# New Kit Lens Coming for EOS 5D Mark IV [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 8, 2016)

```
<p>We’re told that a new kit lens will be coming with the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV in August. It will basically be a full frame version of the EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (nano USM) and will likely be compatible with the Power Zoom Adaptor PZ-E1. The lens may have appeared in a <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/first-eos-5d-mark-iv-leak/">post from earlier today</a>.</p>
<p>We don’t know the focal length at the moment, but we should find out soon.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
<p><strong>*UPDATE*</strong></p>
<p>The new kit lens will in fact be an L lens with IS, likely a <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/new-ef-24-105-f4l-is-replacement-coming-with-5d-mark-iv-cr3/">replacement for the EF 24-105 f/4L IS</a>.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 8, 2016)

There already is a cheap 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, what would be the point of another cheapo kit lens?


----------



## kphoto99 (Jun 8, 2016)

A 28-216 of the same optical quality as the 18-135 STM would be welcomed by a lot of people.


----------



## jebrady03 (Jun 8, 2016)

Let the lens-wishlists.... 

BEGIN!


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 8, 2016)

I doubt this is correct. AFAIK the kit lens was the 24-105L

Non L series with a 5D4?


----------



## lastcoyote (Jun 8, 2016)

wockawocka said:


> I doubt this is correct. AFAIK the kit lens was the 24-105L
> 
> Non L series with a 5D4?



Yep that was my immediate thought too.
Non L kit lens, doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## Sharlin (Jun 8, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> There already is a cheap 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, what would be the point of another cheapo kit lens?



Well, there was also an EF-S 18-135 IS STM which was recently replaced by the nUSM, power-zoom-supporting version. No reason to think Canon won't do the same with the EF equivalent, seeing that nUSM seems to be quite superior to STM. And the new lens may well be longer than 105mm in the long end. The 28-135mm is 18 years old...


----------



## LDS (Jun 8, 2016)

dilbert said:


> What an idiot I was spending so much money on this kit.



Surely one who buys such a camera with any subpar lens for it - just looking at the zoom range, for example - is an idiot. Idiots with deep pockets are good for sellers, thereby they have to account for them too...


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2016)

wockawocka said:


> I doubt this is correct. AFAIK the kit lens was the 24-105L
> 
> Non L series with a 5D4?



+1. This would also represent a non constant-max-aperture zoom for a 5D4 kit lens. Not buying it.

A non-L / variable-max-aperture kit lens with a 7.5x zoom makes 1000% more sense for the 6D2 and not the 5D4.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2016)

LDS said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiot I was spending so much money on this kit.
> ...



For every five people that roll their eyes at a 28-300L refresh, there's one person who gets really excited about it. Because peoples' needs vary.

I agree, a 7.5x kit FF zoom seems ridiculous (especially after they moved the 24-105L downmarket to that cheaper / non-L / STM version), but someone would want that lens -- perhaps 7D2 owners moving up to FF who love their current 18-135.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's not entirely impossible. I just think if there's a place for a high-FL-multiple zoom with variable max aperture as a kit lens, surely the 6D2 warrants it more than the 5D4. I would have thought that the 24-70 f/4L IS would be the 5D4 kit zoom.

- A


----------



## weixing (Jun 8, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt this is correct. AFAIK the kit lens was the 24-105L
> ...


Hi,
Why not as long as the price of the kit is significantly lower than a L lens kit. If the optical quality is near L lens, I don't see why not. May be there will be 2 kits available: one with L lens for still photographer and one with this kit lens for videographer.

Have a nice day.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2016)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> Why not as long as the price of the kit is significantly lower than a L lens kit. If the optical quality is near L lens, I don't see why not. May be there will be 2 kits available: one with L lens for still photographer and one with this kit lens for videographer.
> 
> Have a nice day.



Sure, the price would be lower with a less expensive lens, but Canon typically doesn't go nuts with options here. There will likely be a body-only and a body + kit lens. I don't see them offering eighteen flavors to people. They'll let B&H, Adorama, Amazon, etc. kit items independently for the odd combinations.

My recommendation:

6D2 + 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM (or this new variable max aperture lens being discussed)

5D4 + 24-70 f/4L IS USM

- A


----------



## gmon750 (Jun 8, 2016)

I'm not sure what the hate is for the 24-105 lens. I got that lens when I bought my 5DM3 and used it solidly for a year, which then was replaced by the 24-70 and some fast primes. It's a great all-around lens. Not the sharpest when compared to lenses costing twice as much, but still a great lens. Take a chill-pill guys. I'd gladly recommend that lens for first-time buyers looking to get any FF Canon dSLR, even the 5Dm?.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 8, 2016)

gmon750 said:


> I'm not sure what the hate is for the 24-105 lens. I got that lens when I bought my 5DM3 and used it solidly for a year, which then was replaced by the 24-70 and some fast primes. It's a great all-around lens. Not the sharpest when compared to lenses costing twice as much, but still a great lens. Take a chill-pill guys. I'd gladly recommend that lens for first-time buyers looking to get any FF Canon dSLR, even the 5Dm?.



It could use an IS refresh to be up to par with recent generation L lens which have IS, but, otherwise, you are right. Can't stand the idea of no constant aperture, L or not. Ok--I settled for it on the 100-400, but the only other option in my price range was the prime 400mm 5.6.

Body only for many if this depressing [CR2] is true.

Like buying a new BMW and putting no-name retreads on it.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 8, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> There already is a cheap 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, what would be the point of another cheapo kit lens?



To use the new nano USM along with the power zoom attachment.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 8, 2016)

It makes sense to me, with dual pixel AF, a new lens that has smooth power zoom for video makers will be in demand.

Certainly, its not for everyone, but some will definitely want it.

I have not bought a DSLR with kit lens since my new 40D many years ago, and I sold that 28-135 immediately.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 8, 2016)

Well surely those at the upper end, pros or enthusiasts, are coming from another Canon body and so will have lenses (unless they're all EF-S, in which case even a non-L new EF might be good enough for them), and so won't buy the kit. Otherwise, it's (somewhat wealthy) beginners - surely a fairly restricted number, starting out with a 5D series, but they'll probably want flexibility above all else. Just a thought.


----------



## mrzero (Jun 8, 2016)

If it is a true mirror of the 18-135, it would be a 28-216mm or thereabouts. I would love something like that and it fits with the other rumor of a full-frame superzoom. Of course, I'd rather it start around 24mm, and I think many would agree with that. Many would also like a constant aperture. 

However, from our past experiences with Canon, they will start a little smaller, so maybe a 28-135 or a 24-105 replacement here, specifically non-L and variable aperture. Either way, those would be great ranges and work well with the hopefully DPAF full-frame sensor that will be included in the next 5D and 6D models. 

I don't see any reason that Canon couldn't go non-L on a kit zoom with the next 5D. It lowers the barrier to entry if this is a buyer's first full-frame camera and lens. Buyers who don't want the lens will go body-only anyway. In fact, if Canon was really aggressive, they'd bundle the superzoom AND the power zoom attachment with the body, just to get more of them out there and drive up the interest. I do agree, though, that this option sounds more suited to a 6DII than to a 5DIV, but what the heck do I know.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 8, 2016)

YES, YES, YES. Thank you innovative Canon! More stupid darko-low quality kit lenses is what we want and need. There are not enough out there yet. Please, please please innovative number 1 leading imaging company Canon, give as a 2016 version of the EF 28-80/3.5-6.3 ... we have been waiting sooo long for it! 

stupid Canon.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jun 8, 2016)

gmon750 said:


> I'm not sure what the hate is for the 24-105 lens. I got that lens when I bought my 5DM3 and used it solidly for a year, which then was replaced by the 24-70 and some fast primes. It's a great all-around lens. Not the sharpest when compared to lenses costing twice as much, but still a great lens. Take a chill-pill guys. I'd gladly recommend that lens for first-time buyers looking to get any FF Canon dSLR, even the 5Dm?.



I've had the 24-105L for many years and take it on all shoots. I usually have it on the 5D III, but also the 5DS. While not the best lens in the world, it's a good performer. I think it's a great choice for a kit lens.

This crop from the 5DS holds up pretty well...



Canon 5DS / 24-105L Test / Bodie screen shot © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 8, 2016)

24-200mm full frame lens - yes please !

Image quality of the 24-70mm f4 - hyperventilating 

In a package the size and weight of a 24-70mm f4 - show me where to order !

Now, can we have the 50mm IS next please !


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2016)

gmon750 said:


> I'm not sure what the hate is for the 24-105 lens. I got that lens when I bought my 5DM3 and used it solidly for a year, which then was replaced by the 24-70 and some fast primes. It's a great all-around lens. Not the sharpest when compared to lenses costing twice as much, but still a great lens. Take a chill-pill guys. I'd gladly recommend that lens for first-time buyers looking to get any FF Canon dSLR, even the 5Dm?.



There's no hate for the 24-105 lens, but people who just ponied up $3500 for a FF rig probably aren't going to slap a 4.5x zoom on it when there are sharper options out there, that's all. 

And Canon has recognized this. They've moved the 24-105L downmarket to a plasticky / STM / Non-L / variable aperture lens, and I think that was wise.

- A


----------



## LDS (Jun 8, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> For every five people that roll their eyes at a 28-300L refresh, there's one person who gets really excited about it. Because peoples' needs vary.



I'm not saying a bigger zoom range is bad - I was talking about looking for it just because "bigger is always better" and feeling diminished if your camera comes with a good 24-105/4 instead of a bad 14-600/11-32.

IMHO a 5D should be sold body only, but I understand Canon needs a kit to make it more appealing, after more sales are better, and Canon rightly doesn't care who and why buys its camera. I too was a bit surprised of the lens probably chosen for it, but Canon may have established that's what is needed. I would still be surprised if most kit buyers in this price/features range just look for a "big zoom" instead of a good lens to begin with - but one able to exploit the camera performance.

The reason may be video? There are so many prospect buyers for a basic video-oriented kit at 5D prices?


----------



## slclick (Jun 8, 2016)

24-105L Mk2 would be welcomed. The OP said nothing of whether it was of L designation or not. Maybe a thin coat of gunk.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2016)

slclick said:


> 24-105L Mk2 would be welcomed. The OP said nothing of whether it was of L designation or not. Maybe a thin coat of gunk.



The only variable max aperture L lenses currently sold are (a) white, (b) run out to 300mm+ and (c) cost well over $1,000. None of that says 'kit' to me.

All UWA / WA / Standard L zooms are fixed max aperture to my knowledge. So this would be a first if the rumor is correct.

So I read variable max aperture as 'non-L' to me. Canon may surprise us, though...

- A


----------



## jebrady03 (Jun 8, 2016)

I honestly don't understand video-centric zoom lenses with variable apertures. To me, that type of lens just SCREAMS to be a fixed aperture lens.


----------



## Maui5150 (Jun 8, 2016)

Only one real Kit lens, 

70-200

Almost everyone basically gets it, so why not a Kit Lens that is usable compared to one on the side


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> I honestly don't understand video-centric zoom lenses with variable apertures. To me, that type of lens just SCREAMS to be a fixed aperture lens.



It's a kit lens for *all* purposes, not just video. Some stills folks might appreciate the weight/size/cost savings a non-fixed max aperture brings.

- A


----------



## slclick (Jun 8, 2016)

It's a CR2 so variable is variable. Could be an L. Could be a opinion, which we know some are very robust.


----------



## dak723 (Jun 9, 2016)

I think Canon understands that the vast majority (maybe 90% or more?) of folks buying the 5D IV already have numerous L lenses. They are upgrading from previous 5D versions or the 6D, so they already own the 24-70 L or 24-105 L or some other L lens. These folks will buy the body only version of the 5D IV.

So, why would someone buy the 5D with a kit lens? they might if:

It was a new lens with a wider telephoto range.
It was a lens that was much better suited for video.

So, Canon would not be stupid to offer such a kit lens. It might entice some buyers to get the kit package rather than buying the body only.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 9, 2016)

I take it that power zoom is meant to make the zoom smooth and consistent. It sounds like a good movie lens. Not everyone who would buy a 5D4 has a convenient movie-friendly lens. Also - quality - you don't need the level of resolution for video as for stills photography. Uniformity - also good for the wide-range zoom. 

Me, I am still using the 6D for stills with vintage lenses.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 9, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> It makes sense to me, with dual pixel AF, a new lens that has smooth power zoom for video makers will be in demand.
> 
> Certainly, its not for everyone, but some will definitely want it.
> 
> *I have not bought a DSLR with kit lens since my* new 40D many years ago, and I sold that 28-135 immediately.


I have not bought a DSLR with kit lens since my 1100D (18-55mm & 75-300mm)

I quickly got the stellar 100mm non-L macro and also pre-ordered the 40mm STM. As a rsult when I borrowed my uncle's 24-105L a couple of months later I was quite underwhelmed so I decided instead to get the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC when I went full frame. It cost about the same as the Canon FF-kit. It meant that I sacrificed the 70-105mm range but gained f/2.8. I can easily work around 105mm (take a step forward and/or crop) but I want that darn f/2.8... YMMV #nostalgia


----------



## douglaurent (Jun 9, 2016)

All Canon EF mount lenses will be obsolete (and I write this owning 100+x EF mount lenses), if Canon wants to compete with the mirrorless A7 and future A9 series of Sony by using a new mount (or never release any pro mirrorless camera). 

I bought the 1DX2, and my last DSLR I will ever buy is one 5D4 for nostalgic reasons. But working with the advantages of mirrorless cameras, I can clearly see that DSLRs are a dead system in the future with too many workflow handicaps.

I really hope that Canon does find a solution for pro large sensor camers with the existing EF mount, so all the lenses still can be used. Nobody needs a third Canon mount.

Canon also needs to understand that the relaxed, decade-long domination of the pro market together with Nikon is over and they need to react faster. Once Sony comes out with an A9 at Photokina that includes all missing features of DSLRs, there are hardly any reasons to buy more Canon products.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > *I have not bought a DSLR with kit lens since my* new 40D many years ago, and I sold that 28-135 immediately.
> ...



My only dSLR kit lens was the 24-105/4L bought with a 5DII. My first dSLR was a T1i, and I bought the 17-55/2.8 with it.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 9, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> All Canon EF mount lenses will be obsolete (and I write this owning 100+x EF mount lenses), if Canon wants to compete with the mirrorless A7 and future A9 series of Sony by using a new mount (or never release any pro mirrorless camera).
> 
> I bought the 1DX2, and my last DSLR I will ever buy is one 5D4 for nostalgic reasons. But working with the advantages of mirrorless cameras, I can clearly see that DSLRs are a dead system in the future with too many workflow handicaps.
> 
> ...



Yawn.


----------



## aceflibble (Jun 9, 2016)

The existing 24-105 f/4L was marked as discontinued in a few UK stores, last year. Could be it was just a temporary halt to production, maybe it means that version isn't being made any more and all stock since has been the last of the line?
It makes sense to get a new kit lens out, because the existing 24-105 is beaten by Sigma's version in every regard, and it really doesn't hold up well on neweer 5D cameras. It was a great lens when it came along with the first 5D, but that was a 12.5mp sensor; the larger sensors have later cameras have always shown up the 24-105's weakness. Given how much better top-end 'kit lenses' have become for other manufacturers—take a look at the Fuji 18-55, for instance—it is about time Canon caught up with a better kit lens for their higher-end bodies.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 9, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> There's no hate for the 24-105 lens, but people who just ponied up $3500 for a FF rig probably aren't going to slap a 4.5x zoom on it when there are sharper options out there, that's all.
> 
> And Canon has recognized this. They've moved the 24-105L downmarket to a plasticky / STM / Non-L / variable aperture lens, and I think that was wise.
> 
> - A



Perhaps the new lens is actually meant for the rumored 6D II?


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 9, 2016)

I wondered why the 5D3 did not come in a kit with the 24-70F2.8..... Now that would be a great kit lens


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 9, 2016)

The Nano-USM in the 18-135mm was very impressive; the optics? Not so much. I would hope that a full frame lens would have a little more attention to optical upgrades, but the Nano USM is the real deal - a fantastic bridge between USM and STM. Still not crazy about MF by wire, but it does work better than the STM versions.


----------



## gsealy (Jun 9, 2016)

To me, a kit lens is oriented to the first time buyer of the full frame 5Dx camera. The buyer needs to have something to shoot pictures with. So therefore, it seems to me that it should be a lens that is able to be used in a wide variety of situations. The 18-135mm range is not too bad. But I would think it could even be expanded a bit to 18-200mm. Now the purchaser can shoot landscapes, as well as zoom into capture wildlife, and so on. They can do portraits too. After the initial purchase, then the buyer is likely to do what everybody does: improve the quality of the lens they have by purchasing more lenses. This what we do.  You can't help it once you are hooked.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 9, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



I like your choices. 

I'm wondering about how a Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM might do as a kit choice or even a 24-70 f/2.8L II? I know they are pricier, but it might be nice for those who want to start out with a high end lens for a little discount.

But, I guess a person could just buy the body and the lens separately.


----------



## Woody (Jun 9, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> For every five people that roll their eyes at a 28-300L refresh, there's one person who gets really excited about it. Because peoples' needs vary.



I am one of those weirdos keen on Canon's equivalent of the Tamron 28-200 f/3.8-5.6 (471 g) or 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 lens (540 g).


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 9, 2016)

scyrene said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > All Canon EF mount lenses will be obsolete (and I write this owning 100+x EF mount lenses), if Canon wants to compete with the mirrorless A7 and future A9 series of Sony by using a new mount (or never release any pro mirrorless camera).
> ...


 : : : :


----------



## Woody (Jun 9, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Once Sony comes out with an A9 at Photokina that includes all missing features of DSLRs, there are hardly any reasons to buy more Canon products.



Sorry to burst your bubble, but Sony plans to terminate the A mount soon.

Also, in case you are not aware, Sony's plans to launch new cameras at Photokina have been jeopardized by the recent Kyushu earthquake.

Lastly, Sony is doing VERY poorly this year in the MILC market in home-ground Japan.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> ...Canon also needs to understand that the relaxed, decade-long domination of the pro market together with Nikon is over and they need to react faster.



Your math is a bit wrong. Try 50-year-long domination. Both companies have weathered challenges far greater than those they are presented with today and they've done so year-in and year-out for at least 5 decades. If you'd like to bet against Canon and Nikon I'd be willing to take that wager.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2016)

I'm sticking with the same prediction I've had for about a year now:

Canon needs to reduce the supply of 24-105 "L" lenses available in white box form.

The 24-105 "L" is supposed to sell for more than the 24-70 f4 lens, but it is in such abundant supply that it sells for far less on the street.

The only way to correct that is to stop selling it as part of a kit and begin to dry up the supply. So, they will offer the 24-70 f4 (the f 2.8 is too expensive to offer as a kit) as an option and probably another option, such as the one that is the subject of this rumor.

We won't see a 24-105 replacement until the current model has been "de-kitted" for a year or two. It would just create too much sticker shock for a 24-105 "L" II to list at $1,400 or so when the original is still selling for around $600.


----------



## dslrdummy (Jun 9, 2016)

Got the 24-105 with my 5Dc and still have it. Was usable on the 5Diii but aren't game to try it on the 1DXii.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

unfocused said:


> I'm sticking with the same prediction I've had for about a year now:
> 
> Canon needs to reduce the supply of 24-105 "L" lenses available in white box form.
> 
> ...



Agree with most of what you said except for the _"The 24-105 "L" is supposed to sell for more than the 24-70 f4 lens, but it is in such abundant supply that it sells for far less on the street." 
_
The 24-105L currently only has two advantages over the 24-70 f/4L IS: it shoots from 71-105 and doubles as a billy club for personal defense. Original asking price in 2005 = $1,249. (And yes, flooding the market with it as a kit offering murdered its price point.)

The 24-70 f/4L IS is sharper, shorter length, lighter weight, and has an very useful autofocusing macro mode at 0.7x. Original asking price in 2012 = $1,499.

I realize there's (a) an age delta between the two and (b) the $1,499 for the 24-70 f/4L IS was an instant disaster that settled around $1,100 shortly after launch. But I'm hard pressed to call the 24-105 as being a clear cut higher price point product. A new far better 24-105L II would have to materialize to command that pricier ($1250-1500) space above the 24-70 f/4L.

- A


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 9, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> All Canon EF mount lenses will be obsolete (and I write this owning 100+x EF mount lenses),


You own one hundred EF-mount lenses? Never sold any?



> if Canon wants to compete with the mirrorless A7 and future A9 series of Sony


So far, Sony has been feebly unable to compete with Canon, even with their very good sensors. What magic will change that?



> my last DSLR I will ever buy is one 5D4 for nostalgic reasons.


Buying a $3,000+ DSLR for nostalgic reasons means you have a lot more money than most pro/prosumer camera buyers.



> working with the advantages of mirrorless cameras, I can clearly see that DSLRs are a dead system in the future with too many workflow handicaps.


It's not dead, it's resting...pining for the fjords. But seriously, everyone knows that mirrorless will "eventually" overcome its viewfinder, AF and battery problems; the question is whether it's 2 years, 5 years, 10 years or 20 years. I've given up trying to predict.



> there are hardly any reasons to buy more Canon products.


Reports of the DSLR's impending death are greatly exaggerated.


----------



## Roo (Jun 9, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> I wondered why the 5D3 did not come in a kit with the 24-70F2.8..... Now that would be a great kit lens



In Oz it does. Here we can choose 5D3 in the Premium kit (24-105L) or in the Professional kit (24-70 2.8L II)


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 9, 2016)

As an event and wedding photographer that uses a 70d with the 18-135 kit lens, and for HD video, it does a good job.
I've been eyeing off the new version of this lens with the power zoom, and I will get a 5d4 (or a 1dx2 if I don't like the 5d4) and seeing as the 5d4 should have 4k video, a big zoom lens with power zoom would tempt me a lot.


----------



## d (Jun 9, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > All Canon EF mount lenses will be obsolete (and I write this owning 100+x EF mount lenses),
> ...



Obviously keeps the lenses around for nostalgic reasons, too! ;D


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 9, 2016)

cr rumour is talking about FF version of 18-135 ... meaning 28-200 + variable aperture = clearly non-L. 
powerzoom means video use mainly. decent enough IQ for 4k video recording should be achievable. stills IQ on 5D IV would be a different level of performance -> L territory ...

in essence something like tamron 28-300/3.5-6.3 VC PZ IF (77mm filter, 540grams, 650 €)
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-28-300mm-f-3-5-6-3-di-vc-pzd-lens-review-26263
or nikon Nikon Objektiv AF-S VR 28-300mm 3.5-5.6G ED (77mm filter, 800 grams, 900 euro)

no idea whether these lenses are selling well and whether the nikon lens was/is offered in official nikon kits with DSLRs (D610. D750) or not.

canon ef 28-200/3.5-5.6 IS STM may really come as kit lens for 6D2, not for 5D4 (as posted by someone before).

personally I've purchased EOS 350D with original version of 18-55 kit lens ... brrr !
and 5D3 with 24-105 L, which i sold unused, to get a better deal on camera.

i would love to get "hi-end kit packages" ... like5DIV or 1DX2 plus any choice of 16-35 L III, 24-70 L II, 70-200 L II, 100-400 L II ... 
1. body + 1 of these lenses = "premium kit" ... 10% price advantage on kit price
2. body + 2 lenses = "premium duopoly" @ 20% off
3. body + 3 lenses = "premium trinity" @30% off
4. body + all 4 = "premium gang of 4" at 40% off

that would be "innovative" from Canon.

and no, i would not expect a kit wurh 10 L lenses to come at 100% off. gg


----------



## stefang (Jun 9, 2016)

What's this obsession with constant aperture? I love my 24-70 F/4, but would love it even more if it was a 24-70 F/2.8-4.0, even if quality dropped a bit at 2.8.
If you want to shoot at F/4, you can simply set the camera to do so. (Heck: it could even be a programmable option to not use a lens below it's highest maximum aperture)


----------



## siegsAR (Jun 9, 2016)

35-120 F4... :


----------



## axtstern (Jun 9, 2016)

First the on topic part:

Canon sells well in China these days. I mean the 5dII and the 5DIIIhave been a big success.
The amateurs scrapping together their money for a Europe or US trip tend to go to a photo dealer and say arm me please. Out they come with a 5DIII and a mounted 24-105L, the original Canon strap proudly arround their neck and a prospectus of all Canon lenses with Jacky Chan on the first page in their hand. There is a reason why Jacky Chan's picture is bigger than that of 50 lenses in the prospectus: No second lens will ever be bought by this customers if not by accident. 

I have not done the complete math on this but building an L bundle that wins every second semi-pro or pro photog in the states versus building a non L bundle that wins every 500th amateur photog in china might surprise a many in rerads to the financial outcome.

Now of topic:

This thread contains an AVTVM contribution with full 'stupid stupid Canon' warpaint on but contrary to a rule I thought to have found no FLAk from Neuro... well times they are changing


----------



## zim (Jun 9, 2016)

So it's going to be a new EF 24-105 f/4L excellent!


----------



## scyrene (Jun 9, 2016)

aceflibble said:


> [...] the existing 24-105 [...] really doesn't hold up well on neweer 5D cameras.



Not sure I agree with that. It produces fine images on the 5Ds, as it did on the 5DIII. It's never going to be stellar, but it's not a bad lens by any means. It's also pretty cheap, and any upgrade is going to be more expensive - that's a pretty important factor to many people.



unfocused said:


> The 24-105 "L" [...] is in such abundant supply that it sells for far less on the street.



Indeed its low market value is why I held on to mine. Or more precisely, its flexibility and performance are more than good enough for the ~£300-400 I might have hoped to get selling it on eBay.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 9, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > All Canon EF mount lenses will be obsolete (and I write this owning 100+x EF mount lenses),
> ...



I think he's trolling. 

When a person talks about how they've just purchased a 1DX Mark II body and are going to buy a 5D Mark IV for nostalgic reasons while at the same time saying how Canon has a dead system... they've been hitting the keg pretty hard.

Owns 100+ (currently) EF mount lenses. I would dearly love to see a photo of that. I'm not sure if I would want to see it so I could commit the sin of envy, or to cry and feel apathy for a fool that is more obsessive compulsive than I am, but with a lot more cash / credit.

Besides, how can one be nostalgic over a camera that hasn't even been released yet? 

Great post Orangutan. Saved me a lot of typing. 

But, I guess he could be a rabid hobbyist. He's surely got me beat in the lens department. However, I have 100+ eneloop batteries and 1000+ matchbooks from dives all over the land. Take that Douglaurent! :


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 9, 2016)

stefang said:


> What's this obsession with constant aperture? I love my 24-70 F/4, but would love it even more if it was a 24-70 F/2.8-4.0, even if quality dropped a bit at 2.8.
> If you want to shoot at F/4, you can simply set the camera to do so. (Heck: it could even be a programmable option to not use a lens below it's highest maximum aperture)



? I'm not sure what you are saying about why people are obsessed with constant aperture. 

A constant aperture lens like the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II can be set from f/2.8 all the way up to f/22. Constant aperture means the lens can maintain the set aperture throughout its zoom range. The aperture does not change as one zooms.

If at 24mm I set aperture at f/2.8 and then I zoom to 70mm because the scene has changed or I wish to adjust composition, the lens maintains the f/2.8 aperture. In this way the lens acts like a prime lens except that it zooms.

I like this because the light gathering ability of the lens doesn't degrade the more I zoom. For a person who shoots in manual mode 99.999% of the time... this is wonderful. I don't have to raise the ISO or shorten the exposure time just because I zoom. When I was obsessed with shooting birds, this was a fantastic thing. 

However, one can still set the aperture anywhere one wants on the scale. It's just that the zoom with a constant aperture is like having a bag full of prime lenses.

Now, my dream is for Canon to come out with zooms that have a constant aperture beginning at f/1.4. Wow! The lenses would be huge, but wow! No more need for primes at all except for weight.

The constant aperture lenses cost more, but I think they are worth every penny. 

Isn't your 24-70 f/4 a constant aperture zoom lens? Yes, but you can stop it down. What you are really saying is that you want an f/2.8 so that you can stop down to f/4. That is already available, at a higher cost... that may be your point. That you would give up the constant aperture for lower cost. F/2.8 costs money. There is no way around that unless you go 3rd party. 

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC USD Lens is available for $1,199 at B&H with the $100 rebate. It has image stabilization (VC) that the Canon doesn't have. Dustin Abbott liked it in his review. He's a trustworthy reviewer.

The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens is available for $749.00 when including the $150.00 instant savings. I have no idea how good it is. If any good at all it seems like a real bargain to me. 

The Canon is spectacular.

Your post confuses me.

Your lens can do exactly what you are wishing for, except it cannot get wider than f/4. Get an f/2.8.


----------



## slclick (Jun 9, 2016)

dilbert said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt this is correct. AFAIK the kit lens was the 24-105L
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2016)

axtstern said:


> This thread contains an AVTVM contribution with full 'stupid stupid Canon' warpaint on but contrary to a rule I thought to have found no FLAk from Neuro... well times they are changing



I guess there just aren't enough Neuros to go around. 

:  :  :


----------



## kphoto99 (Jun 9, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> stefang said:
> 
> 
> > What's this obsession with constant aperture? I love my 24-70 F/4, but would love it even more if it was a 24-70 F/2.8-4.0, even if quality dropped a bit at 2.8.
> ...



What is so hard to understand that a constant aperture lens artificially limits the aperture on the wide end.
Take the 70-200 F4 for example. The size of the front element has to be large enough for F4 at 200mm, the same size front element allows enough light for F1.4 at 70mm. 

Yes I know not everything is a straight forward as this, but I'm sure this lens could have been made to be a F2.8-F4 without any size or weight increase. Same thing applies to all fixed aperture zooms, the wide end has more glass then it is needed.


----------



## stefang (Jun 9, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> stefang said:
> 
> 
> > What's this obsession with constant aperture? I love my 24-70 F/4, but would love it even more if it was a 24-70 F/2.8-4.0, even if quality dropped a bit at 2.8.
> ...


In this thread, I read a number of replies saying that good zooms must be constant aperture. (And of course, that means constant _*max*_ aperture)


> If at 24mm I set aperture at f/2.8 and then I zoom to 70mm because the scene has changed or I wish to adjust composition, the lens maintains the f/2.8 aperture. In this way the lens acts like a prime lens except that it zooms.


Now that's confusing. Zooming is what differentiates a zoom from a prime... :


> I like this because the light gathering ability of the lens doesn't degrade the more I zoom. For a person who shoots in manual mode 99.999% of the time... this is wonderful. I don't have to raise the ISO or shorten the exposure time just because I zoom. When I was obsessed with shooting birds, this was a fantastic thing.


If you shoot manual most of the time, variable aperture isn't an issue at all... Simply choose an aperture that's available throughout the zoom range..


> Your post confuses me.


Dito...


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 9, 2016)

stefang said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > stefang said:
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2016)

kphoto99 said:


> What is so hard to understand that a constant aperture lens artificially limits the aperture on the wide end.
> Take the 70-200 F4 for example. The size of the front element has to be large enough for F4 at 200mm, the same size front element allows enough light for F1.4 at 70mm.
> 
> Yes I know not everything is a straight forward as this, but I'm sure this lens could have been made to be a F2.8-F4 without any size or weight increase. Same thing applies to all fixed aperture zooms, the wide end has more glass then it is needed.



You're right - it's not that stratghtforward. Which would you prefer?


A 24-105mm f/4L IS II with very good wide open IQ across the zoom range
A 24-105mm f/2.8-4L IS with relatively poor IQ at 24-35mm f/2.8 but very good IQ otherwise
A 24-105mm f/2.8-4L IS with very good wide open IQ across the zoom range that was a couple of hundred grams heavier and a couple of hundred $/£/€ more expensive


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 9, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." - 5D Mark-Twain


----------



## kphoto99 (Jun 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > What is so hard to understand that a constant aperture lens artificially limits the aperture on the wide end.
> ...


Obviously if money is no object then the last choice would be it, but between the first 2, I would select second over the first, since I don't loose anything with this choice. I can always stop down to f/4 and have what the fist choice offers.
That is my point, you don't loose anything with variable aperture zoom as long as you accept that the good IQ only happens at the smallest max aperture of the zoom. It is then my decision what aperture to use. I'm already paying the weight penalty for large front element, let me use it if I want it.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> You're right - it's not that stratghtforward. Which would you prefer?
> 
> 
> A 24-105mm f/4L IS II with very good wide open IQ across the zoom range
> ...



Neuro, you left out the 24-105 f/2.8L IS that weights 4 tons and costs a measly $3k, and you left out the 24-120 f/4L IS that is light, inexpensive and pin-sharp at all FLs -- _which we know they can make_. :

- A


----------



## nc0b (Jun 9, 2016)

What would it take for me to decide to replace my 24-105mm L? I shoot a 6D and a 5DsR, and the 24-105 is on one body or the other most of the time. I don't shoot architectural shots, so a few % distortion on one end of the zoom or the other isn't an issue to me. I definitely prefer a constant maximum aperture, and also a lens that doesn't extend as it is zoomed out. 16-35mm f/4 and either 70-200mm f4 or f/2.8 II for example. If a new one was variable aperture, I would not even consider it. If a new one didn't extend in length, I might consider it. Maybe that is impractical over this zoom range. My 100-400mm II has neither of my preferences; it extends and is variable aperture. It is a very nice lens for wildlife, though I prefer the 400 f/5.6 for BIF. Would I spend $1500+ for a new 24-105? Not likely.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

nc0b said:


> What would it take for me to decide to replace my 24-105mm L? I shoot a 6D and a 5DsR, and the 24-105 is on one body or the other most of the time. I don't shoot architectural shots, so a few % distortion on one end of the zoom or the other isn't an issue to me. I definitely prefer a constant maximum aperture, and also a lens that doesn't extend as it is zoomed out. 16-35mm f/4 and either 70-200mm f4 or f/2.8 II for example. If a new one was variable aperture, I would not even consider it. If a new one didn't extend in length, I might consider it. Maybe that is impractical over this zoom range. My 100-400mm II has neither of my preferences; it extends and is variable aperture. It is a very nice lens for wildlife, though I prefer the 400 f/5.6 for BIF. Would I spend $1500+ for a new 24-105? Not likely.



Re: the red comment above: all Canon 24-something zooms change in length. People insist on a staple walkaround lens to have a compact footprint when they stow it away.

So I would be utterly stunned if Canon deployed a standard zoom lens that 'internally zooms' like the landscape or 70-200 lenses. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2016)

nc0b said:


> ...also a lens that doesn't extend as it is zoomed out. 16-35mm f/4 and either 70-200mm f4 or f/2.8 II for example.



Not going to happen. If you want to carry a walkaround lens that's 1.5-2" when not in use than it needs to be, you're certainly in the minority. 

Incidentally, the 16-35mm lenses do change length with zooming, but it's all behind the plane of the filter threads.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> nc0b said:
> 
> 
> > ...also a lens that doesn't extend as it is zoomed out. 16-35mm f/4 and either 70-200mm f4 or f/2.8 II for example.
> ...



Yep, you can play around with it here to see what Neuro means:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=412&LensComp2=0&LensComp=949

(Mouseover the non-hooded MFD / infinity symbols and stare at that front glass element vs. the filter ring.)

So the front element is absolutely moving then you zoom, but critically, those 16-35 lenses don't have the *outer* sliding barrel action going on -- they slide inside of the outer barrel the filter ring is on. That's huge: a filter blocks dust/dirt ingress on the 16-35s, but a filter does nothing to help that outer sliding barrel action of the 24-something zooms.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> o the front element is absolutely moving then you zoom, but critically, those 16-35 lenses don't have the *outer* sliding barrel action going on -- they slide inside of the outer barrel the filter ring is on. That's huge: a filter blocks dust/dirt ingress on the 16-35s, but a filter does nothing to help that outer sliding barrel action of the 24-something zooms.



True, but the outer barrel of the 24-xx zooms has weather sealing, whereas the inner barrel of the 16-35 lenses and the 50/1.2L are not sealed, so those lenses _require_ a front filter to complete the sealing. 

Incidentally, the 16-35 are inner focusing, so lens' inner barrel doesn't move with focusing, but moves with zooming. In the TDP tool you have to compare the W vs T focal length, comparing MFD to infinity at the same FL you don't see the movement. The 50L moves with focusing.


----------



## slclick (Jun 10, 2016)

lock this nonsense.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

slclick said:


> lock this nonsense.



Could you be more specific? We've only had one '1-Post Wonder' give YAPODFC proclamations, and dynamic range is nowhere to be found on this thread.

I say "Let utopia flourish" on this one. 

- A


----------



## slclick (Jun 10, 2016)

Most of us moved on, I understand if it's hard to do but the real CR3 thread on this topic has all those fun attributes we all cherish.


----------



## amfoto1 (Jun 11, 2016)

The 5D Mark IV is supposed to carry on the tradition of being an exceptional video camera...

As such, for a kit lens it will likely get a new version of either the EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS *USM* or an EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM *Mark II*. This will be compatible with the Power Zoom module, that's currently only usable on the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM. Makes sense, for a camera with high hopes for video uses. 

USM lenses weren't ideal for video in the past... however apparently the EF-S 18-135mm is using a new type of USM that's quieter and smoother, yet still gives at least 2X as fast focus as the STM version of that lens.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 11, 2016)

amfoto1 said:


> The 5D Mark IV is supposed to carry on the tradition of being an exceptional video camera...
> 
> As such, for a kit lens it will likely get a new version of either the EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS *USM*



That one is STM.



amfoto1 said:


> however apparently the EF-S 18-135mm is using a new type of USM that's quieter and smoother, yet still gives at least 2X as fast focus as the STM version of that lens.



That one is nano USM.

Both require DPAF. I'm waiting for that one to appear on FF cameras.


----------



## Hardwire (Jun 15, 2016)

"A 24-105mm f/2.8-4L IS with very good wide open IQ across the zoom range that was a couple of hundred grams heavier and a couple of hundred $/£/€ more expensive"

Yes please....I had the original 24-105 when I got the 5dII and loved it as a walk around lens, same on the 5dIII....however when my home was broken into and kit stolen I replaced my glass with a 16-35, 24-70 and a 70-200 all 2.8 and thought I would never look back at the F4 glass.

However reading this news I am now back to thinking that it would make holidays more easy with just the 24-105 in place of taking both the 24-70 and the 70-200 (I also have a 1.4 tc so could almost replace it on that basis)....but I actually want this new lens...strangely.


----------



## slclick (Jun 15, 2016)

amfoto1 said:


> The 5D Mark IV is supposed to carry on the tradition of being an exceptional video camera...
> 
> As such, for a kit lens it will likely get a new version of either the EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS *USM* or an EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM *Mark II*. This will be compatible with the Power Zoom module, that's currently only usable on the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM. Makes sense, for a camera with high hopes for video uses.
> 
> USM lenses weren't ideal for video in the past... however apparently the EF-S 18-135mm is using a new type of USM that's quieter and smoother, yet still gives at least 2X as fast focus as the STM version of that lens.



A non L kit lens for the 5d4 is very questionable. Sure it could be one of many configurations but as the main kit? Bah.....


----------

