# Will there ever be a 24-105 mkII? or 24-120?



## IceAgeDX (Sep 6, 2013)

Now while I would love to own many many lenses they all seem like they would be more of a specialized purpose. the 24-105 is the kind of lens that you expect to have if you only had one camera/lens combo, the kind you can take most pictures with, a perfect walkaround lens. So my paranoia is that they are going to replace it with the 24-70 F4.


----------



## Cannon Man (Sep 6, 2013)

What of you think?!! They just stopped making the original 24-105 and REPLACED IT with the 24-70 f/4.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Sep 6, 2013)

no


----------



## eli452 (Sep 6, 2013)

Not likely. The lens is not marked as discontinued on the Canon site, it is in stock in all major shops. It Is still the kit lens for many cameras. It is a money maker for Canon.


----------



## IceAgeDX (Sep 6, 2013)

eli452 said:



> Not likely. The lens is not marked as discontinued on the Canon site, it is in stock in all major shops. It Is still the kit lens for many cameras. It is a money maker for Canon.



Well will there ever being the key point. I mean 5 years from now, 10 years from now etc?


----------



## Rams_eos (Sep 6, 2013)

I don’t use this lens but my guess is that it will be discontinued. I believe 24-70 F4 is overpriced for marketing reasons. Canon try to make as much money as they can from a new lens but in a few years, it will probably at the same price as the 24-105 is now.

The 24-70 fits very well with eos 6D (better than 24-105). So I bet this will be the main kit in the future. This will allow Canon to maintain the price high.
For 5D3 or 5D4, the IQ of 24-105 may become limiting with new sensors. It would make sense to have the 24-70 F4 for kit and 24-70 F2.8 for the one needing better optics.
I would love to see a 24-105 F4 MK2, but at the price Canon will sell it  , I am not sure it will be a good deal anymore.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 6, 2013)

I think it's possible we'll see a 24-120mm f/4L IS at some point, but not until the new 24-70/4 has been out for quite a while.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 6, 2013)

Rams_eos said:


> I don’t use this lens but my guess is that it will be discontinued. I believe 24-70 F4 is overpriced for marketing reasons. Canon try to make as much money as they can from a new lens but in a few years, it will probably at the same price as the 24-105 is now.



They are not priced far apart at the moment, especially when on sale, as today at Amazon. See attached screen shot below.




Rams_eos said:


> The 24-70 fits very well with eos 6D (better than 24-105).



Why do you say it "fits [better]"? I like having the 24-105 and a 24-70 2.8. I have no need for a 24-70 f/4.




Rams_eos said:


> For 5D3 or 5D4, the IQ of 24-105 may become limiting with new sensors.



Actually, with built in profiles in the 5D3 the 24-105 is quite acceptable. Can't say anything about the 5D4. ;D It's not a 24-70 2.8 II, but I'd rather have the 24-105 on my camera than a 24-70 f/4 unless I was sure I wasn't going to need the longer focal length. It's not huge and it's useful for a wide range of applications. I often use it for street shooting. It's also a heck of a lot better from 71-105 than is any 24-70, but especially the 24-70 f/4. 8)

As to the OP, why the paranoia? Even if Canon discontinues the lens, they will still provide service for quite awhile. If you're not going to buy something because you think it's going to be replaced soon, you'd never buy a computer, or a mobile phone, or a camera, or a car, or even a cooling system for your home. My guess is that your camera will be "replaced" sooner than that lens, unless perhaps you just bought a 70D, and even then it might still be the case. It's just a guess and YMMV of course.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 6, 2013)

Most of Canon's lenses get updated at some point. Right now, all the tooling and development costs are paid, so Canon is including a very fine lens in kits and at a low cost. We really don't need a new lens that is 2% better and twice the price. There is the law of diminishing returns and that lens is still at a point where major improvements would be expensive.

If Canon can get some of their new DO technology in order so that it can be produced at a low cost, we may see lots of older models that can be made better, lighter, and shorter, but the diameter is pretty well fixed.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 6, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Right now, all the tooling and development costs are paid, so Canon is including a very fine lens in kits and at a low cost. We really don't need a new lens that is 2% better and twice the price.


+1 ... my thoughts exactly.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 6, 2013)

I'm just going to wait for the Sigma f2 zoom. That'll be one sweet lens.


----------



## TheMormegil (Sep 6, 2013)

The 24-70 F4 doesn't really look "better" than the 24-105 judging by 

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/1074/(lens2)/164/(brand1)/Canon/(camera1)/836/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/836

Looking at sharpness : 24-105 is sharper at 50mm f/4, otherwise mostly equal, until f11 and above where 24-70 looks to have a slight edge. Of course the 24-105 is infinitely sharper at 71-105mm.

Other than that :
Transmission looks impressive on the 24-70
Distortion is lower.
Possibly better IS?
Closer min focus distance/macro mode.
Lighter.
Shorter.

And on 24-105 side:
71-105mm
Slightly lower CA.
Fractionally lower vignetting.
Cheaper.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 9, 2013)

IceAgeDX said:


> Now while I would love to own many many lenses they all seem like they would be more of a specialized purpose. the 24-105 is the kind of lens that you expect to have if you only had one camera/lens combo, the kind you can take most pictures with, a perfect walkaround lens. So my paranoia is that they are going to replace it with the 24-70 F4.



Yeah the 24-70 f/4 IS is the replacement. It's better.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 9, 2013)

TheMormegil said:


> The 24-70 F4 doesn't really look "better" than the 24-105 judging by
> 
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/1074/(lens2)/164/(brand1)/Canon/(camera1)/836/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/836
> 
> ...



24-70 f/4 IS does massively better at 24mm and it has less longitudinal CA so it doesn't get as much extreme nasty PF for fine branches against clouds and such (less lateral CA at 24mm too). It is also smaller and lighter and has some macro and better IS.


----------



## pwp (Sep 9, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Most of Canon's lenses get updated at some point. Right now, all the tooling and development costs are paid, so Canon is including a very fine lens in kits and at a low cost. We really don't need a new lens that is 2% better and twice the price.


+1

Even after updating to the 24-70II I've kept my 24-105 as a handy events lens. That means a 24-120 would be _15mm handier_. 8) 
But I'll bet it will be priced closer to $2k than the current sub-$1k price of the current lens. :-\

-PW


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 9, 2013)

Rams_eos said:


> The 24-70 fits very well with eos 6D (better than 24-105). So I bet this will be the main kit in the future. This will allow Canon to maintain the price high.



Doubtful. As cameras get better at doing high-ISO shooting, the need for fast lenses is decreasing, not increasing. It would be utterly absurd to stop selling the 24-105 as a kit lens in favor of lens with only 2/3rds the zoom range just to go from f/4 to f/2.8.

I was shooting pictures just a couple of weeks ago at a party with remarkably little light and getting mostly usable natural-light shots with my 24-105 on a 6D without even breaking a sweat. Yes, some people do need that extra bit of lens speed and want the 24-70 f/2.8 as a kit lens option, but I'd expect a lot more people to choose the 24-105 than the 24-70.

Honestly, I wish Canon offered something with an even longer zoom range as a kit lens so that when I'm not trying to get the absolute maximum image quality, I can just carry a single lens. The 24-105 just doesn't zoom in nearly far enough for that. I miss my 17-85 on a crop body, and before I decided to switch to full-frame, I was seriously considering buying an 18-135 because even the 17-85 wasn't quite enough reach for me. Unfortunately, on full-frame, the 28-135 build quality is crap ("lens slump" doesn't begin to cover the sudden thud of your lens barrel slamming to maximum extension) and Canon doesn't currently build anything longer other than the *excessively* large 28-300L.

I'd really like to see the next kit lens be either an IS version of the 28-200 or possibly something slightly wider—say a 24-200L f/3.5–f/5.6. That would be the perfect walking-around kit lens—long enough and wide enough to get all but the most extremely long shots without having to change lenses.

Just my $0.02.


----------



## shashinkaman (Sep 9, 2013)

IceAgeDX said:


> So my paranoia is that they are going to replace it with the 24-70 F4.



8) Apart from shooting pictures instead of worrying about things that are too silly to even contemplate, may I suggest a valium or two, three to help you to deal with your paranoia?

Glad to have been of help


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Doubtful. As cameras get better at doing high-ISO shooting, the need for fast lenses is decreasing, not increasing. It would be utterly absurd to stop selling the 24-105 as a kit lens in favor of lens with only 2/3rds the zoom range just to go from f/4 to f/2.8.



More light isn't the only reason for a fast lens. The thinner DoF with f/2.8 makes such a lens useful for portraits, and a zoom lens more suitable for portraits is very nice to have. Not that you can't get decent subject isloation with f/4, but you need a closer subject (maybe not the framing you want) and/or a more distant background. I find the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 more useful than their f/4 counterparts mainly for the better subject isolation. 



dgatwood said:


> ...Canon doesn't currently build anything longer other than the *excessively* large 28-300L.
> 
> I'd really like to see the next kit lens be either an IS version of the 28-200 or possibly something slightly wider—say a 24-200L f/3.5–f/5.6. That would be the perfect walking-around kit lens—long enough and wide enough to get all but the most extremely long shots without having to change lenses.



The 28-300L is essentially the same size as the 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 - it's not a small lens, but I wouldn't call it excessively large. 

The thing about a superzoom lens is that there's always a significant compromise. Usually, IQ is the price you pay, and if you don't mind paying the price of lesser IQ, an APS-C body and one of the plethora of 18-xxx lenses (Canon or 3rd party) is a viable option for getting that range. The other option is to pay the price in cost, size and weight, and get the 28-300L. While a 24/28-200 lens sounds like an ideal range, without the large size needed for a lens that doesn't suffer (as much) from optical compromises, the IQ from such a lens would be far from ideal for many FF shooters... Nikon offers a 28-300mm FX lens, and the IQ isn't nearly as good as their 24-120mm (which isn't as good as Canon's 24-105L). 

Personally, I think the 28-300L is a useful lens in some situations, and the IQ is on par with the current 24-105L - very good, but not stellar. Given that it's no larger/heaver than two other white zooms that I commonly use, I reach for the 28-300L when I need a broad focal range and swapping between the 24-70/2.8 II and 70-300L isn't going to be feasible.


----------



## Pi (Sep 9, 2013)

TheMormegil said:


> The 24-70 F4 doesn't really look "better" than the 24-105 judging by
> 
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/1074/(lens2)/164/(brand1)/Canon/(camera1)/836/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/836



It looks much worse at 50mm on TDP as well:

Copy 1: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Copy 2: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=2&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Copy 3: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=2&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

It remains worse even at f/11.


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Doubtful. As cameras get better at doing high-ISO shooting, the need for fast lenses is decreasing, not increasing. It would be utterly absurd to stop selling the 24-105 as a kit lens in favor of lens with only 2/3rds the zoom range just to go from f/4 to f/2.8.
> ...



I tend to think of portrait shooting in terms of primes with much wider apertures (like f/1.8 and down), but that's certainly a fair point if that's a lot of what you use a zoom lens for.




neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > ...Canon doesn't currently build anything longer other than the *excessively* large 28-300L.
> ...



The problem, at least for me, is that it is just so long even at its shortest length. Its minimum length is almost double the length of the 24–105. I carry around a 70–300L, and I find that to be annoyingly long and hard to deal with. The 24–300 is as long as the 70–300L with a 2x teleconverter attached, give or take.

And it's heavy. At 1.47 pounds, I can walk around with the 24–105 all day and it isn't too bad. The extra 0.84 pounds of the 70–300L is kind of clumsy. The 24–300 adds another 1.36 pounds on top of that—just shy of my 24–105 and my 70–300L *put together*. That's just not a walking around lens. By the end of the day, you'll feel that hanging around your neck.

From what I've seen, full-frame lenses with a given field of view usually seem to weigh anywhere from 1.1x to 1.2x the weight of an EF-S lens with the same field of view, though at the ultra-wide end, the 16–35 L II is about 1.6x the weight of the 10–22. So given that an EF-S 18–135 weighs about a pound, I'd expect a 24–200L lens to weigh somewhere between 1.1 and 1.6 pounds—less than my 70–300L, and not significantly more than the 24–105. I wouldn't expect it to be as long as the 70-300L, either, but I could be wrong.

In other words, I think that range would make an amazing "grab it and forget it" lens, particularly if equipped with a decent IS system.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> In other words, I think that range would make an amazing "grab it and forget it" lens, particularly if equipped with a decent IS system.


 
I think your size estimates are reasonable...for a non-L lens. There was an EF 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 USM that was a bit over 1 lb. and less than 4" long when retracted. The issue is the IQ would likely not be good enough for Canon to put a red ring around it - the 28-200 delivered pretty poor IQ. A 24-200L with good IQ (like the 28-300L) would need lots of 'extra' elements to correct all sorts of aberrations...meaning more weight and bulk. Your comparison 

The reason there are so many 18-xxx zooms for APS-C is that there are a lot of APS-C cameras and a lot of users buying them after owning a superzoom P&S. As FF cameras become cheaper, we may see a non-L EF superzoom, but the optical quality will likely be no better than the small image circle superzooms of today. As I said, if you want L-series IQ and build with the FF image circle, you're going to pay for it...in cost as well as weight/size.


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, I think that range would make an amazing "grab it and forget it" lens, particularly if equipped with a decent IS system.
> ...



My estimates were based on comparing EF-S to L lenses, though perhaps I didn't go quite long enough. If I had compared the 55–250 with the 70–300L, I would have gotten a factor of about 2.4. Even with that multiplier, though, it would still be approximately the same weight as a 70–300L. And a big part of the reason the 70–300L weighs as much as it does is because it has a lot more metal than the 55–250. If they made a 24–200 out of plastic, I'd be shocked if it didn't come in under two pounds.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> My estimates were based on comparing EF-S to L lenses, though perhaps I didn't go quite long enough. If I had compared the 55–250 with the 70–300L, I would have gotten a factor of about 2.4. Even with that multiplier, though, it would still be approximately the same weight as a 70–300L. And a big part of the reason the 70–300L weighs as much as it does is because it has a lot more metal than the 55–250. If they made a 24–200 out of plastic, I'd be shocked if it didn't come in under two pounds.



Have you noticed that all the superzooms start at a FF equivalent of ~28mm? I suspect widening to 24mm is a substantial design issue. With a telephoto design, the front element size is the focal length / f-number, but with other lens designs, that's not the case, particularly with wide angle lenses (35mm f/2.8 with 77/82 mm filter sizes). When the 35-350L was updated to the 28-300L, the filter size went from 72mm to 77mm. A 24mm wide end might mean 82mm filters, and a corresponding weight increase from the larger elements. 

I also think you're avoiding a logical comparator - the 28-300L's nearest EF-S equivalent is the 18-200. That gives a factor of 2.8. Now, apply that to the EF-S lens most equivalent to the 24-xxx zoom you want, the EF-S 15-85 (L-series optical quality, zoom starting at 24mm). A factor of 2.8 applied to a 20.3 oz (plastic!) lens, and you have an estimate that's a mere 3 oz lighter than the current 28-300L, and still well over 3 lbs. Yes, a 24-200/3.5-5.6 could be plastic and have fewer and smaller elements to make it lighter - but then it wouldn't be an L lens in build or IQ. I think a 24-200L would not be the small/light lens you're thinking about. 

We could go back and forth about estimates that very wildly, but the real question isn't whether or not they _can_ make such a lens, it's whether or not they _will_ make such a lens. While mechanical and optical engineering are a part of that decision, marketing is a bigger part. I don't see both a 24-200L and a 28-300L in the lineup, but they widened both ends of the 35-350, so maybe they'd do so again. I think we could see an EF 24-200 non-L as a consumer superzoom, but not until FF bodies come down into the consumer price range (xxD or cheaper). That's the sane reason we haven't seen an EF non-L zoom lens released/updated for over 10 years, with the exception of the 70-300mm (where there's very little benefit to a smaller image circle).


----------



## lomenak (Sep 11, 2013)

I got the 24-105L in the kit and never thought that I would keep it. I was quite used to shoot with primes, but this lens is so useful! I love it! If it had less distortion at 24mm it would be just perfect!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2013)

Pi said:


> TheMormegil said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-70 F4 doesn't really look "better" than the 24-105 judging by
> ...



Yeah well try it ANY other focal length other than 50mm (the one weak spot of the 24-70 f/4 IS). What about something like 24mm where no FF zoom used to ever deliver, even at f/8, until the 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS.
(also I don't have tons of faith in TDP)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Yeah well try it ANY other focal length other than 50mm (the one weak spot of the 24-70 f/4 IS). What about something like 24mm where no FF zoom used to ever deliver, even at f/8, until the 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS.
> (also I don't have tons of faith in TDP)



Good point. The TDP review of the 24-70/4L IS even states, "_That this lens performs its worst at a mid-focal length vs. an extremity focal length is unusual. Since most people shoot their highest percentage of images at the focal length range extremes of a lens, the 24-70 L IS weakness is perhaps well placed. Roger at LensRentals.com has confirmed the 50mm weakness in his vast stock of this lens._"

It's always possible to use carefully selected and excerpted data to support whatever point we are trying to make...


----------



## captainkanji (Sep 11, 2013)

I've had good results with the 24-105. It's a fantastic all around lens. I don't see the need for faster shutter speeds with that range so f/4 seems like a wide enough aperture, but I would like the DOF of a Sigma 35 1.4 (maybe next year). It's the longer range where I really would like a wider aperture. I have the 70-200 f/4L USM, and to get 1/200 for a staged event, I have to shoot 12,800. It's no problem with the 6D (I think they are quite usable), but I think 6400 shots are much cleaner and sharper since they require less NR. The 135 f/2L will be my next lens


----------



## shashinkaman (Sep 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > My estimates were based on comparing EF-S to L lenses, though perhaps I didn't go quite long enough. If I had compared the 55–250 with the 70–300L, I would have gotten a factor of about 2.4. Even with that multiplier, though, it would still be approximately the same weight as a 70–300L. And a big part of the reason the 70–300L weighs as much as it does is because it has a lot more metal than the 55–250. If they made a 24–200 out of plastic, I'd be shocked if it didn't come in under two pounds.
> ...






YAAAAAAAAAWN! :


----------



## Pi (Sep 11, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Yeah well try it ANY other focal length other than 50mm (the one weak spot of the 24-70 f/4 IS).



I did try 35mm as well. Still worse. When you pay more, give up range, you expect better performance in the "normal range" 35-50mm at least.

@Neuro - do you understand that when I said "it is worse at 50mm", I did not say - it is worse overall?


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> We could go back and forth about estimates that very wildly, but the real question isn't whether or not they _can_ make such a lens, it's whether or not they _will_ make such a lens. While mechanical and optical engineering are a part of that decision, marketing is a bigger part. I don't see both a 24-200L and a 28-300L in the lineup, but they widened both ends of the 35-350, so maybe they'd do so again. I think we could see an EF 24-200 non-L as a consumer superzoom, but not until FF bodies come down into the consumer price range (xxD or cheaper).



They're already in the consumer price range on the Nikon side of the fence, and I'd argue that the 6D is rapidly approaching that territory as well. I'd give it at most one more generation.

The thing is, right now, the 70–300L is an awesome lens on crop, and is often combined with either the 15–85 or 18–135 for the bottom half of the range. Similarly, a lot of people combine those lenses with one of the cheaper 75–300 or 70–300 lenses.

When those folks move up to crop, the 100–400, if revised, would be a reasonable (albeit pricey) replacement for the 70–300, 75–300, or 70–300L, but there's nothing currently out there with the same FoV as either the 15–85 (24–136) or the 18–135 (28–216). The closest you can get are the 28–135 (which IMO has terrible build quality) and the 28–300, which almost completely overlaps with the 100–400. If you start out on full-frame, the current lineup makes sense. If you start out on crop and want to move to lenses that are 1.6x what you're using now, the current lineup is rather comically wrong. The only popular crop body lens with a near-exact equivalent is the 10–22 (16–35L II)

That's why IMO we need either a 24–200L or 28–200L. Honestly, I don't care which. The 24 would have me switching to my 16–35L II slightly less often, but not enough to be a showstopper if they went with 28 instead. I could even live with a 28–160L. I'd even put up with a 28–135L if that were my only option. Or even a 24–200 or 28–200 non-L. Just not the current 28–135 non-L.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Just not the current 28–135 non-L.



FWIW (which isn't much, granted), about a year ago Canon patented updated designs for the 28-135 and 28-300. If/when FF bodies get down into the $1200 range, I bet we'll see an updated (non-L) 28-135 as an inexpensive kit lens (keeping the kit price under $1500), just as the current 28-135 was the kit lens for the last 'consumer FF bodies'. 

Speaking for myself, I likely wouldn't be happy with the IQ of an EF non-L 24/28-xxx superzoom, and I think an L version of one would be fine optically, but not much smaller/lighter than the current 28-300 (which I don't mind carrying). I'd take a similarly-sized 24-250L over the 28-300L - that 4mm on the wide end makes a difference.


----------

