# Superzoom Development Mentioned Again [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 9, 2015)

```
<p>We’ve received another mention about the development of a new superzoom. We weren’t given the focal length & range of such a lens. We also weren’t told if this would be a direct replacement for the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS.</p>
<p>We are wondering if this development is for the Cinema EOS line and not for the stills crowd. I have a hard time believing the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS was every popular enough to warrant further R&D dollars for a new version.</p>
<p>On a side note, we’ve been receiving a lot of nonsense lately from a certain group of people, and a couple of other sites are having the same issue. We know who they are and are working to filter out the “rumors” they’re sending in. A few things in the last week or so that we have posted, have turned out to be from them.</p>
```


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Nov 9, 2015)

I only saw one person using it in the real world.. but it's quite heavy.

Isn't Nikon's relatively newer version much lighter? Is it more popular?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 9, 2015)

If Canon brings down the size and weight, they'll sell a lot of these. But for now Tamron wins the game ;D


----------



## JMKE (Nov 9, 2015)

A new (smaller/lighter) 28-300 or 24-200 would be nice. Mount it on a 6D and there we have a nice travel combo.
At least in my opinion. But who am i?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 9, 2015)

Canon needs a 'super' zoom all right, but it doesn't need it under 300mm. IMHO, Canon needs to offer a zoom longer than 400mm. Something slow but long, say a 300-600 f/6.3 IS. 

Right now, if Canon shooters want to shoot in the 500mm neighborhood, you need to buy:

400 f/5.6L + 1.4 TC = 560mm f/8, AF only in center and no IS = $1,628
100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II + 1.4 TC = 560mm f/8, AF only in the center = $2,628
200-400 f/4L IS w/1.4x, 500 f/4L IS II, TC'ing an f/2.8 or f/4 great white = astronomically more expensive

In comparison, there are now two off-brand (150-600) and one Nikon (200-500) long zooms in the $1,000 - $1,400 neighborhood. 

I recognize Canon prices go from reasonable to explosive in a matter of one stop or 100 more mm reach, but Canon needs to find a reasonably priced way to go long without teleconverters.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 9, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Canon needs a 'super' zoom all right, but it doesn't need it under 300mm. IMHO, Canon needs to offer a zoom longer than 400mm. Something slow but long, say a 300-600 f/6.3 IS.
> 
> Right now, if Canon shooters want to shoot in the 500mm neighborhood, you need to buy:
> 
> ...


+1
200-500 F5.6
300-600 F6.3
either one would sell well


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Something slow but long, say a 300-600 *f/6.3* IS.



I don't see a Canon EF f/6.3 zoom anytime soon, given that their PDAF system is spec'd for f/5.6 and 3rd parties 'spoof' the camera (obviously not an issue for the M).


----------



## Besisika (Nov 9, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>We are wondering if this development is for the Cinema EOS line and not for the stills crowd. I have a hard time believing the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS was every popular enough to warrant further R&D dollars for a new version.</p>


Indeed, I would be interested in this lens if it is 100% compatible with DPAF face detection. It would a perfect lens for me.
I own and use already the 100-400 MK II so weight is not an issue. Monopod is the answer.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 9, 2015)

JMKE said:


> A new (smaller/lighter) 28-300 or 24-200 would be nice. Mount it on a 6D and there we have a nice travel combo.
> At least in my opinion. But who am i?



Yes, an EF 24-200mm f/4-5.6 IS USM of reasonable size & weight would be very nice.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 9, 2015)

The 28-300mm IS is relatively new, and improving it would indeed be expensive. This used to be very popular among PJ's covering news events where they could zoom wide as well as telephoto. Unfortunately, traditional PJ's are going away and I do not see it being updated.

We might see a replacement for the EF-S 18-200, it was never that good, but acceptable. I sold mine because It was not getting any use. Its one of the few lenses I took a big price hit on.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 9, 2015)

I'd almost be just as happy with either.
Sure, Canon doesn't have a small 600mm lens, but with a bit of cropping the 100-400MkII is basically as good as the competition. At least in my mind I consider it a "640mm equivalent" lens.
I am intensely curious to see how well the Nikon 200-500 crops though. That thing looks like it could have scary potential.

The idea of a short-to-long focal length lens is almost as interesting as a 500mm. I don't know if I would want to trade off the macro capability of the 100-400MkII, but if Canon could make a decent 28-300 that would be useful for different reasons.
I almost think they'd be better off ditching the extra wide angle and go for 40-300, which is still a fair bit wider than the 70-300 but should allow for much better optics than 28-300. Make it a constant f4 and you've got a highly desirable lens.


----------



## RGF (Nov 9, 2015)

There are two uses of this lens

1. a walk around tourist lens. Does not need to be L series, and would be nice if it went wider than 28

2. a "safari" lens for tracking wildlife. Image a lion is walk toward your vehicle as it goes closer you want to keep shooting without changing lenses or cameras. Prior to the 28-300L there was the 35-350 non IS lens. I like the focal length of the latter.

To be successful I think Canon will need to improve IQ (the 28-300L was not very consistent lens to lens, like the old push pull 100-400). Some weight loss would be nice is not essential. Perhaps slightly longer?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 9, 2015)

Regarding the 28-300L, remember that even with the L red ring, sturdy construction, etc. that _physics is physics_. Optically, this 10X zoom is not a strong performer:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/426-canon_28300_3556is_5d?start=1

However, for those that want it, perhaps the following improvements could be made:


Strip it down for weight. This lens currently weighs over 4 pounds with a hood and collar on. Keep the metal mount, but put this lens on a diet like the 24-70 f/4L IS, which has the 100L's engineering plastic outside and a plastic sliding internal barrel.


Bring the focal length multiplier back down to earth. [2*8* - anything] is frustrating on the wide end, so I agree with others that a 24-200 is about right.


Try not to be premium and 'do it all' in one lens, as it will suck at both. I'd actually recommend losing the L moniker -- drop this thing down to non-L status like the 24-105 recently did. That will help justify the move to plastic.



Keep it small. Forget f/3.5 or f/4 on the wide end. Perhaps going to an f/5.6 fixed max aperture will allow this lens to get lighter and more compact.
 
Having one lens to replace all your other lenses is a fantasy you can sell to crop owners. But once you've stepped up to FF, the premise of a superzoom (convenience at the cost of IQ & speed) nullifies the upside of a FF rig. It just never made sense to me.

And how *on earth* is this even a top 10 ask from the market right now? Surely, refreshing the L standard primes with that BR tech, a non-L 50mm & 85mm refresh and the 16-35 f/2.8L III are far, far bigger needs.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 9, 2015)

9VIII said:


> I am intensely curious to see how well the Nikon 200-500 crops though. That thing looks like it could have scary potential.



+1 

I don't even shoot above 200mm (95% of my work under 100mm) and I find that Nikon to be a serious shot across the bow to Canon. I'm shocked we're not talking about it more. That's a landgrab move by Nikon to gobble up the reach-obsessed amateur wildlifers out there. Canon has no rebuttal after 400mm other than 'Crop your shots to get 500mm, switch back to APS-C, enjoy teleconverters, or buy a $10K lens'. All of those are tradeoffs that this new Nikon sails right past.

Consider: even a 500mm IS f/5.6 _prime_ for $1400 would be a steal for us. I know that lens won't be of the highest quality, but one would presume -- critically -- that it's AF would be better than the Sigmas and Tamrons.

- A


----------



## Pixel (Nov 9, 2015)

I don't see 200mm on the long end as being "super"telephoto. It's going to have to be over 400mm considering the 100-400 already on the market. I'd love to see a zoom go to 600 to compete with the Sigma's super zoom.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 9, 2015)

RGF said:


> There are two uses of this lens
> 
> 1. a walk around tourist lens. Does not need to be L series, and would be nice if it went wider than 28
> 
> ...



It is also useful for extremely hectic events, although a 28-200 f/2.8-4.5 or, better yet, 24-120 f/2.8-4 would be much more useful.


----------



## DJL329 (Nov 9, 2015)

I was almost incredulous at the Photo Plus Expo last month when a guy next to me at Canon's counter asked to see the 28-300L. Canon didn't have a single copy of it on hand!


----------



## George D. (Nov 9, 2015)

RGF said:


> There are two uses of this lens
> 
> 1. a walk around tourist lens. Does not need to be L series, and would be nice if it went wider than 28
> 
> ...



Re para.2, I cannot just imagine, I see it pictured behind Sebastiao Salgado with an elephant, here:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/Sebastiao_Salgado.do
In his gear there is the 28-300/3.5-5.6L IS.
Had he stopped to change lens he would now be something like the BR gel...


----------



## mrzero (Nov 9, 2015)

I think a 24-200 (or 250) would be excellent paired with the 6D. L quality in the body of the 70-300L would be great, but I'd even accept a non-L in the vein of the 24-105/3.5-5.6. I'd prefer not STM but it probably wouldn't matter one way or the other for me on this. 

PS - I think some are confused with the wording of the subject here. The rumor is about a "superzoom," i.e with a large zoom multiplier, like the 28-300 is a 10X superzoom. A "supertelephoto" is a really long lens that I can't afford, like the 800/5.6L.


----------



## George D. (Nov 9, 2015)

It's a rumor. Anything goes.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 9, 2015)

mrzero said:


> PS - I think some are confused with the wording of the subject here. The rumor is about a "superzoom," i.e with a large zoom multiplier, like the 28-300 is a 10X superzoom. A "supertelephoto" is a really long lens that I can't afford, like the 800/5.6L.



We're not confused at all. We know what superzooms are _and we're changing the subject to a zoom we'd rather have instead._ 

- A


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 9, 2015)

Pixel said:


> I don't see 200mm on the long end as being "super"telephoto. It's going to have to be over 400mm considering the 100-400 already on the market. I'd love to see a zoom go to 600 to compete with the Sigma's super zoom.



Supertelephoto and Superzoom are different things. Anything with a 10x zoom range is definitely "Superzoom" territory for an SLR, even if that's 20-200mm.
The SX60HS is just a 3.8-247mm lens, so a 200mm lens is getting close, they just use really sharp glass and really small sensors on those compact superzooms, and they probably choose the wide angle focal length by putting the lens as close as possible without hitting the shutter.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 9, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...


Canon already makes an 18-200mm EF-S superzoom..... it is terrible throughout the range....this is most definitely a lens that needs updating!


----------



## TeT (Nov 9, 2015)

I have seen a couple of users of this lens. Both were extremely happy. Both were freelance professionals. Both only used it when on assignments. I have caught glimpses of it in world news reports that caught photographers in background as well... 

It is not a birding, sporting event, portrait, soccer mom or backyard lens... It is a journalists/correspondents/freelancers perfect tool.

If you made it conventional instead of the push pull and a little lighter; the improved optics may expand its customer base...


----------



## TK (Nov 9, 2015)

I rented a 28-300 for an assignment a few weeks ago. We had a good day with it; it is heavy but got the images we needed...


----------



## Steve Todd (Nov 9, 2015)

I'm very interested in the possibility of Canon doing a makeover of the 28-300. It's been my go-to travel lens since purchasing one in Oct 2006. In fact, it currently sits atop my 1DX used during my most recent road trip to Tucson and Tombstone just last week. A MKII version, ala the 100-400II would be super....bring it on!


----------



## unfocused (Nov 10, 2015)

There are times when I would love to have this lens – just yesterday for example, while shooting an event that required I switch back and forth between the 70-200 and 24mm. But, the ideal version would probably be too heavy and slow and expensive for my tastes.

I'd be happy with 28-200mm if I could get a constant f4, although 250mm would be better.


----------



## dsut4392 (Nov 10, 2015)

RGF said:


> There are two uses of this lens
> 
> 1. a walk around tourist lens. Does not need to be L series, and would be nice if it went wider than 28
> 
> ...



your #2 reminds me of when I went on safari in Tanzania. I was standing on the roof of our vehicle, photographing an approaching leopard with my old Zuiko 500/8 reflex adapted to a canon crop body. Got a nice head & shoulders shot before it got closer than the minimum focal distance...gulp, I think I had better get back in the car now!


----------



## unfocused (Nov 10, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> And how *on earth* is this even a top 10 ask from the market right now?



Maybe, but this is a photojournalists lens and even though the photojournalist market is shrinking daily, it's still a sizable and influential group. If Canon produces the lens, then it simply means their market research shows a demand. Also, we have no idea if it would be a refresh or something entirely new.



ahsanford said:


> ...I find that Nikon to be a serious shot across the bow to Canon. I'm shocked we're not talking about it more. That's a landgrab move by Nikon to gobble up the reach-obsessed amateur wildlifers out there. Canon has no rebuttal after 400mm other than 'Crop your shots to get 500mm, switch back to APS-C, enjoy teleconverters, or buy a $10K lens'. All of those are tradeoffs that this new Nikon sails right past.
> 
> Consider: even a 500mm IS f/5.6 _prime_ for $1400 would be a steal for us. I know that lens won't be of the highest quality, but one would presume -- critically -- that it's AF would be better than the Sigmas and Tamrons.



Agreed. Although getting a 500mm IS f5.6 for $1,400 is probably optimistic. Even at $1,800 it would be tempting. 

I wonder if there is any reason to believe this might not be an EF lens. Given the upgrade Canon gave to the 7DII, it's not outside the realm of possibility that we could see a high quality EF-S in the 18-250 range.


----------



## sjprg (Nov 10, 2015)

I for one really like the 28-300L and it stays on my 1DSIII 80 % of the time. with the 100-400 and the 100mm Macro taking the rest of the time.
For short range I use a Sony A7R with a FE 24-70 which make a great hiking camera. and for specialized landscapes the 800E with a 24mm 1.2 Nikon serves. There just is no way one camera can cover all the needs of every person.


----------



## vlim (Nov 10, 2015)

9VIII said:


> I'd almost be just as happy with either.
> Sure, Canon doesn't have a small 600mm lens, but with a bit of cropping the 100-400MkII is basically as good as the competition. At least in my mind I consider it a "640mm equivalent" lens.
> I am intensely curious to see how well the Nikon 200-500 crops though. That thing looks like it could have scary potential.
> 
> ...



Apparetnly the new Nikon is a very very good telephoto lens, look at these tests by Brad Hill in some very tough conditions...

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#200-500_AF_Tracking


----------



## douglaurent (Nov 10, 2015)

An update would be absolutely welcome, the old version is too big, too heavy, too expensive and not wide enough. It's also not much sharper than the Tamron 28-300 or Sony 24-240, who show it's possible to develop something better. If a new version is starting at 24mm, is lighter and sharper, i am also willing to pay much more than the Tamron or Sony cost now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2015)

douglaurent said:


> An update would be absolutely welcome, the old version is too big, too heavy, too expensive and not wide enough. It's also not much sharper than the Tamron 28-300 or Sony 24-240, who show it's possible to develop something better. If a new version is starting at 24mm, is lighter and sharper, i am also willing to pay much more than the Tamron or Sony cost now.



+1

I had the 28-300L for a while, I found it useful but it was optically surpassed by the 24-70/2.8L II + 70-300L combo. If they could bring a 24-200 (or longer) with optical performance close to the latter combo, and a size about that of a 70-300L, I'd be all in.


----------



## HankMD (Nov 10, 2015)

9VIII said:


> I am intensely curious to see how well the Nikon 200-500 crops though. That thing looks like it could have scary potential.



From what I've seen it crops relatively well, in experienced hands (i.e. good stabilization):

Original:
https://flic.kr/p/ycdGEA

Cropped:
https://flic.kr/p/z9fobi

It's funny to see a few local photographers with 600 and 800mm Nikkon "Super Blacks" dabbling with the 200-500mm zoom. Must be having back problems.... ;D


----------



## siegsAR (Nov 10, 2015)

I really want the 28-300, if it will be updated I'd surely take a second look - on weight for that matter. For now my 24-105 and the 70-200 f4 IS will stay.

Honestly if Canon will release a 30/40 - 300 that would be awesome for me to pair with the 16-35 F4.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 10, 2015)

For my next holiday trip I will take the Tamron 28-300 VC PCD (540 g), Voigtländer Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL II (205g), and Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 (190 g). Total = 935 grams for a narrow aperture superzoom, and the wide angle + low light complements. The Canon 28-300L alone weighs 1670g  And I haven't yet begun to compare the volumes these lenses occupy. Now, please Canon - which of these is the winner combination for travel? ;D


----------



## donmarkuso (Nov 10, 2015)

However, the 28-300 L is the lens I use most of the time. The pump-zoom is super fast, ultra durable, the focus pretty good and the weight prevents shakes. And I do not need to change lenses all the time. This fact keeps the sensor clean. Using it with a 7DII it is just a perfect combination. It already is my second one. I just bought a new one after years of using it and I did sell the old one for a pretty good price. 'Loss': 300 USD. 

A wide angle zoom and the 28-300 and two 7DII with battery grip plus two 600RT flashes are a really good equipment for me as a journalist. What else do you need? 

I really do not know what Canon could make better with the 28-300L, but if it was a 24-300 L 3,5-4,5 it would be outstanding. Maybe a built-in 1.4x Converter? I would buy it right away. :-*


----------



## MrFotoFool (Nov 10, 2015)

If they could improve the quality as they did between the version 1 and 2 of the 100-400L I think there would be a large market for this lens. (Some of you think there is no market, but I think there is). It would be the ultimate travel lens. A lot of people who travel with family want L quality photos but do not want to carry a camera backpack and change lenses. This covers an almost ideal range of focal lengths for full frame (though I am surprised the person above likes it on the crop sensor 7D2). However, I find 24 is the perfect wide angle focal length on full frame. A 24-300 (or even 280 or 250) with great optics would be a killer. Personally, I do not like variable aperture and would rather have a constant 5_6 than a 4 or 4_5 to 5_6.


----------



## mrzero (Nov 10, 2015)

Nice to see some users of the current 28-300mm L superzoom coming out of the woodwork here. It is probably too big/heavy for my own casual use, but hopefully Canon is hearing some of these voices who would be interested in an all-in-one option for their full-frame needs.


----------



## TheJock (Nov 11, 2015)

I think Canon have from 28mm up to 400mm very well covered at the moment, and since Nikon have the 200-500 and Tamron/Sigma have their 150-600mm offerings, we can hope to see direct competition in that area (the 500mm+ area).
At least that’s what I’m hoping (read praying 8) ) for!!! Even if it’s a heavy 300-600 with IQ like the 100-400 II and costs around $3000 I’ll have one immediately.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 11, 2015)

Stewart K said:


> I think Canon have from 28mm up to 400mm very well covered at the moment, and since Nikon have the 200-500 and Tamron/Sigma have their 150-600mm offerings, we can hope to see direct competition in that area (the 500mm+ area).
> At least that’s what I’m hoping (read praying 8) ) for!!! Even if it’s a heavy 300-600 with IQ like the 100-400 II and costs around $3000 I’ll have one immediately.



But not one of these are super zooms (10X) which is the subject. A 300-600 is far from a Super Zoom.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 11, 2015)

MrFotoFool said:


> ...Personally, I do not like variable aperture and would rather have a constant 5_6 than a 4 or 4_5 to 5_6.



Why give up on the ability to have some wider apertures available at the wide end? It doesn't come at cost of a bigger and heavier build, you know. If this bothers you, just stop down to the aperture at the long end or smaller (F/5.6 in this case). I often treat variable aperture zooms that way for practical reasons. Hence I think of the 70-300L as a f/5.6 lens, and the Tamron 28-300 as a f/6.3 lens.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Nov 11, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Regarding the 28-300L, remember that even with the L red ring, sturdy construction, etc. that _physics is physics_. Optically, this 10X zoom is not a strong performer:
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/426-canon_28300_3556is_5d?start=1
> 
> However, for those that want it, perhaps the following improvements could be made:
> ...



For once I must disagree with you about lens wishes: I'd love a (24/28)-200 IS STM. Keep it black, STM, and plastic (but well-built) to keep the price down and prevent it from "challenging" any of the other lenses, but I'd rather have my 5D3 + that lens than my SL1 + 18-135 STM for walking the neighborhood (with the ability to shoot almost anything I see) and shooting my girlfriend's triathlons (as she bikes and runs from the distance to close, plus group shots with our friends). It's not about "replacing all my other lenses" at all (I would still want my 100L, 35 IS, and 50A particularly); it's about having the ability, in certain situations, to get _decent_ IQ across a wide array of focal lengths without swapping or carrying extra lenses.

What I would do is get this hypothetical lens, sell my 70-300L (which is my current race-day lens) and if I miss the reach/ IQ, spring for the drool-worthy 100-400Lii.


----------



## geekpower (Nov 11, 2015)

i would personally find something like a 30-240, constant f4, rather attractive, even if it was heavy, but rather doubt they would make such a thing, for various reasons


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 11, 2015)

geekpower said:


> i would personally find something like a 30-240, constant f4, rather attractive, even if it was heavy, but rather doubt they would make such a thing, for various reasons



Constant f/4 for that would be pretty massive, wouldn't it?

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 11, 2015)

I must confess that I have a Canon superzoom lens..... the EF-S 18-200. The image quality is poor, but there are times when you really don't have the option of carrying around lots of lenses (can you say multi-day-hike-in-the-mountains) and the idea of one lens to cover most ranges starts to get very attractive. Materials, coatings, and manufacturing precision has improved since the 18-200 and the 28-300 were released. A new version of either lens would undoubtedly be much sharper..... not as good as a 70-200, but remember that the latest zooms are sharper than the old primes used to be. We are seeing almost continual improvements in Canon optics. It might even be a BR lens or have a DO element.....


----------



## Gino (Nov 13, 2015)

I hope Canon comes out with an L quality super zoom for full frame cameras. The current 24-105L just doesn't have enough reach at the long end, and when I'm on vacation it can be a pain to lug around 2-3 different lenses with different focal lengths. 

Hopefully Canon can produce an L quality lens in the 24-240mm focal range that produces decent photos, with a size and weight that is manageable i.e. the current size and weight of the 70-300L


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 13, 2015)

Gino said:


> I hope Canon comes out with an L quality super zoom for full frame cameras. The current 24-105L just doesn't have enough reach at the long end, and when I'm on vacation it can be a pain to lug around 2-3 different lenses with different focal lengths.
> 
> Hopefully Canon can produce an L quality lens in the 24-240mm focal range that produces decent photos, with a size and weight that is manageable i.e. the current size and weight of the 70-300L



I still think more modest FL multipliers would make Canon much more money. A 24-120 f/4L IS would sell like hotcakes. 

Existing 24-105L folks -- including many that bristled at Canon for offering a non-L 24-105 'downgrade' rather than a better Mk II of the L version -- would snap up a 24-120L in a heartbeat.

- A


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 13, 2015)

A question for the technically knowledgeable here:

8-15 has 7mm zoom range
16-35 has 19mm zoom range
24-70 has 46mm zoom range
70-200 has 130mm zoom range
200-400 has 200mm zoom range

Is there a physics or engineering based reason why the zooms have shorter zoom ranges based on their widest focal value?
And considering that, could a hypothetical 24-300mm be as good optically as a 70-200?


----------



## Proscribo (Nov 13, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> A question for the technically knowledgeable here:
> 
> 8-15 has 7mm zoom range
> 16-35 has 19mm zoom range
> ...


Well, how about not thinking it that way.
8-15: tele is 1,88x longer than wide
16-35: 2,19x
24-70: 2,92x
70-200: 2,86x
200-400: 2x
I'd think that it's more about the %-difference between shortest and longest f-lengths rather than absolute mm-values. However wide lenses are indeed more problematic to make vs. tele.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 13, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> A question for the technically knowledgeable here:
> 
> 8-15 has 7mm zoom range
> 16-35 has 19mm zoom range
> ...



I'm not an optics expert at all but the engineering challenge is not the absolute focal length change but rather the _ratio_. This gives you the 'nX-zoom' figure.

The ratio can be found by dividing the focal length at the long (tele) end by the focal length at the short (wide) end.

Hence:

8-15 has 1.875X zoom
16-35 has 1.842X zoom
24-70 has 2.917X zoom
70-200 has 2.857X zoom
200-400 has 2x zoom

None of these are very high ratio's.

The 24-105L is pushing the ratio a bit more: 4.375X zoom.

A super-zoom has an even higher ratio, such as 1:10. Hence 28-300 has 10.714X zoom.

Your hypothetical 24-300mm would have 12.5X zoom, and is a lot more challenging to engineer than a 70-200 with 2.857X zoom. So if these lenses are not separated by ages of optical design experience (computer design and better manufacturing tolerances now really helps to improve the optics), a 24-300mm cannot be as good optically as a 70-200.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 13, 2015)

mrsfotografie said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > A question for the technically knowledgeable here:
> ...





Proscribo said:


> Well, how about not thinking it that way.
> 8-15: tele is 1,88x longer than wide
> 16-35: 2,19x
> 24-70: 2,92x
> ...



I'm so impressed! You guys are super smart! Thanks for the education


----------



## sjprg (Jan 9, 2016)

My 28-300 has now graduated from my 1DS3 to my 5DS R, and will stay there unless my 100-400 goes on temporally. For all the naysayers of the 28-300 it is still a very good lens. I would be first on the block for the 24-300 if it ever gets released.


----------

