Opinions: Ditch my 24-105 f/4 L for what? + poll

[Chris White]

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon upgrades the 24-70 soon (and IS would be a non-brainer for it!). The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is not that old and Canon already has a replacement lined up... and the 24-70 is a very popular lens. Personally, there are some other lenses I'd rather see upgraded instead (e.g., 50 1.4 II with a proper USM motor, 17-40 II with better borders on FF, 400 5.6 IS), but a 24-70 replacement with IS would not surprised me at all!

Tony, I stand corrected, I thought the 24-70 (2002) was three or four years newer than the 70-200 2.8 IS (2001). I spent so much time comparing the 24-70 vs. the 24-105 (2005) I confused the release dates of the two. It does make sense that new and reworked L's will incorporate IS. But as much as I (and many others) would like the 24-70 IS, I think countering some gaps with Nikon -- like their 200-400 f/4 are more of a priority to Canon than our desires.

Chris, yes, I actually totally agree with you. If you want to shoot fast moving subjects in low light (as you do), the IS will not help you therefore the f/2.8 lens is the one for you. If you want to shoot stationary subjects in low light (as I do), the IS will definitely be of great help and the f/4 IS lens is the one for you (actually: for me!). This is I think the best way to determine which of the two one really needs.

Well said! In the end no matter how much we all respect each others input before we drop $1000 plus, it really comes down to what we are going to be doing with our gear.


Chris

[Brendan7]

Tony, I stand corrected, I thought the 24-70 (2002) was three or four years newer than the 70-200 2.8 IS (2001). I spent so much time comparing the 24-70 vs. the 24-105 (2005) I confused the release dates of the two. It does make sense that new and reworked L's will incorporate IS. But as much as I (and many others) would like the 24-70 IS, I think countering some gaps with Nikon -- like their 200-400 f/4 are more of a priority to Canon than our desires.

I personally would LOVE a 200-400 like nikon's. Canon is lacking a bird lens between the $1700 100-400mm and the $6000 500mm. a $4500 (I'm dreaming) 200-400 would be nice, but there's not a lot of market for that lens. Nikon has sold less than 10,000 of them. Canon could do better copying Nikon's 14-24 2.8, so FF users could have a nice pro wideangle zoom. *phews* getting off topic here...


brendan

[djzuk]

I personally would LOVE a 200-400 like nikon's. Canon is lacking a bird lens between the $1700 100-400mm and the $6000 500mm. a $4500 (I'm dreaming) 200-400 would be nice, but there's not a lot of market for that lens. Nikon has sold less than 10,000 of them. Canon could do better copying Nikon's 14-24 2.8, so FF users could have a nice pro wideangle zoom. *phews* getting off topic here...


brendan

Just wanted to share something I've been dreaming about on B&H's used store:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800679747-USE/Canon_C218382_Telephoto_400mm_f_2_8L_II.html


I can't believe it's been on there for so long... "only" $4,000. Or is this lens not as excellent as the current Canon f/2.8 telephoto primes? I would think it's probably still an excellent lens... I would certainly buy it if I had that kind of money to spend. Haha.


Anyways, going off topic indeed.


Derrick

[Brendan7]

that is awesome, but then again, I don't have $4k to spend [8o|]


Well, the current Canon 400 2.8 sells for over $7500 but it's got new optics, IS, weather sealing, etc. The one on that link is used, but a new, mint copy could sell for ~$5000?


brendan


PS I have currently hijacked this thread [:P]

[Tony Printezis]

Hi Chris,

I think countering some gaps with Nikon -- like their 200-400 f/4 are more of a priority to Canon than our desires.

Sure, a Canon 200-400 f/4 would be great... but how many folks will be able to spend $6,000 (what the Nikon costs) on it? I know I wouldn't be able to justify it... which brings up a good point: I've always wondered whether Canon make more money out of selling a few very expensive lenses, or many cheaper lenses. I'd assume it's the latter, given all the EF-S lenses they have recently introduced. But they also introduced the two new TS lenses and I can't see them selling many of those. So, who knows!


Going back to the 200-400 f/4, I'd actually be happy with a 100-300 f/4 IS (like the Sigma) for around $2,000. :-) And I'm with Brandon here: maybe an ultra-wide to go against the Nikon's 14-24 would be a good target for Canon (and this would be the "killer app" for me to move to FF, as I love shooting wide with my 10-22 on my crop bodies). But, the 16-35 II is very new, so I can't see it geting replaced it very soon.


Jordan, sorry for hijacking your thread!

Well said! In the end no matter how much we all respect each others input before we drop $1000 plus, it really comes down to what we are going to be doing with our gear.

Totally. It's disappointing when fans of one lens treat fans of the other lens like idiots ("why wouldn't you want IS?" or "why wouldn't you want f/2.8?"). The answer is "cause I don't need it the way I shoot!".

Tony, I stand corrected,

And I stand corrected too, Chris. Yes, if you're shooting moving subjects, IS will not help. I had immediately thought you were referring to stationary shooting, given this is how I shoot...


Tony

[aj1575]

I think you have to make thedecision about the FF-Body first. Will youbuy a Canon FF in the future, or would a 7D enough for you? Keep in mind, that APS-C will get better over the years, even though they won't get as good as future FF, but maybe as good as a current FF. I think I will stick to APS-C. The quality is good enough for most purposes, andit will only get better.


So if you really want to change to FF get a24-70mm f2.8, but I'm not sure if this is the right time sinceit is still missing a IS, wich will come, the question is, if you can wait.


If you will stick to APS-C then I would consider the Canon 17-55mm f2,8 IS. The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 IS is not that good, the version without IS was nice, but the new with IS is not as good. I personally considering the Sigma 17-70mm f2,8-4 IS. The non IS version was okay, with a few flaws, but it looks like the IS version is also optically improved.

[Chris White]

Hi Tony,

Sure, a Canon 200-400 f/4 would be great... but how many folks will be able to spend $6,000 (what the Nikon costs) on it?

Good point, that price point would probably put it out of my reach, too.

Going back to the 200-400 f/4, I'd actually be happy with a 100-300 f/4 IS (like the Sigma) for around $2,000. :-)

That is certainly more in my price range and would work well for outside soccer. My 70-200 2.8 IS currently covers it well and since my images with it are so good they crop nicely to help make up the difference in lens reach. I think the quality of them cropped is better than were I using the current 70-300mm lenses currently offered. I think it is also better than the 28-300L because it tries to cover too much and compromise enters the equation.

And I stand corrected too, Chris. Yes, if you're shooting moving subjects, IS will not help. I had immediately thought you were referring to stationary shooting, given this is how I shoot...

I do know what you mean Tony, we all tend to look through our own prism and make the leap we are all doing the same things. []


Regards,


Chris

[Tony Printezis]

Chris,

I think the quality of them cropped is better than were I using the current 70-300mm lenses currently offered.

Oh, absolutely. I have the 70-200 f4 IS (which is very sharp!) and I can crop heavily and still get great results... even with the 1.4x extender.

I think it is also better than the 28-300L
because it tries to cover too much and compromise enters the
equation.

Well, a 28-300 is bound to be a compromise! If you're a photojournalist this would be a great lens, 'cause you won't miss a shot... but it's not exactly a general-purpose walkaround lens given how bloody huge it is!


Tony

[Tony Printezis]

Hey guys,


FWIW, CR is reporting that Canon might be announcing the 24-70 2.8 IS next week:


http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/02/whats-coming-next-week-cr2/


So, the IS vs. 2.8 discussions might be soon be a thing of the past. ;-)


Tony

[Chris White]

I realize that it is only a rumor until an offical Canon announcement, but it does peak ones interest...[]


Of course, it will kill a lot of threads if it is true.[]


Chris