# 24-105 f2.8IS



## wickidwombat (Feb 14, 2012)

Since canon refuse to make a 24-105 f2.8 IS I think sigma should step up to the plate and make one their recent build quality of the latest lenses has improved alot from the last generations they could do well in this space.


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 14, 2012)

Maybe can hope from Tokina or Tamron?  Tokina seems to be leaving "wide angle only" kind of approach so who knows...

Canon would charge us north of 3K if not 4K with such a lens for sure... :


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 14, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> Maybe can hope from Tokina or Tamron?  Tokina seems to be leaving "wide angle only" kind of approach so who knows...


I would devestated if it was tamron as I think their quality is horrible, sigma seem to be a large margin in front in this department, I guess we will see if tamron have stepped up their game with the new 24-70 IS they have coming out.


well_dunno said:


> Canon would charge us north of 3K if not 4K with such a lens for sure... :


if canon made it I would pay that especially if it was internally zooming  (as much as it would hurt)


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 14, 2012)

I am hoping that Tamron's quality will improve over time but quality goes up, price goes up... I do agree Sigma is more close to it. Besides Nikon's corresponding lens leaves much to be desired I heard so there seems to be a market if third party alternatives came out.

internal zoom + 2.8 + IS + improved optics and I would be interested too even for north of 3K as I really like the f/4... I should try the lottery a little more frequently, want to have the 200-400 f/4 too when it comes out ;D


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 14, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> well_dunno said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe can hope from Tokina or Tamron?  Tokina seems to be leaving "wide angle only" kind of approach so who knows...
> ...



Judging by the exterior of Tamron's new 24-70mm f/2.8 IS lens, it certainly _appears_ that they've put more effort into it. It will be interesting to see how it stacks up. Not that I think it'll be close to Canon's 24-70mm f/2.8L II, but if it's better than the Mark I, with IS, it _could_ be option, depending on the price.


----------



## vuilang (Feb 14, 2012)

Maybe it would be too big and heavy? n it would also be too expensive.. and if IS?, It will also kill many other Canon Lens. So you wont buy many lense= Losses to Canon?


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 14, 2012)

I often use the 24-105 for portraits - I am not a lover of ultra shallow DOF so head shots are usually at f/5.6 ish


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 14, 2012)

dilbert said:


> The 24-70/2.8 *is* the 2.8 _version _ of the 24-105 f/4.0.
> 
> Just the same as the 24-105 *is* the f/4 _version _ of the 24-70/2.8.
> 
> I know that might seem a bit strange, but there is only 1 f-stop difference.



um and 35mm of focal range which happens to cover the important 85 to 100mm
1 stop is a lot especially when you are shooting high iso i prefer to keep iso as low as possible


----------



## wockawocka (Feb 14, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> Canon would charge us north of 3K if not 4K with such a lens for sure... :



I'd pay it.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 14, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> well_dunno said:
> 
> 
> > Canon would charge us north of 3K if not 4K with such a lens for sure... :
> ...



I can think of too many awesome lens combinations for $4k to justify paying that for 1 zoom.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Feb 14, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > well_dunno said:
> ...



If it had the internal zoom, I'd pay. Especially if it was f/2.8.

I took it to BM on my 5d2, and when I sent it off to Canon to get cleaned, they apparently had to replace some parts of the barrel, I'm guessing the part that gets exposed, due to it being pretty scratched up from all the dust. It's just there are so damn few internal zooms!


----------



## Caps18 (Feb 14, 2012)

I wouldn't have the lenses I do if that lens existed. I would have just bought that one and only used it all the time. It would just be too easy, but the pictures I get now are much more interesting with the lenses I have, even though I have to spend time to swap them.


----------



## CowGummy (Feb 14, 2012)

yup, i'm in. would pay the price for a lens like that, and prepared to sell internal as well as external organs for it.


----------



## AJ (Feb 14, 2012)

Tamron made a 28-105/2.8 some time ago.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=242

The lens had a reputation for being very soft wide open.

But - it goes to show that an f/2.8 zoom with this range is not impossible. Perhaps with modern lens design and the latest in high-refractive-index glass, one could design something that's useable.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 14, 2012)

AJ said:


> Tamron made a 28-105/2.8 some time ago.
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=242
> 
> The lens had a reputation for being very soft wide open.
> ...


yeah by all accounts it was softer than a marshmallow on a bonfire


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 15, 2012)

wickidwombat said:



> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > Tamron made a 28-105/2.8 some time ago.
> ...



8) 8) 8)


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 15, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > Tamron made a 28-105/2.8 some time ago.
> ...


that has to be the best description of a soft lens I've ever heard... ;D


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 15, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> yeah by all accounts it was softer than a marshmallow on a bonfire



LOL 
+1 for that


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 15, 2012)

dilbert said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


nope of course not but the 16-35 vs the 17-40 have many more differences other than 1mm wide and 5mm long i dont like the 24-70 i'd rather use the 16-35 on a 1.3 crop and a 70-200 on FF gives me effectively 20mm to 200mm all at f2.8 the gap in the middle use feet zooming.
I dont know i really like the 20mm focal length for some reason much more than 24mm cant explain it other than just personal preference but i like that range of 20-48mm its really nice and both lenses zoom internallly
maybe i could be tempted to the 24-70II if it lives up to its mtf chart but at the moment 16-35 is one of my favourite lenses


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 15, 2012)

I think a 24-105 F2.8L IS USM would kill the market for the 24-70 F2.8L II. I am not so sure if it would do so much for other lenses. I would still like to use my 50mm F1.4, and I will never stop using my 135mm F2.0L for any lens


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 15, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> I think a 24-105 F2.8L IS USM would kill the market for the 24-70 F2.8L II. I am not so sure if it would do so much for other lenses. I would still like to use my 50mm F1.4, and I will never stop using my 135mm F2.0L for any lens



My 24-105 and 70-300L are my walkabouts, the 135 is my favourite prime which I use for portraits of humans and animals.

A 24-105 fits nicely onto a 1.3 and ff so I would get one


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 15, 2012)

Brian.

I have been looking at the 70-300, but I have not gone for it yet. I have a 70-200 F2.8L IS II, and I am planning on buying the 2x teleconverter mk III. Would it not cover it for me?


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 15, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> Brian.
> 
> I have been looking at the 70-300, but I have not gone for it yet. I have a 70-200 F2.8L IS II, and I am planning on buying the 2x teleconverter mk III. Would it not cover it for me?



Yes it would, nearly.

The 70-300L is more of a walkabout/travel lens. Short and quite light. The bigger range means you dont have to change the lens so often - yet gives as good IQ as the 70-200II.

On a 1.3/ff it is a dual purpose lens - at the wide end it is a good portrait lens, at the long end a medium telephoto.


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 15, 2012)

Yes, thanks

I have a couple of lenses that I hope to buy in not a long time. I have been drooling over the MP-E65 for quite a while now, and the new 24 with is looks very nice too (don't understand what to use the 28 for, as it is not either or..?), and finally I have to make a plan on how to save for the new 24-70 which is extremly good according to my friend who had and used it the whole weekend.


----------

