EF24 - 105L f4 - From the Canon Australia site

[graham_sheppard1]

http://www.canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/standard_

zoom_lenses/ef24-105mm_f4l_usm.html

 

 

 

Now aren't you all glad you don't live here in Australia with those

prices!

[graham_sheppard1]

Sorry about the link - just go to the Canon Australia site and go through products, lenses etc. and you will find it.

[andy_van_eynde]

http://www.canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/standard_zoom_lenses/ef24-105mm_f4l_usm.html

[les]

That's why I do not buy things in Australia.

$9900 for 300/2.8 IS ! Almost US$7500 - and about US$4200 when bought from B&H including taxes and postage...

[graham_sheppard1]

Thanks Andy. Damn computers.....

[andy_van_eynde]

Personnaly I consider this to be a good lens if you have a full frame body. On a 1.x crop it is simply not wide enough!

So would also like to see a 17-70 f2.8L or so, would be a nice one to pair up with the 70-200L series.

 

Price indeed is a bummer!

[panos_voudouris]

"Standard zoom lens - 24-105mm focal length, fast f/4 aperture"

 

Since when is f/4 fast in that range?

[panos_voudouris]

"Personnaly I consider this to be a good lens if you have a full frame body. On a 1.x crop it is simply not wide enough! So would also like to see a 17-70 f2.8L or so, would be a nice one to pair up with the 70-200L ser"

 

You have plenty of EF choices already in that range: 17-40, 16-35, 24-70. 28-70. So the 17-70/2.8 would only make sense in EF-S format, which doesn't make sense as the 17-85 IS is there already. Slow indeed, but EF-S lenses are targeted for the lower-end market which couldn't care less and "Image Stabiliser" sounds more impressive and useful to uncle Bob than f/2.8.

 

Just imagine the price, size and weight of a EF 17-70/2.8!

[graham_sheppard1]

"Slow indeed, but EF-S lenses are targeted for the lower-end market which couldn't care less"

 

Some of us do care, but can't afford L glass and FF digital cameras.

[david_lau3]

So the 5D appears to be real also - don't make sense to create this lens for 1.6X DSLR.

[robin_sibson1]

Compared to the 135/2L, it is 5mm shorter, 80g lighter, and listed on the Canon Australia website at AUD100 cheaper. I know they are functionally quite different lenses, but the comparison just provides a feel for how it might handle and does not suggest that the price is unreasonable. Should sell like hot cakes, assuming that the relative street price works out the same way, although that may take a while. Presumably we shall soon know the answer to two remaining questions: does it have two IS modes? and does it extend when zooming to longer focal lengths? The front end detailing visible on the very nice large image suggests that it does extend, but unlike the 24~70 it is obviously at its shortest at 24mm.

[panos_voudouris]

"Some of us do care, but can't afford L glass and FF digital cameras."

 

I am not saying that all people who buy this equipment don't care, but that Canon targets EF-S lenses to this kind of market.

 

My point is that a EF 17-70/2.8 doesn't make sense, as if you could afford to buy a *EF* 17-70/2.8L you could afford to buy a FF body too. Just look at the price for the 24-70 and think how much a 17-70 would cost.

 

And it doesn't make sense as an EF-S lens too, as the 17-85 covers the range already. Besides given the price of the 17-85, the 17-70/2.8L would be well into the general L price range and Canon wouldn't want to remove the incentive for you to upgrade to a FF body with a 24-70/2.8.

[cliff_shone1]

I'm quite excited by this lens. It's a bit heavy at 670g but that's better than 950g for the 24-70. If the price isn't silly and the image quality half decent, I think I've found my near ideal carry-around lens.

 

Anyone found a speculative price for this beast yet?

[graham_sheppard1]

"So the 5D appears to be real also - don't make sense to create this lens for 1.6X DSLR."

 

I agree with David. As the owner of a 350D this range doesn't really appeal to me. It makes more sense for film and FF users. I would say the 5D is another step closer to reality ;-)

[roisin_murphy]

this would suggest something around $1000 in the US?

 

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM - RRP $2,699.00

 

EF 24-105mm f/4L USM - RRP $1,999.00

 

EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - RRP $999.00

[roisin_murphy]

well more like $850, since 24-70mm is going for around $1140 now, so my guess would be $899 :)

[PuppyDigs]

I'm not much into wide angle. 35mm is wide for me on FF. So a 24-105 4L sounds almost

perfect on a 1.6x crop body.

[pto189]

This lens is better than many folks here have been waiting for, 24-105 instead of 24-70. I think Canon R&D will be focusing on f/4L IS instead of f/2.8L thanks to DSLR with adjustable ISO. It weights only 670g and will be $900 on street. Obviously this lens is for FF DSLR that is comparable with the EF-S 17-85 IS. I'm glad that I didn't buy any of the EF-S lenses because the future 1.6x DSLR and EF-S lenses will be consumer product. I predict there'll be three lines of Canon lenses for future DSLRs: heavy f/2.8L for 1D and 3D such as the trio 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 IS; midsize f/4L for 5D and may be 7D such as 17-40, 24-105 and the future 70-200 f/4L IS to replace the non current non IS; and the EF-S series for Rebel and xxD such as 10-22, 17-85, 60 macro...<p>

Everything is clear now. I don't know if I want to buy this lens at merely $200 cheaper than the 24-70 when the 24-70 weight is no longer bothering me. If the optic quality is as good or nearly good as the 24-70, I might buy it and still keep my 24-70. But I doubt that a 3x zoom lens can outperform a 2x zoom lens.<p>

Either way, this lens will be a hot lens.

[audun_sjoeseth1]

Philip: You wrote almost lik I think. I'm glad I didn't rush into EF-S lenses for my 20D. This new EF24-105/4 L USM IS is interesting for my 20D and a FF-EOS later (if it shows up to be exellent).

[cliff_shone1]

I think there's a few years life in the prosumer DSLR (APS-C) yet. If the price of the 5D is in the $3500 region then, even with discounts, this price tag is going to a little high lot of amateur enthusiasts (me included). I also like my 20D and EF10-22mm combination and I like the telephoto advantage of the smaller sensor. All other things being equal, if I had the choice of a 15Mp full frame and 15Mp APS-C, I'd probably choose the latter.

[phyrpowr]

and a 77mm filter size to match my 10-22 and 100-400 IS

 

sign me up

[jim_larson1]

The logic here is obvious.

 

For those with much money (like, a pro), there are the 2.8L lenses. Th 16-35/2.8L, the 24-70/2.8L, the 70-200/2.8L, the 70-200/2.8L-IS.

 

For non-pro's with too much money on their hands (like, a typical dSLR buyer). . .we have the "budget L" line. The 17-40/4L and the 70-200/4L. Note that in this line. .. there is a significant gap in the 40-70 range.

 

This gap is not critical in the 1.6 dSLR range. . .but for FF. . .this gap is critical. Also missing in the 4L lineup is image stabilization. For those of us who would like an IS lens. . .the only alternatives are low end glass (17-85/IS, 28-135/IS) or the mondo 70-200/2.8L-IS.

 

Now, a new 24-105/4L-IS is a real boon to the 4L lineup.

 

The real issues will be

 

(1) Will the price be reasonable? Initial indications are in the $850-$950 range. Clearly this lens, even with IS, SHOULD NOT be close in price to the 24-70/2.8L. Clearly this lens, because of the IS, would be a bit more expensive than the non-IS 4L lenses ($575 and $650). We will soon see.

 

Canon has produced some really overpriced lenses lately. Examples include the 17-85/IS; 70-300/DO-IS, and 28-350/L. The 10-22 and 60 EF-S lenses are not "really overpriced" but I consider a bit pricey for what you get. Perhaps the "made for digital" translates to "high cost".

 

(2) The other issue is image quality. At 4.3x. . .this could be an issue. I think the zoom range of this lens is a bit more than some were expecting. And Canon has put the "L" badge on both the PRO-1 P&S and the mediocre (but still better than non-L) 28-350/L.

 

Personally. . .I am excited about this lens. If this lens has higher image quality than the 28-135/IS. . and is close to twice the cost (ie, not close to 3x) of the 28-135. . .I will be buying.

 

And for the record.. .. .I am not in the market for a 5D. My 10D is doing just fine.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

"does it extend when zooming to longer focal lengths?"

<P>It says 'High dust and moisture resistance for use in harsh environments' so that should mean it's an internal zoom type

[robin_sibson1]

But Ron, Canon also make claims like this about dust and moisture resistance for the 24~70, and that extends.

[liem_phan]

I love shooting wide. If the distortions on this new lens from 24-50 is below 1%, and if the images are worthy of the "L" designation, then I'll buy one.

 

I've been waiting for a 24-80 f4. A 4X zoom is of some concern to me. But if it's sharp, it's definitely a keeper.