iangillett Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Dear Ken, "WHY would someone already invested in the 24-70 want a greater than 4-1 zoom that is slower? Why go from top of the line to somewhere in the middle? F/4L lenses are stepping stones to the top end of Canon's line. You don't look back." I, for one, am going to be interested in this lens despite the f4 aperture. When you are doing main stream catwalk photography you usually need a 70-200 in order to get full-length and portrait as the models come down the line. If you also do off-schedule shows, as I do, then you are often working in cramped conditions but even so the 70 mm end of the 24-70 is sometimes not long enough. Being able to zoom to 105 will make this lens very useful. I had a 28-135 IS but that ended up getting too loose in terms of its construction and sticking at certain focal lengths when I zoomed. I know someone else who was on their third 28-135 lens because of the hammering it was getting. Hopefully the L construction will mean the lens is more robust as well as better optically. I'll still keep my 24-70 for when I need f2.8. Best Wishes Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 <i>F/4L lenses are stepping stones to the top end of Canon's line. You don't look back.<p> Philip you are too obsessed over this new lens which will not hit the streets for another 5-6 weeks. At least you obsess over something cool and creative and not another stupid video game release. ;)</i><P> hahahah! Those words are so true! BTW: You can count me in with the obsessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Ian -- I doubt you use a 1.6 crop DSLR either. If you do then I believe you're cramping your style (by using slow lenses indoors with a tiny viewfinder). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 I hope you have a suede leather camera bag, because photography is all about style. Never mind the images you have at the end of the day - if they weren't taken in style you're just a buffoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francois_gauthier Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 I think many of you are missing the point : what these lenses are best at. I'm a film shooter and of course, i prefer primes... when i have time to settle. But for street shooting, i rather get a zoom starting at 35mm. I used a small 35-105 for a while but now i am trying a larger 35-200mm. It covers what i want perfectly. This is the kind of lens i was advising against not long ago but it does the job i bought it for. And i consider it a speciality lens, not my every day favorite. Now, about the new 24-105 IS wich is 35-160 equivalent. It will appeal to some people, maybe tourists with deep pocket. There is some demand for one lens only 'kit' that seems to have most of it. I am not convinced it will compete that much with faster pro zooms but for the owner of a 24-85 who wants a big upgrade... But price is the problem for such a lens. Over $1000, the specs just don't justify it unless it will be reported as great wide open all the way. I doudbt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl_weller Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Andrew, I started out with primes, didn't buy my first zoom until last year [17-40]. I have the 24/2.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and 200/2.8 and am well aware of their special benefits. Years of using them also told me there are times when a zoom is just plain easier, and with the L zooms the quality hit is not too significant. The great benefit of the 4L zooms is their 'bang for buck' competitiveness, and $1250 for the 24-105/4L is not even on the same planet, let alone in the same ballpark. This is the lense so many 4L users have been begging for, but the price/performance ratio seems way off. Too expensive for most amateurs and not fast enough for most pros. At that price, I struggle to see what market the lense is aimed at. regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iangillett Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Dear Ken, You are quite correct - I use an EOS 1D Mk 2. I started my digital career with a D30 and when I occasionally look through the viewfinder of that I am quite shocked how dark and small it was. Best Wishes Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I have no doubt what market this lens is aimed at. 8 years ago, Canon sold $400 film bodies. People who bought $400 film bodies, on the whole, were not going to spend $2000 in lenses. The pro lenses would not sell well enough if the price was too high. Today. .. people buy $1500 bodies. Some buy a new $1500 body every 18 monthes when a new body is released. Hey! There are some deep pockets out there! Guess what. Those that spend $1500 in bodies every 18 months can afford to buy $3000 in lenses. So. . .dSLR's have brought in a whole new crowd of photographers into the market. People like *me*. These people have money -> and they are going after it. So. . .get canon stock. They are increasing both volume AND prices. Profitability must be through the roof. I have considered both the 24-70/2.8L and the 300/4L-IS. I think I better buy both of these lenses at $1100 very quickly before new improved models (priced at $1750) are introduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Man, Jim, do you ever have my number! I bought a 10D in May 2003 (my first SLR in nearly 20 years), and replaced it with a 20D in November 2004. And since getting the 10D, I've spent almost $2,700 in lenses / hoods alone, never mind bags, filters, accessories, sales taxes, shipping charges, etc. Total spend (I'm not a pro, so I can't classify any of this as an "investment") is north of $6K, including the $600 loss on my 10D (purchase price new less sale price used). And this doesn't include any PC hardware, software, peripherals, accessories, printer supplies, etc., as I had already been addicted to all that stuff, going on 25 years now... So here I am, hardly blinking at the proposed $1,250 price for the new 24-105. Like many here, I was anticipating a price (once we learned its specs) in the $800-900 range, but what's another $400 (in light of how much I've dropped on gear already) to get the lens I've been wanting for almost two years now? (Past) time to call my broker and buy Canon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 gee, thanks dude! It's because of people with deep pockets like you that I can't afford the 24-105/4L! Now, granted, I have deep pockets. They just ain't that deep. And at some point. . . I just refuse to pay a 50% premium for a luxury product. (for me, all camera gear is a luxury product) If only we, the deep pocket hobbiests, would resist spending a PREMIUM on lenses. . .then the lenses would be priced lower. Look. . .I am also looking for an updated 100-400/L-IS. Can you imagine what that lens would cost if released today? Probably close to $2000 USD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I'd settle for a 100-300 f/4L IS with the "twist-style" zoom, rather than push-pull. (Isn't the current 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS a push-pull design?) Either that, or IS for my 70-200 f/4L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Yes, the push-pull is what needs to be updated. A 100-300/4L-IS twist zoom would suit me fine. I would buy it tomorrow if. . .. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonegiven Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 > Grant Gaborno , aug 22, 2005; 07:57 p.m....> There is no way for an f/4 zoom to truly substitute > for a f/2.8 zoom Sure there is. If you don't need 2.8, the more conservative design (smaller max aperture) might actually rival the 2.8 lens in terms of image quality. As usual, depends on how/what you shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant g Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 I guess if you discount bokeh and ISO performance as quality issues then yes, I guess you could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_hallbert Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Grant, The 70-200 f4 is every bit as sharp and the big brother 2.8IS and MUCH lighter. I have both and use the f4 more than the 2.8IS. Of course there are times when we need the speed and the IS but I have found the f4 to be a outstanding lense and it is also an L series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant g Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Wow...this thread was about 11 months dead... I don't own the 70-200/4, but would actually concede that the f/4 version is sharper. I've considered getting one for travel, but I already have the 200/2.8 prime for that. One thing that the f/4 version will not do is get you consistent handheld sharp shots at 1/60 sec. Your referencing this thread is a little out of context now as I have bought the 24-105/4IS and use it more often than the 24-70/2.8. While the IS lens has proven its utility, I stand by my statement that an f/4 zoom cannot truly substitute for a f/2.8 zoom. Comes close, but I still own and use the 24-70. To further drive this point, now that I have gotten the 17-55/2.8IS, for use on the crop cameras, the 24-105 only gets used on the 5D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now