24-105 mm 2.8 in the works? I was wondering if anyone knows if Canon has any plans for a new 24-105 lens in the future with 2.8? If so I will wait until I purchase one.
513701
It will be one heavy lens! I'd just get two 2.8 lenses to cover that distance!
513702
That lens would be too heavy and expensive to manufacture. You think the 70-200 2.8 II is heavy? That lens would be a beast. The manufacturing design of a lens that has in its range very wide to telephoto is extremely complex at 2.8 max aperture. I don't see it happening in the near to medium future (5 to 10 years) if ever.
220605
Hi JohnDo yo have a FF or 1.6! This one is perfect for 1.6 crop and good for FF too. However it's not exactly a portrait lens {by definition}, you can look at 85mm f1.2 mkii for that if you want a perfect portrait lens.24-70 is far more sharper than 24-105 though.
501122
Thanks for the feedback. I ended up getting the Canon 17-55/2.8IS. It was more expensive, but I had come across some extra money. I've had that lens for several month now and it's awesome. The zoom range is excellent, it's great having f2.8 through the whole range, and the IS adds probably at least 3 stops. It's very sharp when I do my part, especially when it's stopped down a couple clicks. I would still love to get a lens like I described in my OP, but I'm looking at a wide angle zoom and a better telephoto lens before that one.
498786
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is listed for $2250. Read the feedback and you will see it is preferred over the older model. Check Canon website for details.thanks, Dave
2184845
I do not know which other lens you are talking about. My guess is it has the same specs as this one also by Canon. They are versions of the same lens. The one whose page you are on is newer. The old one has a 67 mm diameter the new one 72 mm. New one has updated focal elements but it's roughly the same.
2004640
Which one did you finish up with? I'm interested because you said that you shoot mainly lanscapes, so why would you part with the 17-40mm? If your option had been for the 16-35mm f2.8L, I could have understood the reason, but a 24mm lens on any new camera (assuming it's not a film body, 5D or 1Ds) is only going to give you 31mm (1D) or 38mm (the rest). Not much good for landscape work.BTW, the 24-70mm eats the 24-105mm alive when it comes to contrast and sharpness, IS or not!
1192437
I haven't used either of the lenses mentioned here but I thought I'd point out something that hasn't been mentioned yet. You say the 12-24 has an aperture range of f4-f5.6, and the 11-16 has a range of f2.8-f22. Actually- in the 12-24, the numbers you mention are the maximum aperture settings. At 12mm it opens up to f4 max, and at 24mm it opens up to f5.6 max. At any zoom range it would stop down to probably f22. So the 12-24 is not limited to only f4-f5.6 as this post suggests. The 11-17 lens has a constant maximum aperture of f2.8 through its whole zoom range, and also stops down to f22. So both of these two lenses have a normal range of apertures, but the 11-17 opens up to a bigger f2.8. Just thought I'd point that out if anyone was misled...
2176757
Planning to but canon 70-200 L but confused now after reading the forums and comments. Which one I should buy ?canon 70-200 F4 L IS USM or f2.8 L USL (Non IS)Pls Suggest
523657
I have been using the 24-70 2.8 for a while now on my 7D and I find that the range is not optimal for outdoors. I can get some great shots at 70 mm, but at 24 mm the shots just are not wide enough - close but not there. Upgrading (or downgrading) to the 17-55 2.8 IS USM this week. I think it will be a way better lens for a cropped sensor camera. It will allow me to get some landscape shots that I was just not able to achieve with the 24-70.Side note: tried the 24-70 2.8 on my friend's 5D MII and it was awesome - It would be my lens of choice if I had a full frame camera.
1337629
Image quality between the 24-70 and 28-75 is leaps and bounds. The 24-70 is just as sharp as Canons 24-70 version. Not to mention having VC. Definitely worth it if you have the money. I owned the 28-75 and it was a great lens for what is was but the 24-70 is such a step up in my opinion. Cheers
528653
Does that lack of image stabilization in the 20 mm lens factor in against choosing it over the 14-45 lens? I think I'm all set to get the 20 mm lens after doing my research and reading these comments, but that was one area I was still questioning.
11423
The 24-105 L with IS if not too expensive. If you want wide to telephoto lens the 18-200 canon lens would be fine but not as good as the L.
1609774
PD,Thanks for a really informative review. I'm in the process of trying to make this decision. I'm getting a 70-200. I just don't know which one. On your 2.8 w/o IS, and adding a 1.4 teleconverter, do you miss the IS? I know you said you use a tripod or monopod a lot. Is that how you overcome that? Or do you find yourself still able to shoot hand-held? I'd love to get that combination of the 200 + 1.4tc.Thanks!
1789044
The 2.8 works great for indoor pictures and the image quality difference is minimal. I've used both and I dont see any reason to buy the f/4 besides saving money. In April, Canon is updating the 2.8 lens with updated optics and the new IS. Alos the minimum focusing distance is shortened to just under 4 feet. I will be upgrading lenses at that time for sure. After having both lenses, my f/2.8 lens is the one that lives on the camera 95% of the time.
1173524
I've owned both, heres my opinion: the 24-105mm is best for a travel lens when you dont wanna be annoyed by changing lenses. The 24mm f/2.8 is more if you want the best sharpness and contrast with less destortion. It is in the pro league of prime lenses. The zoom lens is just a good but not great all arounder that does a lot though.
575221
I agree and have noticed that as well. I bought the older version and have been pleased with it. I have also not read complaints about the newer version. It may be as simple as supply and demand or something we are not aware of. You might check review sites just to make sure the version 2 is well rated and then go for it if it's cheaper. The 20MM has been a great lens, I have received compliments about my photo's and 9 times out of 10, it's taken with the 20mm.
523652
The 24-105 f/4L IS USM lens works great with the 7d, it's the lens I'm currently using as a 'walk around' lens on my own 7d. We also use that lens on my wife's 40D. Sometimes we argue over who gets to use that lens. Good choice!