# No compact 'standard' L zoom?



## pharp (Sep 26, 2012)

With the announcement by Canon of the 6D, it appears that they've at least acknowledged (are hoping) that there is a (big?) market for a FF camera, but in a smaller, lighter package. So, wheres the lens to go with it? There are currrently only 3 [out of 10] FF standard zoom lenses. Of the two L offerings, the 24-70 is by all accounts very good, but quite pricey and still not light [the brickette], the 24-105 is also pretty good, but still looks large on the 6D, especially as a walk around zoom. Canon makes *FIVE * versions of the 70-200!!! Why not something like a lighter, more moderately priced 24-70L /4? 

and how about 35/2L and 24/2 or 2.8L


----------



## Steve Campbell (Sep 27, 2012)

Actually, Canon has five versions of the 70-200, but I believe they are currently manufacturing only three of them. I don't believe the 70-200 2.8 non IS or the 70-200 IS version I are in production anymore. The 24-105 is not too large or heavy and is a great all round lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2012)

Cheap, mediocre optics can be small and light. If you want good optical quality, you generally need more and often larger elements, and that means a larger, heavier lens. If you want a light general purpose zoom lens, pick up a used 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.


----------



## Aaron78 (Sep 27, 2012)

Constant apetured lenses (24-105 and 24-70) are just larger and heavier than a variable apetured lens because of the glass involved. A 28-135 will be smaller and lighter, so maybe look there. My 70-200 2.8L IS II is my walk around zoom....


----------



## crasher8 (Sep 27, 2012)

Here ya go buudy

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MINT-CANON-AF-EF-24-85mm-3-5-4-5-USM-67mm-JAPAN-MADE-LENS-/230857110533?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item35c027f405


----------



## señor Steve (Sep 27, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Cheap, mediocre optics can be small and light. If you want good optical quality, you generally need more and often larger elements, and that means a larger, heavier lens. If you want a light general purpose zoom lens, pick up a used 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.



...or of fixed focal length or diffractive optics or aps-c. Always a compromise right?


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 27, 2012)

The 24-105 is a very handy lens. Doesn't even feel like its there, especially if you have used a 24 or 28-70 2.8L. Give it a shot I think you'll like it.

-Brian


----------



## FunkyD3121 (Sep 27, 2012)

I'd have to agree with Brian - I have had the 24-105 since 2007 & it practically stays on my 50D. Love that lens!


----------



## vlim (Sep 27, 2012)

Have you think about the 70-300 F/4-5.6 L IS ?


----------



## crasher8 (Sep 27, 2012)

Pancake and sneakers?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> Pancake and sneakers?



Doesn't sound very appetizing...


----------



## MK5GTI (Sep 27, 2012)

didn't even know there is a Canon 24-85 variable lens. must be old? how does it perform?

but the 24-85 Nikkor that comes with the D600 Kit is very compact, not tooo heavy as well.

i sure hope Canon can bring us some cheaper alternatives. maybe 24-85 F2.8-4 ? just like how Fuji "kit lens" has 2.8-4 on their 18-55.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2012)

MK5GTI said:


> didn't even know there is a Canon 24-85 variable lens. must be old? how does it perform?



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-85mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 27, 2012)

I have this Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II. A great little lens, from the old days. It is a crunchy old design but optically quite good, and is still a fun small (read: tiny!) zoom option on FF  Don't use it much though :

Ø70mm x 76.5mm, 285 grams.


----------



## preppyak (Sep 27, 2012)

mrsfotografie said:


> I have this Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II. A great little lens, from the old days. It is a crunchy old design but optically quite good, and is still a fun small (read: tiny!) zoom option on FF  Don't use it much though :


Yeah, I have a 28-80 that comes from the film days and optically its ok on APS-C, but it would fall apart on full-frame. But, since I use it in conditions where I wouldn't want to break/scratch my good lenses, I'm fine with the compromise

The real answer is the 28-135, but optically that is a compromise as well. And Canon already makes a 35/2 and 24/2.8 (in both IS and non-IS), no need for an L to double the price for no reason


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 27, 2012)

I had a 28-135 but it wasn't too great. Eventually the wobbly lens barrel put me off. 

The EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II in action. I like the colors (shot in neutral, AWB).


----------



## Seanlucky (Sep 27, 2012)

I actually used to own the 24-85 lens, and thought it was a great little guy! After I found I wasn't using it that much I ended up giving it to a friend who had picked up a used 40D and had no glass. Since then I bought a 28-105 variable lens and it's a fantastic walk around! Fits super nicely on my 5DII and for a general walk around lens I find the optical quality perfectly acceptable. Would I use it in the studio? Hell no, hand me the L primes in that situation, those are the times where I'm demanding the absolute best out of everything I'm using. But as a, "tourist," lens it works great.


----------



## Halfrack (Sep 27, 2012)

I think the OP has an unrealistic expectation that an L lens should be compromised. The moment you say "L" in Canonspeak, double the price, but expect a much higher build quality, and a long life of taking photos. At the same time, you're spending $2100 on the disposable half of a camera. The 24-105L is the perfect lens to butt up against a FF body on the cheap. 

Don't want to spend L money - the 28-135 is the only other match up with current glass.

This is partly due to the last 5-6 years being all about the digital cameras, and APS-C has been like 90% of the cameras sold. The 10% buying a 5d/1ds were buying the high end lenses only, so why would Canon develop anything that's FF, yet 'cheap'. The 28-135 came out in 1998, so for it to have lasted it was the 'compromise'.

Hope that the new push for FF will encourage Canon to come out with a few more designs quickly, but don't hold your breath.


----------



## pharp (Sep 27, 2012)

Interesting discussion, but ... I reject out of hand the notion that L glass [better build, weather sealed] have to necessarily be twice as much (especially since many have plastic bodies now) - e.g. 17-40, 70-200 f/4 non IS are both quite reasonable - cheaper than many EF-S lenses. It certainly wouldn't be a 'waste' to have a 35mm f/2 L or 28 f/2 L I don't think many folks really care about IS on such a lens, but would like weather sealing. I still contend that there is a market for some smaller, lighter L glass. Maybe I'm wrong and Canon may not make these, but they did make the 40mm pancake - why? Was anyone clamoring for this? Good IQ, but I've seen it on a 1D - and it looks silly.


----------



## preppyak (Sep 27, 2012)

pharp said:


> Interesting discussion, but ... I reject out of hand the notion that L glass [better build, weather sealed] have to necessarily be twice as much - e.g. 17-40, 70-200 f/4 non IS are both quite reasonable - *cheaper than many EF-S lenses. *


Actually, if you are going by retail price, only the 17-55 is more expensive than the 17-40. The 17-40 and 10-22 are basically the same. The 70-200 is cheaper because its 13 years old and got updated with IS in 2006.

New L glass is necessarily twice the price (or, at least a 50% premium). Old L glass might not be, but that is usually specifically because its a popular model with many copies out there. Even when Canon has updated older non-L glass, prices have gone up quite a bit with the addition of IS. Or if its cheap (pancake), it sacrifices a stop


----------



## pharp (Sep 27, 2012)

Canon will probably price them that way, but I absolutely, positively disagree that they have to be.


----------



## preppyak (Sep 27, 2012)

pharp said:


> Canon will probably price them that way, but I absolutely, positively disagree that they have to be.


Oh yeah, they don't have to be. Especially when many of the lenses arent using larger glass, and most of the improvements are R&D used over a wide swath of lenses. But it is the trend, sadly.


----------



## dstppy (Sep 27, 2012)

Are we talking about price or size here? 

I can think of 4 EF-S lenses are are 'almost, but not quite L' . . . but they're priced that way too. 

For pricing, as a lot of people here mention, it's partially WHEN something was built. 

If you're talking price, you get what you pay for . . . I mean when you pay to have a zoom (vs a prime) then at the same price, the primes tend to be better built.

Notice how so many people just fell in love with the 40?


----------



## pharp (Sep 27, 2012)

dstppy said:


> Are we talking about price or size here?
> 
> I can think of 4 EF-S lenses are are 'almost, but not quite L' . . . but they're priced that way too.
> 
> ...



Size/weight and price [not so much]. My assumption is that many folks have migrated to the Sony NEX or MFT - many as second systems - primarily because of size/weight. Right? I'm also assuming that its at least a factor for standard DSLR users when deciding which camera to take out for the day. I'll assume thats why Canon made the 6D the way they did. My gut says that a smaller, lighter, probably slower - and presumably somewhat cheaper L zoom would sell well. I should think Canon would like that as well - there has to be more profit in these. I could be wrong. 

To your other point - I really don't understand the 40 at all.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 27, 2012)

The 40 is essentially weightless and is sharper and smaller than either of the 'budget' 50 offerings. (I've never tried the CM, so I'm talking about the 1.8 and 1.4 versions). Yes, it gives up a stop or so, but its more than an even trade for the IQ bump. Especially if you have a newer camera that is clean 2 or 3 stops higher in ISO than the ones from a few years ago.

-Brian


----------



## preppyak (Sep 27, 2012)

pharp said:


> My gut says that a smaller, lighter, probably slower - and presumably somewhat cheaper L zoom would sell well. I should think Canon would like that as well - there has to be more profit in these. I could be wrong.


I dunno, they have the 24-105 f/4L that goes for $1150 retail (but really $800). And there is the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS that goes for $479 retail (but really like $300). So, yes, there is a gap for a $750ish retail zoom, but it would have to essentially be an IS-less version of the 24-105, or a variable aperture.

I guess they could update the 28-135, keep that focal length, give it newer coatings, the newer IS, etc. It'd differentiate it from the 24-105 enough, but I'm not sure what the motivation would be. Sort of like looking for a problem that doesn't exist; since someone paying $2000 for their camera shouldn't be skimping on glass, and an APS-C user wouldn't have any use for that focal range. They'd get the 15-85 if they wanted the APS-C equivalent.


----------



## KyleSTL (Sep 27, 2012)

Halfrack said:


> Hope that the new push for FF will encourage Canon to come out with a few more designs quickly, but don't hold your breath.


I could definitely see Canon coming out with a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 IS USM in the near (within 12 months for announcement) future to match what Nikon is offering. Development of reasonable build quality, affordable FF zooms has completely died since 1998 (with the exception of 28-105mm II in 2000). Timeline of metal-mount non-L zooms:

Wide angle:
20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1993)

Normal:
28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II (1988)
35-70mm f/3.5-4.5A (1988)
35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 (1988)
35-135mm f/4-5.6 USM (1990)
28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 I USM (1991)
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1992)
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1996)
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (1998)
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM (2000)

Tele:
50-200mm f/3.5-4.5 (1987)
70-210mm f/4 (1987)
100-300mm f/5.6 (1987)
100-200mm f/4.5A (1988)
70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (1990)
100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM (1990)
75-300mm f/4-5.6 I/USM (1991), II/USM (1995), III/USM (1999) - non-Ring-type USM
75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (1995) - non-Ring-type USM
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (2005)

All-In-One:
28-200mm f/3.5-5.6	I/USM (2000) - non-Ring-type USM

Not everyone interested in a 6D (when it finally comes out) will be interested in spending $450 for the OK-but-old 28-135mm or $800 for the 24-105mm ($950 un-kitted). There is definitely room in there for a $400-600 modern (latest IS version, ring-USM) normal zoom and a wide zoom cheaper than 17-40mm (maybe 18-35mm?)with at least ring USM (if not IS aswell).


----------



## Brymills (Sep 27, 2012)

Nothing interests me less than another average zoom lens that doesn't have a constant aperture.....  If you're spending that much on a body, why compromise on a crappy lens? Or... why buy thebody if you don't buy the lenses to make the best use of it?


----------



## dhofmann (Sep 27, 2012)

Brymills said:


> Nothing interests me less than another average zoom lens that doesn't have a constant aperture.....  If you're spending that much on a body, why compromise on a crappy lens?


Why would the lack of constant aperture make a lens crappy? Are the 100-400 and 70-300L lenses crappy?


----------



## Halfrack (Sep 27, 2012)

If they're going to do a non-L lens, would they do it as an USM or a STM instead?? If they're going to push video AF, they're really lacking other than the kit lens and the 40 (which I LOVE!)


----------



## Brymills (Sep 27, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> Brymills said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing interests me less than another average zoom lens that doesn't have a constant aperture.....  If you're spending that much on a body, why compromise on a crappy lens?
> ...



I'd sooner have primes to cover the 300 and 400 focal lengths.


----------



## preppyak (Sep 27, 2012)

Halfrack said:


> If they're going to do a non-L lens, would they do it as an USM or a STM instead?? If they're going to push video AF, they're really lacking other than the kit lens and the 40 (which I LOVE!)


Well, a full-frame kit lens wouldn't need STM, as it wouldn't work for video AF for the 6D and 5dIII, as neither has the sensor that utilizes it. 



KyleSTL said:


> I could definitely see Canon coming out with a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 IS USM in the near (within 12 months for announcement) future to match what Nikon is offering.


Yeah, I guess I could see it, I'm just not sure there is a strong push there. Maybe once the 6D is out and there are a lot of people put off by upgrading both glass and body to the tune of nearly $3k.

But if you think of what Canon has updated, they aren't really focusing on the budget end of full-frame in terms of lenses. And I can't see a 24-85 being popular in APS-C over the 15-85 for the same price. Limits the sales potential


----------



## DavidGMiles (Sep 27, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> Brymills said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing interests me less than another average zoom lens that doesn't have a constant aperture.....  If you're spending that much on a body, why compromise on a crappy lens?
> ...


The 100 - 400 is certainly a dated design - the 70 - 300 is cracking though and well worth the money ... evidenced below ...


----------



## pwp (Sep 27, 2012)

To the OP, the L24-105 f/4is is the answer. It weighs a lot less than the 24-70 f/2.8MkI and there are a pages of good reasons why this is one of the most highly and often recommended lenses in the Canon L range. It's light for what it does, it's sharp wide open, has IS and is just darn useful! Mine is way better overall than any of the four 24-70 f/2.8 MkI zooms I've had.

-PW


----------



## tomscott (Sep 28, 2012)

If your going full frame why would you compromise on glass?? The whole point of FF is that it offers better quality but only when lenses resolve that detail.

Your better off buying a more compact camera with and APC sensor like a mirrorless.


----------



## dhofmann (Sep 28, 2012)

tomscott said:


> The whole point of FF is that it offers better quality but only when lenses resolve that detail.



Do lenses with smaller apertures resolve less detail? Or lenses with variable apertures?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 28, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> Brymills said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing interests me less than another average zoom lens that doesn't have a constant aperture.....  If you're spending that much on a body, why compromise on a crappy lens?
> ...



I'll chime in here, I guess it's convenience when shooting with a constant (stopped down) aperture and need some light. I don't mind an aperture range from f/3.5-4.5. You can stop that down to f/5.6 for the entire range for instance and still have a reasonably wide aperture. I usually do the same with an f/4 lens. A short zoom that ends in f/5.6 is not fun when struggling for light as that would result in f/8 to or so to get optimum sharpness especially with a cheapie. 

Of course this all assumes that you need to stop down some for best sharpness as is the case with most zoom lenses. and there are a very few exceptions.

I love my 100-400 but almost always use it with apertures stopped down to f/6.3 at least.


----------

