# New L Series Lenses coming out with the 5D Mk3?



## Abdel Ibrahim (Aug 31, 2011)

I am interested in moving from my crop sensor to a full frame dslr, and am waiting for the release of the 5DMk3 along with everyone else. I've been thinking about purchasing some zoom glass ahead of time -particularly the f/2.8 24-70, but it occurred to me that there could be some new L series glass coming out in the near future as well. I was thinking it'd be awesome if Canon offered an f/2.8 version of the 24-105mm that commonly accompanies the 5D as a kit lens. Has anyone heard anything about such a lens or any other new L glass coming on the market soon? I live in Japan and have asked some store clerks, but they don't seem interested in sharing any information about new gear given that the current stock is hardly moving.


----------



## Radiating (Aug 31, 2011)

Abdel Ibrahim said:


> I am interested in moving from my crop sensor to a full frame dslr, and am waiting for the release of the 5DMk3 along with everyone else. I've been thinking about purchasing some zoom glass ahead of time -particularly the f/2.8 24-70, but it occurred to me that there could be some new L series glass coming out in the near future as well. I was thinking it'd be awesome if Canon offered an f/2.8 version of the 24-105mm that commonly accompanies the 5D as a kit lens. Has anyone heard anything about such a lens or any other new L glass coming on the market soon? I live in Japan and have asked some store clerks, but they don't seem interested in sharing any information about new gear given that the current stock is hardly moving.



Honestly a lens like this has been something that people have been requesting for the better part of the last decade. Specifically a 24-70mm F/2.8 L IS or even better a 24-105mm f/2.8 L IS. 

No manufacturer has yet delivered or announced a lens like this, despite this being the most requested lens probably in history.


----------



## koolman (Aug 31, 2011)

Here is my perspective on your comments:

The physical size of the sensors - is swiftly becoming less and less relevant, as electronics and technology progress. Having a "FF" sensor - is much less a landmark achievement today. If you compare a 7d with 5 years ago's FF DSLR - you will quickly see that the 7d is far superior in IQ.

I believe this will become even more true in the near future - as superior small sensors will easily outplay larger sensors.

If so, I am not sure I understand the wisdom of purchasing the mark3 for $2,500 ~ just because it is FF. (unless of course you need it for your professional use right away as part of your business as a photographer)

As far as a 24-105 2.8 - Sure such a lens could be produced - however it would be a very large heavy expensive piece for it to retain both IQ and the 2.8 and the focal length. I'm not sure its business savvy to produce such a lens. The 24-105 is aimed as a convenient quality walk around lens, not a specialty lens.


----------



## Flake (Aug 31, 2011)

It's not likely that anyone will produce a 24 - 105mm f/2.8 IS L. Even with f/4 (Which isn't too bad an aperture) the 4.4x zoom lens isn't what might be termed a stellar performer especially at the wide end, a 2.8 version would certainly not perform very well wide open.

With ever increasing MP counts lenses need to become optically better - not worse, which is why a lens like this will never be made. Then there's the cost the size & the weight! The current 24 - 105mm is a wedding tool, it's nice and light - enough to be hand carried for hours on end, while snapping away.

Photographers often cannot see beyond their own photography, and yet Canon Nikon & Sony all have to satisfy the needs & wants of photographers all over the world, and that can often leave some dissapointed. My suggestion is that you buy another body and a 70 - 200mm f/2.8 IS L and then you have f/2.8 all the way from 24mm to 200mm.


----------



## AG (Aug 31, 2011)

Radiating said:


> Honestly a lens like this has been something that people have been requesting for the better part of the last decade. Specifically a 24-70mm F/2.8 L IS or even better a 24-105mm f/2.8 L IS.
> 
> No manufacturer has yet delivered or announced a lens like this, despite this being the most requested lens probably in history.



Just so you don't confuse the poor OP, 

Yes you can get a 24-70mm F2.8 L lens





Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8 L USM Lens
it just doesn't have IS..... YET! (patents say that it may be coming but we will see).


----------



## gferdinandsen (Aug 31, 2011)

koolman said:


> Here is my perspective on your comments:
> 
> The physical size of the sensors - is swiftly becoming less and less relevant, as electronics and technology progress. Having a "FF" sensor - is much less a landmark achievement today. If you compare a 7d with 5 years ago's FF DSLR - you will quickly see that the 7d is far superior in IQ.
> 
> ...



Comparison is not just on IQ. What about DoF? A FF beats crop on DoF any day of the week, and that is just physics, not technology.

What about FoV? I can crop my 5D2 pictures taken at 50mm to look like your 7D at 85mm. Again, that's not technology, but just old fashioned math (length times width).

Finally, given similar sensor technology, the FF will always out perform when it comes to noise and higher ISO.

Let's not start to equivate crop sensors with FF. For all of the above, the same holds trues when comparing MF to FF, MF blows away FF.


----------



## elflord (Aug 31, 2011)

koolman said:


> Here is my perspective on your comments:
> 
> The physical size of the sensors - is swiftly becoming less and less relevant, as electronics and technology progress. Having a "FF" sensor - is much less a landmark achievement today



DoF. Your slow zoom on a full frame has similar DoF to a fast zoom on a crop. Your fast zoom on a full frame has similar DoF to a fast prime on a crop. Your consumer primes on a full frame have shallower DoF than top of the line primes on a crop.



> If you compare a 7d with 5 years ago's FF DSLR - you will quickly see that the 7d is far superior in IQ.



Not true, the 5D classic trounces the 7D on the DxOMark. http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_5D-vs-Canon_EOS_7D/specs


----------



## Invertalon (Aug 31, 2011)

I have owned the 5Dc along with the 7D, and the 5Dc had the best IQ out of any body I have seen... Even my current 5D2. The 7D is a better body, but IQ wise, the 5Dc is king. You can't get better IQ for the price of used 5Dc bodies.


----------



## EYEONE (Aug 31, 2011)

koolman said:


> Here is my perspective on your comments:
> 
> The physical size of the sensors - is swiftly becoming less and less relevant, as electronics and technology progress. Having a "FF" sensor - is much less a landmark achievement today. If you compare a 7d with 5 years ago's FF DSLR - you will quickly see that the 7d is far superior in IQ.
> 
> ...



I don't think you are wrong regarding IQ at all. But there are other factors that come into play on someone decision to go Full Frame. For me, it's all about zoom range and DoF. The 24-70mm is designed as a good zoom range for a FF camera not a crop. It works just fine on my 7D but it's not wide enough. On a cropped body it becomes a 38-112mm lens which is just...awkward.

This affects DoF as you have to move closer to your subjects to get the same view as through a crop body.


----------



## KyleSTL (Aug 31, 2011)

Flake said:


> It's not likely that anyone will produce a 24 - 105mm f/2.8 IS L.


That is likely what people were saying in late 80's when the 35-70mm f2.8 was being made, and again in the mid 90's with the 28-70mm f2.8, and now with the 24-70mm f2.8. Look at the progression, what makes you think it will stop?

UWA
20-35mm f2.8 (1989) -> 17-35mm f2.8 (1996) -> 16-35 f2.8 (2001)
Normal
28-80mm f2.8-4 (1989) -> 28-70mm f2.8 (1993) -> 24-70mm f2.8 (2002)
Tele
80-200mm f2.8 (1989) -> 70-200mm f2.8 (1995)

On top of that we could add the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 to UWA list, and the 35-70mm f2.8 to the Normal list. Also, we could look further back in history with the FD mount: (24-35mm f3.5 [1979] -> 20-35mm f3.5 [1982]). Constant aperture zooms have grown from less than 2x (24-35 is 1.46x, for example) to 5x (Nikkor 24-120mm f4).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2011)

Abdel Ibrahim said:


> I was thinking it'd be awesome if Canon offered an f/2.8 version of the 24-105mm that commonly accompanies the 5D as a kit lens. Has anyone heard anything about such a lens or any other new L glass coming on the market soon? I live in Japan and have asked some store clerks, but they don't seem interested in sharing any information about new gear given that the current stock is hardly moving.



It might be awesome, but it's pretty unlikely. More likely is a 24-120mm f/4L IS to match the Nikon offering, and a revised 24-70mm (MkII), with or without IS, has been rumored for a long time. 

Store clerks would be just about the last people to know about any forthcoming products.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 31, 2011)

Its quite possible to build a 24-105mm f/2.8 IS zoom, but the size, weight, and price might make sales go slow. It would likely cost $3K and be big and heavy. 

As to IQ, that can always be improved with the powerful computers today, it is possible to search thru billions of optical formulas to find a solution that just could not be found with the 1980's computers that were used for the 1990's lenses. Its just a question of cost and weight versus the expected number of sales.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Aug 31, 2011)

My Canon T-90 currently has a Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm 2.8-3.8, I would love to see something like it in a Canon L lens, it is my all time favorite walk around lens.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 31, 2011)

KyleSTL said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > It's not likely that anyone will produce a 24 - 105mm f/2.8 IS L.
> ...



Canon did make a prototype 24-105mm f2.8 some years back. It was very big and heavy. It was rumoured to be the size and weight of a 70-200/2.8 and was dropped becuase it was felt that it was too big and heavy for it's focal range. Maybe things have changed now? Who knows?


----------



## brianwallace21 (Aug 31, 2011)

Flake said:


> It's not likely that anyone will produce a 24 - 105mm f/2.8 IS L. Even with f/4 (Which isn't too bad an aperture) the 4.4x zoom lens isn't what might be termed a stellar performer especially at the wide end, a 2.8 version would certainly not perform very well wide open.



The closest to this lens is the Tamron SP 28-105 f/2.8 lens. I owned it for a brief period of time - but it was simply unwieldy to use. 82mm filters and just huge. Tamron has stopped making it and replaced it with a 28-75mm f/2.8 that is outstanding.


----------



## EYEONE (Aug 31, 2011)

KyleSTL said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > It's not likely that anyone will produce a 24 - 105mm f/2.8 IS L.
> ...



Well, I have no doubt it can be done. The question becomes there it is practical to do so. The 24-70 f2.8 is already bigger and heavier than the 24-105 f4. The 24-70 already weighs 2lbs. I'm also not sure it's fair to compare f4 zooms to f2.8 zooms.

But, I'm just speaking to the likely hood of a 24-105 f2.8 coming out, not whether or not I would want one


----------



## Radiating (Sep 2, 2011)

koolman said:


> Here is my perspective on your comments:
> 
> The physical size of the sensors - is swiftly becoming less and less relevant, as electronics and technology progress. Having a "FF" sensor - is much less a landmark achievement today. If you compare a 7d with 5 years ago's FF DSLR - you will quickly see that the 7d is far superior in IQ.
> 
> ...



You seem to be completely uninformed about how cameras work. The physical size of a sensor has never become less and less relevant. What has happened is that companies have been trying to push people into buying crop frame cameras for a decade because they are cheaper to produce. 

Fundamentally a crop frame camera is every bit like an MP3 to CD audio quality. Take this comparison of a 7d vs a 5dII on the exact 50mm lens, both below the defraction limit. The 5dII image has been resized so that resolution isn't a factor. The tripod has been moved back and forth and a prime has been used so that zoom isn't a factor:






Same lens same everything, just cold hard physics. Now tell me that full frame is no longer relevant. I've actually done the comparisons both back to back in the real world and in theory and this works due to simple physics. The truth is, no matter what anyone does a larger sensor will always capture more detail than a smaller sensor assuming everything is equal. On top of that a larger sensor captures more light so it has less noise, has better DOF, and has a wider FOV.


----------



## Peter Hill (Sep 2, 2011)

To answer the OP:

I have used the 24-70mm f2.8L on a 5D Mark II extensively over the last 3 years. That lens on that body SINGS. Personally, I am not interested in upgrading the 24-70 to any newer IS model. This is mainly because I shoot more often at 24mm than 70mm.

Sometimes it gets forgotten that a lens like the 24-70 lasts a lot longer than your average digital camera body. If the upgrade ever happens it won't mean the original is no longer a good lens.

Yes, the original has been around for a while, but so what? I'm regularly using the original 24mm TS-E and the 45mm TSE on the 5DM2 and they were made last century.

That's one of the advantages of investing in an EOS system. Every single EF lens ever made, for example, will work on any new Canon EOS DSLR you buy today.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2011)

Radiating said:


> Fundamentally a crop frame camera is every bit like an MP3 to CD audio quality. Take this comparison of a 7d vs a 5dII on the exact 50mm lens, both below the defraction limit. The 5dII image has been resized so that resolution isn't a factor. The tripod has been moved back and forth and a prime has been used so that zoom isn't a factor:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First off, I agree that the 5DII will generally produce superior IQ to the 7D. But, I will point out a few issues with your test:

First, diffraction begins to affect the 7D at f/6.8, so your shot at f/8 is affected by diffraction. Shooting at f/6.3 would be a better option.

Second, you aren't comparing the 'same everything' since by moving the 7D further from the subject to maintain framing, but keeping the aperture set to f/8, the shot taken with the 7D has a deeper DoF than that with the 5DII. To match DoF and thus keep _everything_ the same, you'd have to either set the aperture on the 5DII to f/13 (which would also be a bit past the point at which diffraction begins to affect the 5DII, f/10.3), or set the 7D to f/5. 

Third, "_The 5dII image has been resized so that resolution isn't a factor,_" isn't the case. A slight downsampling with a good interpolator (e.g. PS bicubic) actually increases sharpness relative to the original. To make things equal, you could downsample or upsample both images (the relative amount of resampling would be different, but it would be a fairer comparison than resampling one image and not the other).

So, of those three factors, 2 of them (diffraction and resampling) artifically skew the results in favor of the 5DII, and the third (DoF) is neutral (since your entire subject appears to be within the DoF, but if not, the thinner DoF would artifically detract from the 5DII).

I don't disagree with the conclusion - the 5DII offers better IQ - but the differential may not be as great as your testing shows.

Another factor is the AA filter - the high density of the 7D's sensor requires a stronger AA filter, and that reduces actuance (contrast), which makes the resulting images appear less sharp. 



Radiating said:


> The truth is, no matter what anyone does a larger sensor will always capture more detail than a smaller sensor assuming everything is equal. On top of that a larger sensor captures more light so it has less noise, has better DOF, and has a wider FOV.



Not necessarily. In the case you mention, where you alter the subject distance to match the framing, yes. But if you don't do that, with the narrower angle of view afforded by the crop sensor, the 7D will outresolve the 5DII. That's just basic math - since sensor size does not affect magnification (only AoV), with the same focal length at the same distance, a given subject will cover more pixels of the 7D's 18 MP sensor than the 5DII's 21 MP sensor. Cropping the 5DII image to the FoV of the 7D results in an 8 MP image. The relevance is for situations where you're focal length limited (small/distant subjects), you'll get better results shooting with a 7D than shooting with a 5DII and cropping the resulting image. 

Also, 'better' is a relative term. The FF sensor will have less noise (1.3 stops less), wider FoV, and shallower DoF (for the same subject framing). If you _want_ deep DoF, FF is not 'better' (although assuming your FF sensor has larger pixels, you can stop down further before diffraction sets in, so it may be a wash).


----------



## EYEONE (Sep 2, 2011)

Peter Hill said:


> That's one of the advantages of investing in an EOS system. Every single EF lens ever made, for example, will work on any new Canon EOS DSLR you buy today.



Interesting that you bring that up as a positive to buying Canon when Nikon and Pentax have a backward compatibility that spans 50 years or more. While Canon's is only 20 or so.

However, I don't disagree with you. I find that 20 years is plenty.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 6, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> Peter Hill said:
> 
> 
> > That's one of the advantages of investing in an EOS system. Every single EF lens ever made, for example, will work on any new Canon EOS DSLR you buy today.
> ...



I don't think I'd wave the canon flag when it comes to discussions of lens back-compatibility. especially not to anyone who had to go through the FD-to-EF sea change. I hope that canon's learnt that lesson and we won't see that happen again in our lifetimes. a lot of the higher end glass canon produces is stuff that's meant to last a lifetime, so a 19-year life span for a lens mount is absolutely unacceptable.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 6, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Abdel Ibrahim said:
> 
> 
> > I was thinking it'd be awesome if Canon offered an f/2.8 version of the 24-105mm that commonly accompanies the 5D as a kit lens. Has anyone heard anything about such a lens or any other new L glass coming on the market soon? I live in Japan and have asked some store clerks, but they don't seem interested in sharing any information about new gear given that the current stock is hardly moving.
> ...



That's not entirely true. I'm in retail and we have company representatives come into the store and they talk about their products, features, and the like. 

We don't have the most advanced up to date knowledge... but I would say your blanket statement is inaccurate.


----------



## epsiloneri (Sep 6, 2011)

dilbert said:


> The 24-70/2.8 *IS* the 2.8 version of the 24-105/4.



But without the *IS*


----------



## kevl (Sep 21, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-70/2.8 *IS* the 2.8 version of the 24-105/4.
> ...



LOL exactly.... wish I could have replied with that.

Truth is if Canon released a 24-70 2.8L with IS the could charge whatever they wanted for it... I would dish it out. It would be the perfect video lens for me. 

Kev


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 21, 2011)

kubelik said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Hill said:
> ...



At the time (mid 1980s), Canon was trying to keep up with Minolta and Nikon. The FL mount was mechanical and needed to be replaced to outpace the competition. Was it risky? Yes, but if you want to be successful in business, you have to take risks. Since they now have an electronic mount, it's highly unlikely that Canon will have to replace it anytime soon.

It's now 24 years later and Canon has sold more lenses (EF mount) than Nikon has in 50 years, so I would have to say yes, Canon has learnt their lesson.


----------



## spaceheat (Sep 23, 2011)

KyleSTL said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > It's not likely that anyone will produce a 24 - 105mm f/2.8 IS L.
> ...



You will notice that the short zooms coordinate with the long zooms on your list. If they were to produce a 24-105 f2.8, it would likely mean there would be a move to a 105-300 f 2.8.

The 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 are the perfect tag team. The 24- 105 2.8 is just too much overlap IMO, unless they were to add the 105-300 2.8... which would be a sweet lens!


----------



## K-amps (Sep 23, 2011)

spaceheat said:


> KyleSTL said:
> 
> 
> > Flake said:
> ...



Lets say we were to frame at 70mm, would we choose the 24-70mm or the 70-200mm ? And why?


----------



## unfocused (Sep 23, 2011)

> The 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 are the perfect tag team. The 24- 105 2.8 is just too much overlap IMO,



I prefer having some overlap on zoom lenses. In the real world it makes shooting much easier, not having to stop and switch lenses when a subject moves or to get just the right framing.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 23, 2011)

unfocused said:


> > The 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 are the perfect tag team. The 24- 105 2.8 is just too much overlap IMO,
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer having some overlap on zoom lenses. In the real world it makes shooting much easier, not having to stop and switch lenses when a subject moves or to get just the right framing.



I always thouhgt that lenses are sub-optimal at their extremes, so overlap in lenses could make up for that perhaps?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2011)

KyleSTL said:


> Look at the progression, what makes you think it will stop?
> 
> UWA
> 20-35mm f2.8 (1989) -> 17-35mm f2.8 (1996) -> 16-35 f2.8 (2001)
> ...



Allow me to update your progressions so they are current:

UWA
20-35mm f2.8 (1989) -> 17-35mm f2.8 (1996) -> 16-35 f2.8 (2001) -> *16-35mm* f/2.8 MkII (2007)
Normal
28-80mm f2.8-4 (1989) -> 28-70mm f2.8 (1993) -> 24-70mm f2.8 (2002) -> ?
Tele
80-200mm f2.8 (1989) -> 70-200mm f2.8 (1995) -> *70-200mm* f/2.8 IS (2001) -> *70-200mm* f/2.8 IS MkII (2010)

So, as you can see from the above, in two of three classes the progression has stopped, and the remaining class of 'normal' zooms has three entries compared to four in the UWA and tele classes.

So, given that trend, and granted the n is low, the logical extrapolation is that the next normal zoom will remain a 24-70mm, with improvements in the optics, the addition of IS, or both, but no change in focal range.



K-amps said:


> Lets say we were to frame at 70mm, would we choose the 24-70mm or the 70-200mm ? And why?



Personally, I'd choose the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II over the 24-70mm f/2.8L for that shot at 70mm. Why? Three reasons - first, the IQ is better, second, if the shutter speed is marginal then IS might help get the shot, and third, I don't have a 24-70mm f/2.8L...


----------



## EYEONE (Sep 23, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Lets say we were to frame at 70mm, would we choose the 24-70mm or the 70-200mm ? And why?
> ...



I agree. I'd use the 70-200 over the 24-70. IQ is better.


----------



## spaceheat (Sep 23, 2011)

unfocused said:


> > The 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 are the perfect tag team. The 24- 105 2.8 is just too much overlap IMO,
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer having some overlap on zoom lenses. In the real world it makes shooting much easier, not having to stop and switch lenses when a subject moves or to get just the right framing.



The pair of the 24-70 and 70-200 implies that most people shoot with two bodies. Many working photogs, as well as others, prefer to use a crop with the 70-200 for extra reach, while using a FF with the 24-70. Constantly changing lenses during an assignment is a pain, I agree.

I would imagine that most would agree that they use the short zoom for close proximity and the long zoom for when they hang back to get the candids. I have personally have never wished for extra length on the short zoom because the type of shot that I would be getting with the longer focal length is covered by the long zoom.

If you ask me... Canon really needs to develop the 200-400 at f2.8 instead of f4. The combo of the 70-200 and 200-400 would be great for sports journalists.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2011)

spaceheat said:


> If you ask me... Canon really needs to develop the 200-400 at f2.8 instead of f4. The combo of the 70-200 and 200-400 would be great for sports journalists.



I'm not sure that a 200-400mm f/2.8 - a lens that would likely weigh >15 lbs and cost close to $20K - would be 'great' for anyone...


----------



## Meh (Sep 23, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> spaceheat said:
> 
> 
> > If you ask me... Canon really needs to develop the 200-400 at f2.8 instead of f4. The combo of the 70-200 and 200-400 would be great for sports journalists.
> ...



Totally agree with that. There is no panacea in optics... there is always a trade-off. The 400mm f/2.8L IS II is already 8.5 lbs so neuro's estimate is probably close and therefore it's just not portable or cheap enough for mass market.


----------

