Why don't Canon do

Gary Kinghorn

Gary Kinghorn

Messages
1,517
Edit My Images
No
A 24-105 F2.8, or similar, slightly longer, better still. I prefer something longer than 70mm as a walk around and the 24-105 F4 has been around for about 100 years now. Surely it's time for a refresh at that focal length?
 
I wonder how many prototypes of such focal ranges and apertures Canon have in a dark room somewhere, also wonder how many lenses get made, tested, and then ground back down to dust...? I bet a fair few... :)
 
Gary Kinghorn said:
A 24-105 F2.8, or similar, slightly longer, better still. I prefer something longer than 70mm as a walk around and the 24-105 F4 has been around for about 100 years now. Surely it's time for a refresh at that focal length?
Click to expand...

24-70mm f/2.8L II USM?
24-70mm f/4L USM?

A bit shorter but only 35mm shorter, still a good couple of lens.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how heavy/big that would need to be for a constant f2.8 through that range... When does it defeat the purpose of being a walk about lens?
 
Canon have a great range over three lenses I.e 11-200mm, reasons for no IS on the 24-70 were I quote "would effect quality" and no f2.8 of the 11-24 were "size" as its already massive. The 24-105/4 is a great lens also I think, reason no 2.8 on the 24-104 must be size and weight, or maybe just sharpness across the range at that aperture? I am sure if they could they would.
 
It would be an absolute beast, surely?
 
Yeah, think how big the 24-70 is and then think how big it would have to be for the extra range!

There is a reason all the 24-120ish lenses are f/4.
 
Joeturner11 said:
24-70mm f/2.8L II USM?
24-70mm f/4L USM?

A bit shorter but only 35mm shorter, still a good couple of lens.
Click to expand...
If you're adding the 23-70 f/4 we may as well also mention the 24-105 f/4L ;)

As for the OPs post, I'd imagine a 24-105 f/2.8 would be very large, expensive and heavy!
 
Answer: cost, size and weight. It'd be too big and heavy, it'll also cost quite a bit.

If you prefer 70mm+, use 70-200?
if you need flexibility of 24-105, use the 24-105? It's a perfectly capable lens, more than sharp enough.



oh, and what colour would Canon paint it?
 
surprised no-ones mentioned how heavy it would be:D

Its the reason I bought the 24-105 rather than the 24-70 as a walkabout
 
Byker28i said:
surprised no-ones mentioned how heavy it would be:D

Its the reason I bought the 24-105 rather than the 24-70 as a walkabout
Click to expand...
some of us might prefer the 24-70 over the 24-105 to work out whilst walking about :D:whistle:

on a similar note, I wish canon (and everyone else) did more 1.3x crop sensors, call it the 3D or something. the 1.3 crop is a nice compromise between FF quality & bokeh and 1.6 crop reach :( you head it here first :D
 
A 'Canon 3d' might give people the wrong impression!
 
A 24-105 f2.8 won't happen but maybe Canon could update the existing f4 version.
 
I am alone in thinking the current 24-105L doesn't really need an upgrade? Other than a bit of barrel distortion at 24mm (which is fixed on the click of a button) its marvellous, one of the very best general purpose and landscape lenses I've used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top