New canon lens announcement

[Aaron Kennedy]

Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS

Almost sounds like the perfect storm chasing lens. Doesn't quite cover the wide end, but this will do about everything else. The f/4 is a bit dark, but between the wide range, IS, and cheaper cost... this should fit the bill quite nicely for storm chasing. I'll stick that on my *to buy* list ; ). I'll wait for the MTFs for a final verdict, but I see no reason why this lens shouldn't be quite sharp with plenty of contrast.

http://www.magnetodev.com/assets/photos/24-105main.jpg
You'll have to take the picture as evidence enough for now.. Canon AU mistakenly released info on it earlier this week (I saw with my own eyes). An official announcement should be made within the week or two.

 

[John Diel]

The IS should help out considerably in lower light. That would certainly help out the lack of a lower f stop value. The L lens quality should make up for the rest.

Sounds like a very nice lens indeed.

I use the 70mm-210mm f4 zoom (the old push pull lens) and it's a great lens.

 

[Matthew Havin]

Sounds great......... the closest thing I heard of close to this was the Tamron 24-135mm....... BUT its a Tamron, for better or worse.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

So this is roughly a 38-170 on most of our cameras (unless anyone reading this is shooting with a 1D MkII or a 35mm film camera). Should be interesting to see pricing. 24-105 is pretty much the perfect all-around lense for film -- you almost never need to take it off. 38-170 isn't as practical; you still need to get wider for some shots. If I got this lense (which I won't... I already have a working setup), I'd also need to have the 17-40 f/4. (I wish Canon made a 16 or 17 prime...)

Storm photography is often wide-angle work, in my experience. The 17-40 f/4 is a great lense for the money; the el-cheapo 50 f/1.8 prime is a good gap-filler (especially if you have a digital with the 1.6 conversion factor), and the 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4.0 L are worth the money if you ever see yourself doing telephoto work (i.e., parking a few miles away and still having the tube fill the frame.) If the new 24-105 f/4 costs, say, $800, you're still much better off getting the 50 f/1.8 prime and the 70-200 f/4 instead, since you're going to need something wider than 24 (at least 17mm), no matter what.

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

The announcement of the lens goes along with the new Canon 5D full-frame 12mp camera. Coincidence... I think not! Even on a 1.6x crop body, it would fit well with my 17-40, 50, and 70-200mm setup. While the 24-70 f/f.8 would be nice, the 24-105 should be cheaper. It will be interesting to see the optical performance. Stay tuned!

Aaron