ends of the 35-350, so maybe they'd do so again. I think we could see an EF 24-200 non-L as a consumer superzoom, but not until FF bodies come down into the consumer price range (xxD or cheaper). That's the sane reason we haven't seen an EF non-L zoom lens released/updated for over 10 years, with the exception of the 70-300mm (where there's very little benefit to a smaller image circle).

YAAAAAAAAAWN! :

 

[Pi]

Yeah well try it ANY other focal length other than 50mm (the one weak spot of the 24-70 f/4 IS).

I did try 35mm as well. Still worse. When you pay more, give up range, you expect better performance in the "normal range" 35-50mm at least.

@Neuro - do you understand that when I said "it is worse at 50mm", I did not say - it is worse overall?

 

[dgatwood]

We could go back and forth about estimates that very wildly, but the real question isn't whether or not they can make such a lens, it's whether or not they will make such a lens. While mechanical and optical engineering are a part of that decision, marketing is a bigger part. I don't see both a 24-200L and a 28-300L in the lineup, but they widened both ends of the 35-350, so maybe they'd do so again. I think we could see an EF 24-200 non-L as a consumer superzoom, but not until FF bodies come down into the consumer price range (xxD or cheaper).

They're already in the consumer price range on the Nikon side of the fence, and I'd argue that the 6D is rapidly approaching that territory as well. I'd give it at most one more generation.

The thing is, right now, the 70–300L is an awesome lens on crop, and is often combined with either the 15–85 or 18–135 for the bottom half of the range. Similarly, a lot of people combine those lenses with one of the cheaper 75–300 or 70–300 lenses.

When those folks move up to crop, the 100–400, if revised, would be a reasonable (albeit pricey) replacement for the 70–300, 75–300, or 70–300L, but there's nothing currently out there with the same FoV as either the 15–85 (24–136) or the 18–135 (28–216). The closest you can get are the 28–135 (which IMO has terrible build quality) and the 28–300, which almost completely overlaps with the 100–400. If you start out on full-frame, the current lineup makes sense. If you start out on crop and want to move to lenses that are 1.6x what you're using now, the current lineup is rather comically wrong. The only popular crop body lens with a near-exact equivalent is the 10–22 (16–35L II)

That's why IMO we need either a 24–200L or 28–200L. Honestly, I don't care which. The 24 would have me switching to my 16–35L II slightly less often, but not enough to be a showstopper if they went with 28 instead. I could even live with a 28–160L. I'd even put up with a 28–135L if that were my only option. Or even a 24–200 or 28–200 non-L. Just not the current 28–135 non-L.

 

[Loswr]

Just not the current 28–135 non-L.

FWIW (which isn't much, granted), about a year ago Canon patented updated designs for the 28-135 and 28-300. If/when FF bodies get down into the $1200 range, I bet we'll see an updated (non-L) 28-135 as an inexpensive kit lens (keeping the kit price under $1500), just as the current 28-135 was the kit lens for the last 'consumer FF bodies'.

Speaking for myself, I likely wouldn't be happy with the IQ of an EF non-L 24/28-xxx superzoom, and I think an L version of one would be fine optically, but not much smaller/lighter than the current 28-300 (which I don't mind carrying). I'd take a similarly-sized 24-250L over the 28-300L - that 4mm on the wide end makes a difference.