Now while I would love to own many many lenses they all seem like they would be more of a specialized purpose. the 24-105 is the kind of lens that you expect to have if you only had one camera/lens combo, the kind you can take most pictures with, a perfect walkaround lens. So my paranoia is that they are going to replace it with the 24-70 F4.
Will there ever be a 24-105 mkII? or 24-120?
- Thread starter IceAgeDX
- Start date
- Status
I don’t use this lens but my guess is that it will be discontinued. I believe 24-70 F4 is overpriced for marketing reasons. Canon try to make as much money as they can from a new lens but in a few years, it will probably at the same price as the 24-105 is now.
The 24-70 fits very well with eos 6D (better than 24-105). So I bet this will be the main kit in the future. This will allow Canon to maintain the price high.
For 5D3 or 5D4, the IQ of 24-105 may become limiting with new sensors. It would make sense to have the 24-70 F4 for kit and 24-70 F2.8 for the one needing better optics.
I would love to see a 24-105 F4 MK2, but at the price Canon will sell it
, I am not sure it will be a good deal anymore.
The 24-70 fits very well with eos 6D (better than 24-105). So I bet this will be the main kit in the future. This will allow Canon to maintain the price high.
For 5D3 or 5D4, the IQ of 24-105 may become limiting with new sensors. It would make sense to have the 24-70 F4 for kit and 24-70 F2.8 for the one needing better optics.
I would love to see a 24-105 F4 MK2, but at the price Canon will sell it
, I am not sure it will be a good deal anymore.
Upvote
0
Rams_eos said:
They are not priced far apart at the moment, especially when on sale, as today at Amazon. See attached screen shot below.
Rams_eos said:
Why do you say it "fits [better]"? I like having the 24-105 and a 24-70 2.8. I have no need for a 24-70 f/4.
Rams_eos said:
Actually, with built in profiles in the 5D3 the 24-105 is quite acceptable. Can't say anything about the 5D4. ;D It's not a 24-70 2.8 II, but I'd rather have the 24-105 on my camera than a 24-70 f/4 unless I was sure I wasn't going to need the longer focal length. It's not huge and it's useful for a wide range of applications. I often use it for street shooting. It's also a heck of a lot better from 71-105 than is any 24-70, but especially the 24-70 f/4. 8)
As to the OP, why the paranoia? Even if Canon discontinues the lens, they will still provide service for quite awhile. If you're not going to buy something because you think it's going to be replaced soon, you'd never buy a computer, or a mobile phone, or a camera, or a car, or even a cooling system for your home. My guess is that your camera will be "replaced" sooner than that lens, unless perhaps you just bought a 70D, and even then it might still be the case. It's just a guess and YMMV of course.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Most of Canon's lenses get updated at some point. Right now, all the tooling and development costs are paid, so Canon is including a very fine lens in kits and at a low cost. We really don't need a new lens that is 2% better and twice the price. There is the law of diminishing returns and that lens is still at a point where major improvements would be expensive.
If Canon can get some of their new DO technology in order so that it can be produced at a low cost, we may see lots of older models that can be made better, lighter, and shorter, but the diameter is pretty well fixed.
If Canon can get some of their new DO technology in order so that it can be produced at a low cost, we may see lots of older models that can be made better, lighter, and shorter, but the diameter is pretty well fixed.
Upvote
0
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
Looking at sharpness : 24-105 is sharper at 50mm f/4, otherwise mostly equal, until f11 and above where 24-70 looks to have a slight edge. Of course the 24-105 is infinitely sharper at 71-105mm.
Other than that :
Transmission looks impressive on the 24-70
Distortion is lower.
Possibly better IS?
Closer min focus distance/macro mode.
Lighter.
Shorter.
And on 24-105 side:
71-105mm
Slightly lower CA.
Fractionally lower vignetting.
Cheaper.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/1074/(lens2)/164/(brand1)/Canon/(camera1)/836/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/836
Looking at sharpness : 24-105 is sharper at 50mm f/4, otherwise mostly equal, until f11 and above where 24-70 looks to have a slight edge. Of course the 24-105 is infinitely sharper at 71-105mm.
Other than that :
Transmission looks impressive on the 24-70
Distortion is lower.
Possibly better IS?
Closer min focus distance/macro mode.
Lighter.
Shorter.
And on 24-105 side:
71-105mm
Slightly lower CA.
Fractionally lower vignetting.
Cheaper.
Upvote
0
TheMormegil said:
24-70 f/4 IS does massively better at 24mm and it has less longitudinal CA so it doesn't get as much extreme nasty PF for fine branches against clouds and such (less lateral CA at 24mm too). It is also smaller and lighter and has some macro and better IS.
Upvote
0
+1Mt Spokane Photography said:
Even after updating to the 24-70II I've kept my 24-105 as a handy events lens. That means a 24-120 would be 15mm handier. 8)
But I'll bet it will be priced closer to $2k than the current sub-$1k price of the current lens. :-\
-PW
Upvote
0
Rams_eos said:
Doubtful. As cameras get better at doing high-ISO shooting, the need for fast lenses is decreasing, not increasing. It would be utterly absurd to stop selling the 24-105 as a kit lens in favor of lens with only 2/3rds the zoom range just to go from f/4 to f/2.8.
I was shooting pictures just a couple of weeks ago at a party with remarkably little light and getting mostly usable natural-light shots with my 24-105 on a 6D without even breaking a sweat. Yes, some people do need that extra bit of lens speed and want the 24-70 f/2.8 as a kit lens option, but I'd expect a lot more people to choose the 24-105 than the 24-70.
Honestly, I wish Canon offered something with an even longer zoom range as a kit lens so that when I'm not trying to get the absolute maximum image quality, I can just carry a single lens. The 24-105 just doesn't zoom in nearly far enough for that. I miss my 17-85 on a crop body, and before I decided to switch to full-frame, I was seriously considering buying an 18-135 because even the 17-85 wasn't quite enough reach for me. Unfortunately, on full-frame, the 28-135 build quality is crap ("lens slump" doesn't begin to cover the sudden thud of your lens barrel slamming to maximum extension) and Canon doesn't currently build anything longer other than the excessively large 28-300L.
I'd really like to see the next kit lens be either an IS version of the 28-200 or possibly something slightly wider—say a 24-200L f/3.5–f/5.6. That would be the perfect walking-around kit lens—long enough and wide enough to get all but the most extremely long shots without having to change lenses.
Just my $0.02.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
dgatwood said:
More light isn't the only reason for a fast lens. The thinner DoF with f/2.8 makes such a lens useful for portraits, and a zoom lens more suitable for portraits is very nice to have. Not that you can't get decent subject isloation with f/4, but you need a closer subject (maybe not the framing you want) and/or a more distant background. I find the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 more useful than their f/4 counterparts mainly for the better subject isolation.
dgatwood said:
The 28-300L is essentially the same size as the 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 - it's not a small lens, but I wouldn't call it excessively large.
The thing about a superzoom lens is that there's always a significant compromise. Usually, IQ is the price you pay, and if you don't mind paying the price of lesser IQ, an APS-C body and one of the plethora of 18-xxx lenses (Canon or 3rd party) is a viable option for getting that range. The other option is to pay the price in cost, size and weight, and get the 28-300L. While a 24/28-200 lens sounds like an ideal range, without the large size needed for a lens that doesn't suffer (as much) from optical compromises, the IQ from such a lens would be far from ideal for many FF shooters... Nikon offers a 28-300mm FX lens, and the IQ isn't nearly as good as their 24-120mm (which isn't as good as Canon's 24-105L).
Personally, I think the 28-300L is a useful lens in some situations, and the IQ is on par with the current 24-105L - very good, but not stellar. Given that it's no larger/heaver than two other white zooms that I commonly use, I reach for the 28-300L when I need a broad focal range and swapping between the 24-70/2.8 II and 70-300L isn't going to be feasible.
Upvote
0
TheMormegil said:
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.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I tend to think of portrait shooting in terms of primes with much wider apertures (like f/1.8 and down), but that's certainly a fair point if that's a lot of what you use a zoom lens for.
neuroanatomist said:
The problem, at least for me, is that it is just so long even at its shortest length. Its minimum length is almost double the length of the 24–105. I carry around a 70–300L, and I find that to be annoyingly long and hard to deal with. The 24–300 is as long as the 70–300L with a 2x teleconverter attached, give or take.
And it's heavy. At 1.47 pounds, I can walk around with the 24–105 all day and it isn't too bad. The extra 0.84 pounds of the 70–300L is kind of clumsy. The 24–300 adds another 1.36 pounds on top of that—just shy of my 24–105 and my 70–300L put together. That's just not a walking around lens. By the end of the day, you'll feel that hanging around your neck.
From what I've seen, full-frame lenses with a given field of view usually seem to weigh anywhere from 1.1x to 1.2x the weight of an EF-S lens with the same field of view, though at the ultra-wide end, the 16–35 L II is about 1.6x the weight of the 10–22. So given that an EF-S 18–135 weighs about a pound, I'd expect a 24–200L lens to weigh somewhere between 1.1 and 1.6 pounds—less than my 70–300L, and not significantly more than the 24–105. I wouldn't expect it to be as long as the 70-300L, either, but I could be wrong.
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.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Deleted member 380853
- Lenses
