ron c sunshine coast,qld,a Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Some odd responses... Mark U: Some of us only buy Canon lenses. I don't care how this proposed / wished-for Canon lens would compare to any third party product. And it's interesting/confusing to me that you "can't see why [how?] an f/4 lens would have much of a market," even as Canon releases a couple of new, slow EF-S zooms. (And yes, we understand the impact of slower glass on DoF...) Giampi: Since when does "normal" automatically equate to "fast"? One's a reference to focal length (range), the other to maximum aperture. Is the 24-85 fast? Or the 17-85? These are both "normal" zooms, each wholly containing the zoom range of the 24-70. See, I knew I would be scoffed ... I just expected better arguments. Honestly, you'd think some of the nay-sayers are worried that the creation of such a lens will portend the end of some current lens in the line-up (that they're saving up for?), or would bump the development of some new-fangled lens that *they're* hoping Canon will produce! <P>"Of course, since most of the world seems to be going digital, the need for a 24-70mm f/4 L is marginal - the 17-40 L "sort of" covers that range in 35mm terms." I've heard this line of thought before, but I don't get it. The impact of sub-full-frame sensors is to simply shift the field of view available from any lens. It doesn't eliminate the potential need or desire for glass to cover any particular range. " <BR>No but it *seriously* reduces the market for such a lens <P>"A 24-70mm zoom on a 1.6x dSLR yields a field of view equivalent to 38-112. What is suddenly so useless about this FL range?" <BR>Ok i have to be brutal here-quite frankly there is a hell of a lot that would be useless in this FL range! <BR> Firstly it simply isn't wide enough for most people.Secondly ,while the FL would be good for portrait use the f4 aperture would not.That leaves the 'normal' FL inbetween...and who wants an f4 normal lens?! <P>"For anyone (like me) who wants a quality f/4L zoom to fill the gap between the 17-40 and the 70-200 f/4L's, a 24-70mm or 28-80mm f/4L makes perfect sense" <BR>For you it does but to others it doesn't.Most avoid normal FL zooms because of the boring perspective they force one to use.*If* the gap needs filling then most would choose a fast fifty for that purpose. <P>Overall the way you are arguing this is just weird. It's fair enough that you want canon to make such a lens-no problem at all.We're simply explaining why it won't happen.You seem to like shooting messengers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 >>Since when does "normal" automatically equate to "fast"? << If you re-read my post I did not say it equates to fast but, I did say that a normal lens, that is *one which is left on the body for most of the time* must be a fast lens. I certainly would NOT want to have a SLOW lens as a normal lens. That is why a 50mm, even in its slowest, MACRO version is still f/2.5. Have you ever seen a CANON 24 f/4, 28 f/4, 35 f/4 or 50 f/4? Of course not. Those are the lenses which it is supposed to replace and, for that reason f/2.8 is the only logical aperture for such a zoom. The 70-200 f/4L is a different story because that range is NOT a 'normal' range. It is a tele range. The other zooms that you mentioned, such as the 24-85 aren't as fast because they don't cost the same. But, you have made the point against the 24-70 f/4: Canon already makes plenty of consumer zooms in that range which people can actually afford to buy. A 24-70 f/4 would still cost around $800.00 most likely. Not a cheap lens. How many people would buy it at that price? The only reason to buy a "PRO" zoom is to get images that compete with the quality AND fast aperture of the equivalent primes. And that has been Canon's philosophy behind the line of "L" zooms and their serious price tags :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Every week somebody is wishing for this lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_ryan2 Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Wish List: 10mm F4 in EF-s (if it has to be) for under $500 EF 200/2.8L IS $900 EF 400/4.5L IS (like the old FD mount lens) $1500 I always end up with zooms at the Widest (17-40) or longest (70-200) anyway, so I might as well get a prime. The 200 seems like a no brainer. Once you get passed a 300/4, its gets really expensive for anything remotely fast at 400. A 24-70 for APS-c sensors doesn't excite me. It's a Goldielocks lens, not to short, not to long, just not right. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_ryan2 Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Wish List: 10mm F4 in EF-s (if it has to be) for under $500 EF 200/2.8L IS $900 EF 400/4.5L IS (like the old FD mount lens) $1500 I always end up with zooms at the Widest (17-40) or longest (70-200) anyway, so I might as well get a prime. The 200 seems like a no brainer. Once you get passed a 300/4, its gets really expensive for anything remotely fast at 400. A 24-70 for APS-c sensors doesn't excite me. It's a Goldielocks lens, not to short, not to long, just not right. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier_de_lame Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 My wish: a simple 50mm 1.4 L, of very good quality. (I have the existing 50mm 1.4, good quality but no comparison to 135mm L2 e.g.) Regards, Olivier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Is Christmas coming soon that everybody makes whishes? O.K. I wish for 70-200/4 USM L IS and 12-24/4 USM L. Both EF and not EF-S. Hummmmm...... EF 12-24/4 USM L is difficult to build with good quality? O.K. I'll settle for 12-24/5.6 USM L. Just don't make it an EF-S one...... Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I admit it. . .I only read half this thread before I gave up in disgust. An 18-80/F4L-IS? Did they not already release this as the 17-85/IS-EFs? It certainly has an "L" price tag :) Honestly. . .with the 10-22 and 70-200/4L in the lineup. . .a 22-70/4L makes perfect sense. If it cost $700. BUT. . .everyone here knows that such a lens will be price much closer to $1100 -> even without IS. . . .and given that the 24-70/2.8L is only slightly more. . . it won't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athinkle Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Considering that the 70-200 F4 can be found for around 600-700 dollars, a comparably priced 24-70 f4 would not be redundant. I for one would jump at the chance to own a lens with optics of that caliber for a low price, even if it meant losing a stop of light. Making L lenses for the EFS mount to save weight would not be advisable. Am I the only one who's noticed that Canon's pro DSLRs are not APS-c (unlike Nikon.) I for one see EFS lenses, even for current 20D/350D owners, to be a poor long term investment. Why buy something that will be rendered unusable if you decide to upgrade? Just my opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_smith2 Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 Wow....I had no idea this thread would take on a life of its own=) I'll try and save up for the 24-70mm f/2.8 L, as it seems to be the only way to make me happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I came across this thread today while searching for another, and it was fun going back and reading all the posts in it. By now, of course, we all know that Canon announced the EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM just a couple of months after this post. So much for the numerous "they'll never do it" prognostications declared here! (By the way, I bought a new 24-105 in October 2005 for $1,099 US.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Count me as one of those skeptics! I for one never would have believed that the 24-105/4L-IS would have cost more than the 24-70/2.8L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Hi, Jim: That's just because of the "new and shiny" premium on the 24-105. (A term you coined, IIRC.) Just like all the other lenses released during the past three years (the period during which I've been into this stuff), it'll come down in price gradually, and I predict it'll eventually settle at or below the price of the 24-70. 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