Supposed EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

[sparkie]

this lens is potentially a 24-70/2.8L killer.

 

 

even though this 24-105 is "f4", with IS you would gain effectively 2-stops

hand-holding advantage [where my 70-200/2.8L IS is actually equivalent to a

70-200 "f1.4" handholding speed wise(!)] -- where this would equate to an

equivalent "f2" handholding shutterspeed advantage.

 

even at a very conservative 1 stop advantage, it already is "f2.8" or equal to

the 24-70, but has the extra 35mm reach, plus the added bonus of f4 DOF if

this is important to you. for handheld photography this seems like a no-

brainer. shooting an interior shot at 24mm for example, it means you get

effectively "f2.0" (1 stop advantage) handholding speed, but the benefit of f4.0

DOF, which is a double wammy over the same scene shot with a 24-70/2.8L

at 24mm f2.8. heck, i know which lens I'd choose.

 

if this new lens is roughly the same weight (if not lighter) I would expect that

this lens would be the lens of choice, especially for those previously

contemplating on buying the 24-70/2.8L before this new lens came to light. it

really would make a very versatile allround lens. price-wise, is another

question, but I would shell out for it if it is optically stellar.

 

what are your thoughts on this new supposed lens. which would you still buy

given a choice bar price tag: 24-70/2.8L or 24-105/f4.0L IS ?<div></div>

[matthias_meixner2]

IS does not help, if you want to throw the background out of focus or if you want to capture fast movement. So IS cannot be a replacement for a fast lens and vice versa.

[ozone42]

Before you start drooling, please remember that IS handholding advantage is only and advantage if your subjects aren't moving any!

 

If your subjects are moving, you're going to have to set the shutter speed to them--not the available light.

[terry_smith2]

I can't believe they're only making it an f4 and not a 2.8. My Tamron 28-105/2.8 will probably be staying around for quite some time unless the new lens is optically better by a large margin.

[KenPapai]

Not a lens I would buy. Not a 24-70 2.8L killer either.

MY BET is the 24-70 will have superior optics (when it can be tested head to head) plus it has f/2.8 making for better bokeh and better foxusing (more light). With a more than a 4 to 1 zoom it's like a toy, pro-sumer lens. No way.

[ericpetersonphoto]

Ken! I remember people saying the same thing about the 70-200 4 L the 17-40 4 L and now this one. I hate to say this but I was one of those people and now I own a 17-40 4 L. Canon doesnt seem to apply the L tag easily, see the 10-22 Efs lens and The 70-300 DO lens. I am sure ( if its true ) this lens will be a real beauty. I will gladly sell my Tamron to buy it (28-75 2.8) and I am very happy with this lens.

[mark u]

I'm sure Jim Larson and several others will be happy. Personally, I like to have at least f/2.8 available even with full frame. For DOF equivalence on a 1.6 crop body, that would imply f/1.8!

[jim_larson1]

Yes, I bet Jim Larson would be happy as well.

 

And no. . .this is NOT a 24-70/2.8L killer for the reasons stated above. This is a different lens for a different purpose. A purpose I can buy into.

 

I am ready to plunk money down with a few caveats:

 

1) How much money? If the lens costs as much as the 24-70/2.8L then NO, I would consider the lens way overpriced and would not interested.

 

2) I am really concerned about the 4x+ focal range. I would be concerned about image quality, particularly at the long end. 4x+ is a stretch compared to other "quality" L lenses. (the 28-350/L comes to mind)

[wedding-photography-denver]

I think the f4 is a deal killer for me (unless its price is abour half that of the 24-70).

 

I don't much care for an f4 lens as even with IS, it will not up the shutter speed enough to freeze some movement and higher ISO is only so good. Also, the DOF incrase does nothing for me. F2.8 seems to deep a focus to me at times, esp. in the shorter focal lenghts.

 

I will however, be interested if it is below the $600 mark (or there abouts), for a walk about type lens.

 

I have long wanted the 16-50/2.8L and 50-180/2.8L IS to be the ideal combo.

[KenPapai]

Exactly -- a 4X zoom, even with the L tag is not something worth making a special effort over in seeking out. I'll never get excited about an f/4 lens anyway -- that, to me, is ridiculously non-pro and mediocre. I am not saying it's going to be a "bad" lens. With Canon's L blessing it should be a good piece of glass, but not something I'd consider or look forward to shelling out 900+ dollars for.

[ronald_smith2]

If this is all legit, film shooters should rejoice! Now, along with the full-frame 5D DSLR, my faith in the electronics giant has been restored.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

With the IS and that range it may well be as heavy as the 24-70L. I don't use f2.8 that much and although I would love IS, I'm still not sure that this lens would be worth swopping my 24-70L. The 17-40L was great on my 10D but doesn't match the 24-70 on full frame. That said the 70-200 f4L is one sweet lens.

 

I just don't know.

[digitmstr]

slow lenses and IS only work if:

 

1) subject is stationary

 

2) shallow DOF is NOT a requirement

[jon_austin]

I've been waiting for an f/4L zoom in the FL range of the 24-70, although with a 17-40 and a 70-200/4 in my kit, I'd prefer a range more like 28-80 or 35-105.

 

I haven't stepped up for a 24-70 to date, because I want something smaller and lighter, with internal focusing and zooming, just like my other f/4Ls (constant barrel length).

 

I don't actually believe this lens is "for real," but if it is, if it weighs (and sizes) in closer to the 17-40 (or 16-35) than to the 24-70, and if it gets good grades from the authoritative lens testers, I'll buy one.

[roisin_murphy]

from that picture, does it look like the front element will extend?

[pto189]

If it weights less than 700g, I would buy it but still keep my 24-70. Otherwise, I would keep my current lenses. I think the price will be around $1000.

[oak_nj]

I think I'll wait for the equivalent of the 24-70 F/2.8 IS, especially if full-frame cameras will be that much more accessible.

[qtluong]

If it exists, and tests as good at f8 as the 24-70, I will immediatly replace my 24-70 with the new lens. I use the 24-70 for the optical quality. I never really cared for f2.8 on the 24-70 (if I want the soft image with blurred backgrounds, that's the 50/1.4 or the 70-200/2.8 @ 200), always hated its weight, and regretted the lack of IS. Despite common knowledge, the "consumer" 70-300 and 75-300 lenses have comparable stopped down sharpness to the 70-200/2.8L in the 70-200 range, so it is reasonable to expect that the rumored lens would perform well at f8 in the 24-70 range.

[dmanthree]

The variety of answers proves that Canon, if this lens is real, is doing the right thing with a two-tier L lens kit. Personally, I prefer the smaller size and lower weight of the "4L" series, since I have no need for an extra stop, and all the weight it brings. This lens (again, if..) would be an excellent addition to the 17-40L and 70-200L I already own. The three make an excellent 3 lens kit. Ijust hope it small and lighter than that moose of a lens, the 24-70 2.8L.

[jbq]

I agree with what many others have said: IS doesn't solve all the problems. If for any reason you need a fast shutter speed and/or a large aperture there's no substitute for fast glass. Similarly if for any reason you need a slow shutter speed and/or a small aperture hand-held there's no substitute for IS.

[phyrpowr]

I'm thinking that quite possibly my baby, my 28-135 IS, finally hits the trade block

[roisin_murphy]

From that picture, does it look like the front element will extend?

[jim_larson1]

Rosin: Who can tell from THAT picture?

 

Yeah, place me in the camp that reasonably priced 4L's are the bee's knees. After first reading this thread a few hours ago, I can tell you I am much more pumped about this lens than I am about a 5D camera.

 

But cost is an issue. If the 24-70/2.8L is the same price as a 24-105/4L-IS. . .which do you choose? Leaving weight alone for a second (I suspect the 4L-IS is still smaller)you are choosing IS against one stop. Heh. I guess that becomes a style question. For me. . .I will go for the IS.

 

F4 is fast enough for me in this zoom range, although I do admit that I have more than one fast prime in this range for the high end portrait stuff.

 

But as to price. . hey the 24-70/2.8L is available now and I don't have one. I have simply chosen not to afford it. Although I would value a 4L-IS more than a 2.8L, the lens could still easily be priced out of consideration.

 

After a little soul searching. . . I find I definately have a price limit for a 4L-IS. I guess I will hold my breath for a bit, and hope that "the price is right".

[edgreene]

F/4 lens (any) @ ISO 200 = f/2.8 lens @ ISO 100?<p>Why not?

[david_lau3]

Reasons:

 

1. dim viewfinder

 

2. different DOF