There are rumours that canon will produce this lens to replace the 28-70 2.8L in the near future.But i just wonder why? 28-70 was a very good lens except its high price and weight.I think it should replace the 100-300L.... any comment?

-- Brian (canonon@mail.com), March 29, 2002

Answers

Just a guess, but they probably figure there are already quite a few IS options in that range available. The consumer grade 75- 300, the pro 70-200, and the pro 100-400. Not sure if they'd re- make the relatively slow 100-300L. Besides, in offering greater range on both ends with a 24-105L IS, Canon will be forcing current 28-70 owners, who might not have bought the new lens just for the IS, to think about not just one, but two plusses for the new lens. Those who own the 100-400L IS but not the 70-200 will find this especially attractive.

Jim

-- Jim Trickett (trickett@osb.att.ne.jp), March 30, 2002.

Technology has moved on to the point that it is possible for canon to make a wider-ranged pro zoom without compromising optical quality.

Another thing to look at is the 28-70 itself. It is the only one of the three main Pro F2.8 zooms (16-35 F2.8L, 28-70 F2.8L, 70-200 F2.8L IS) which is not weather sealed. Canon will wish to introduce a weather-sealed lens to match the other lenses as well as the EOS 1V and EOS 1D. In order to achieve weather sealing, it's a reasonable bet that the lens will be internal-zoom, which will improve handling quite a bit.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), March 30, 2002.

I doubt that a 24-105 2.8L IS would be any cheaper or lighter than the 28-70 2.8L. If fact I would suspect it would be larger and heavier even if it should come out without the IS. Given that it's reputed to be an "L" series I don't think the optical performance would be worse.

As for replacing the 100-300 and leaving the 28-70 in place that makes no sense - they are completely different applications. If I need an xx-300 zoom ("L" or otherwise) I'm sure not going to run out and get a 24-105.

Also, if Canon retained the 28-70 they would then have a 24-105, 28-70, 28-135, 28-105, 24-85, 28-90 and the venerable 28-80 as current offerings in the same focal length range (whew, I'm getting a headache just thinking about it). People would switch to a different manufacturer just to make the decision easier. ;-)

-- Dick Tope (RTope@yahoo.com), March 30, 2002.

Although the 28-70 is considered one of Canon's best zooms, it's never been a focal length range that appealed to me. I would have preferred a small, lighter weight 35-70/2.8, much like the Nikon lens, for the mid range. Apparently I won't be getting that lens but the 24-105 is simply a better choice of focal lengths. I'm sure it will not be small or lightweight.

The 100-300mm zoom range has been a favorite of mine but the older L- series lens in the range never appealed to me at all. I bought the cheaper 100-300 but later got the 70-200/2.8 and a 1.4x and much prefer the results from this combination. The Canon 100-400 IS lens pretty much covers this range but I, too, would like to see a true 100-300 f/4L lens with IS.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), March 30, 2002.