Canon 24-85mm Discontinued

[ronhartman]

<p>I just noticed on the B&H website, the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 lens has been discontinued<br>

The lens has gotten some criticism over the years, but I've had good experiences with it. I first had one about 10 years ago and used it quite a bit on a film body for travel and landscape.</p>

<p>I re bought the lens about a year ago and use it on my 5D and XSI. I've gotten some nice landscape shots with it on the 5D stopped down a bit. And it's a nice size and weight and zoom range for the Rebel, especially for people-family occasions type photography.</p>

<p>Probably the lack of IS was one of it's downfalls, as Canon seems to be going that way with most of their new lenses. So if anyone is looking for the lens, there still might be some new stock out there.</p>

[richterjw]

<p>I just got one this summer after having considered it a while back. It's capable of good results. It was a nice lens; may can will see fit to offer an updated version in the future. JR</p>

[isaac sibson]

<p>I had some decent results out of mine on film over the years. From 24-50, stopped down to F8-F11, it was perfectly decent. Beyond 50mm it was not great, and wide open it was not great. I sold mine when I went to a crop-factor body, and now I have a 5D I use a 24-105. </p>

<p>I suppose it was discontinued because it was a consumer grade lens in a range that appeals to full-frame users (which was fine in the days of film). These days, if you can afford an FF body, chances are you can afford the 24-105 to go with it. </p>

<p>The irony there, of course, is that the 24-85 was originally released as a "crop factor" lens - it was introduced as the standard kit lens for the EOS IX APS SLR. The other two lenses aimed at APS use (more with the IX Lite (aka IX 7)) being the 22-55 and the 55-200. </p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>The 24-85 USM was Canon's first optic targeted at cropped frame (although it had FF coverage): it was the kit lens for the 1996 EOS IXE/IX, an APS film SLR (1.25X). I still have that little stainless steel APS beauty although I haven't taken a picture with it since the 90s! The kit lens proved to be more enduring than the camera and I used my 24-85 for many years on my EOS A2 and Elan 7E. It even did a tour of duty on my 10D, XTi and 40D. </p>

<p>I thought the 24-85 was a great combo of petite size, blazing fast AF and decent IQ. It's main downfall was the popularity of 1.6X croppers making coverage less than ideal on the wide end. During the dozen or so years I used one, I certainly got a lot of nice images. Alas, the 17-55 2.8 IS replaced it as my travel lens and my shoulder certainly aches a little more after a couple hours of trekikng.</p>

<p>My 24-85 review:</p>

<p>http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox2.htm#24-85Anchor</p>

[kasperhettinga]

<p>I'm using a sigma 10-20mm and canon 24-85mm...nice combo. The 24-85 gives good quality picture (crop using only the "best part"), has very quick AF and is a tiny&light-weight lens.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>I am actually suprised that more of Canon's consumer grade lenses in the FF range haven't bitten the dust. I doubt anyone buys consumer grade film slrs anymore to pair with consumer grade optics. Those still using film are enthusiasts who will probably want the best glass as would those forking out for a FF dslr.<br>

Yet AFAIK Canon still offers multiple versions of consumer grade 28-80/90/105 lenses plus 28-200 hyperzoom, and the 20-35 USM. None of these lenses make a lot of sense to me as part of the Canon lineup anymore.</p>

 

[PuppyDigs]

<blockquote>

<p>I am actually suprised that more of Canon's consumer grade lenses in the FF range haven't bitten the dust. I doubt anyone buys consumer grade film slrs anymore to pair with consumer grade optics. Those still using film are enthusiasts who will probably want the best glass as would those forking out for a FF dslr.<br />Yet AFAIK Canon still offers multiple versions of consumer grade 28-80/90/105 lenses plus 28-200 hyperzoom, and the 20-35 USM. None of these lenses make a lot of sense to me as part of the Canon lineup anymore.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Geoff, you're living in freakin' 1999! All of those zooms--20-35, 28-90, 28-80, 28-105 & 28-200--are long gone from Canon's lineup. Perhaps you saw them on the used market or as old stock in a mom 'n pops camera store 10 years ago?</p>

<p>You might wanna study the current lineup:<br>

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=149</p>

[kasperhettinga]

<p>Indeed, only the 28-135 IS USM is left...I had both and sold the 28-135: The 24-85 has better IQ, is much smaller&lighter, same speedy AF, somewhat more wideangle reach...only advantage of the 28-135 is the IS, but as I used these lenses for playing kids, IS is not that useful.</p>

[ronhartman]

<p>Wow, the 28-135 IS is the only full frame, non L, wide or standard zoom left.</p>

<p>So there are now two camps, the consumer APS cameras and EF-S lenses, and full frame with it's expensive L lenses. At least they have continued the 70-300 IS.</p>

[jake_cole]

<p>I think it's kind of sad that FF now basically means L lenses. This could make it hard for new photographers to get started with a true 35mm. Maybe they feel they have to generate more revenue from the FF line, since while it is the crown the small sensors probably dwarf them in unit sales.</p>

<p>I have not tried my older 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 or 35-135mm f/4-5.6, USM zooms on a DSLR FF. I think I'll give them a test just for fun. Luckily there should be enough used lenses out there that people can get started. Was the original 35-135mm the first USM standard zoom? When I was starting out combined with the 100-300mm it was a nice combo.<br>

I still have the 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM lens as well, which I do tend to use with a FF DSLR, just have not needed a WA zoom in a while though as I prefer the small primes. If I needed one I would be tempted to upgrade to the 17-40mm.</p>

<p>With the current currency balance between the US Dollar and the Yen, it seems to me the lenses are all very expensive, given the sales volume that digital photography has developed.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<blockquote>

<p>I think it's kind of sad that FF now basically means L lenses. This could make it hard for new photographers to get started with a true 35mm. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>The price of admission to FF starts at $2700. Nobody spending that kind of money is going to want a budget zoom, albeit the 28-135 IS, while hardly cheap, is still available if you don't want to go L series.</p>

[ronhartman]

<p>Puppy Face, that's a valid point. I think that's the way Canon sees it. But I have a 5D (original) and no L glass, and I like the IQ improvement over the dRebel.</p>

<p>I was really hoping that Canon would go in the direction of a smaller, less expensive full frame camera, maybe the size of the old Elan7, and some good mid priced glass to go with it. But now I'm thinking that's not going to happen.</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p>Geoff, you're living in freakin' 1999!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No Pupster, I'm living in Australia.<br>

Canon Australia still show the 20-35 USM and the 28-105 f4-5.6 as part of the lineup on their website. And I bought new a 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM brand spanking new from the US last year.<br>

It is true I can't find any 28-80/90s, but that is good riddance.</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p>I was really hoping that Canon would go in the direction of a smaller, less expensive full frame camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So was I, but Canon won't do that until they feel the pressure. They should have the scope to bring the price of the 5D markII and other units down quite a bit. I understand their margins per unit sold have been very good in the jump to digital. But I don't think they face a lot of competition to bring prices down at the moment.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I thought the 5D and 5DII were already pretty darn small albeit not inexpensive. In fact the small size of the 5D series is one of the things that attracted me. It's really only a few millimeters larger than a 40D/50D and actually lighter than the 7D.</p>