The 24-105 f/4 makes a very versatile lens on the 1.3 and FF Canons, especially if f/4 is good. I love shooting the 24-70 on my 1D2, but there are times when the extra length might come in handy.
I'm not willing to trade my 24-70 for one, as I have a use for f/2.8 on occasion, but if I had made a recent conversion, say from film to a 5D, I'd probably consider this lens and a couple of nice primes for a nice, functional setup.
Does anyone else remember that this very lens specification appeared for about a day on Delta International's lens listing? As I recall it was about Dec 01 or Jan 02, just before the 24-70L was officially announced. There was quite a let down when the real lens appeared.
On the other hand, if you ask long enough they sometimes come through. There's still hope for an UW prime.
As you say, I don't think most people would replace the 24-70, there really is no substitute for "lens speed". And, as i said earlier, most of these users already have the 70-200IS, so you really are just getting IS from 40-70 at f4, not accounting for 50 f1.4 or 1.8 lens in most peoples bags....
I see two groups for whom this will be a very tempting lens.
First, the new folks attracted to the 5D. It's a really nice range, matches up well bragging wise with that camera, and if they're putting down money for a 5D they can probably afford it.
The second group are those people like myself who went with the 28-135 because the 24-70 just didn't have enough focal range for event shooting and the 28-135 represented the best of Canon's consumer zooms at the time. This lens on a 1.6x body will give a very nice 38-140 range. Combine that with a 17-40, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 80-200L and I'm a happy camper.
Once they sleep on it, I wouldn't expect too many people to trade their 24-70's for one, but I may be wrong.
cvdunton wrote:
I see two groups for whom this will be a very tempting lens.
First, the new folks attracted to the 5D. It's a really nice range, matches up well bragging wise with that camera, and if they're putting down money for a 5D they can probably afford it.
The second group are those people like myself who went with the 28-135 because the 24-70 just didn't have enough focal range for event shooting and the 28-135 represented the best of Canon's consumer zooms at the time. This lens on a 1.6x body will give a very nice 38-140 range. Combine that with a 17-40, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 80-200L and I'm a happy camper.
Once they sleep on it, I wouldn't expect too many people to trade their 24-70's for one, but I may be wrong.
I totally agree with your analysis.
I will just add that this 24-105 also makes a perfect street photography lens.
The fact that it can appeal to people with different crop factor cameras should make it a big seller. Do you think that should allow Canon to sell it a low price, or in contrary will it make it a high priced lens since they know they will sell it anyway?
What makes more sense in terms of marketing?
christo wrote:
The fact that it can appeal to people with different crop factor cameras should make it a big seller. Do you think that should allow Canon to sell it a low price, or in contrary will it make it a high priced lens since they know they will sell it anyway?
What makes more sense in terms of marketing?
When the 17-40 was introduced, it had a street price of $800 compared to the 16-35 at about $1400. That's more than a 40% reduction. I don't expect as great a reduction this time because the difference in focal length between the 24-70 and the 24-105 is greater and they've added IS. But being only an f4, I expect it to come in well under the $1150 street price of the 24-70. My guess would be about $900 street.
jagsiva wrote:
As you say, I don't think most people would replace the 24-70, there really is no substitute for "lens speed".
I'd think that there is really no substitute for the reduced depth of field that f/2.8 affords, not lens speed. The IS quite handily more than makes up for any differences in 'lens speed'.
I personally would sell my 24-70/2.8L in a heartbeat for this 24-105/4L IS, assuming it is of typical "L" quality and weather-sealed.
Rob Eckert wrote:
It all looks very logical and possible. The 430 EX seems a logical upgrade to the 420 EX. I imagine TTL-II capability is the major upgrade to the 430 EX along with some of the custom features available on the 580 EX. A logical upgrade.
The 1D Mark II N is also a logical upgrade for Canon. Probably 12 megapixel bump up. 1.3 crop (there is nothing wrong with the 1.3 crop) and some other tweaks but nothing major. The 1D Mark II is a solid camera. There is a lot of life left in that puppy's design. IMHO
Rob
Edited by Rob Eckert on Aug 15, 2005 at 09:58 AM GMT...Show more →
ETTL II is a function of the camera body, not the flash.
Jeff wrote:
I'd think that there is really no substitute for the reduced depth of field that f/2.8 affords, not lens speed. The IS quite handily more than makes up for any differences in 'lens speed'.
IS only compensates for hand-shake. You forgot about subject movement.
Dave McGaughey wrote:
IS only compensates for hand-shake. You forgot about subject movement.
I did indeed. Furthermore, this lens would allow you to get subject movement in the image, while preserving the sharpness of non-moving elements (previously only attainable by using a tripod).
second shot is really amazing Jeff. What was the SS on that shot ? Id assume it probably ran a little longer than what the IS should allow ?
Ive tried to obtain results like that with the 17-85, and its one of the reason why I keep that lens even though I own the 17-40, 24-70 etc, for the IS, but I can always only get a slight amount of blur, never the half second or more I find needed
Thanks TBB. I almost want a 20D just so that I could have the 17-85 IS for shots like these.
The second was 1/10th at about 70mm as I recall, the first was 1/30th at 200mm.
As a previous thread discussed a few months ago, it appears that about 1/10th to 1/15th is the limit of IS effectiveness, and based on mine and Peter DeW's experience, it appears to be irrespective of lens focal length, to a certain degree. Thus, with your 17mm, I doubt you'd get too much better than 1/10th, even though the 1/27th plus 3 stops should theoretically be much lower. Once I thought about this, it sort of made sense, as at 1/2-second exposure time the movements in question would be less 'vibrations' (i.e. small-scale) and more large-scale oscillations from your entire body and arms, which I am sure the relatively small IS mechanism is physically incapable of counteracting.
If this lens performs well optically, it will be the best selling L lens in 2006. The more I think about this lens, the more sense it does. I guess there is more thoughts behind the focal lengths than we suspect. On FF it is a very good and convenient range, and on an APS sensor it gets close to a '70-200' like angle of view
And you can make extremely usefull combos with a 5D and a 20D :
5D + 24-105 IS
20D + 70-200 IS
If it's good and the price is not astronomically high, I 'll perhaps trade in my 24-70L for it
Merv Lowe wrote:
Because the CPS site is down I reckon they've realised someone stuffed up big time by releasing the details early...they're frantically trying to remove the offending items!
Edited by Merv Lowe on Aug 15, 2005 at 11:18 AM GMT
Yeah, I went to the site and got the "temporarily off line" message. Have to go back later and see what was removed.
You didnt read it properly. 24-105mm on a 5D remains 24-105mm, because the 5D is full frame, no crop factor. And 70-200mm on a 20D is 112-320mm, because of x1,6 crop factor. He meant using 5D and 20D.
i work for a canon dealer, and in passing conversation with a photo rep about 4 weeks ago I said that a 24-70 f4L with L image quality would be nice.
He looked at me rather shy and said, well I would definately watch this space.
then, with another rep about 2 weeks ago, he mentioned a new IS lens coming out and that was all he said. I figured it was a consumer lens from what he said, but maybe I was wrong.
