Why does Canon not make such light zoom lenses anymore ?

mermaidkiller wrote:

During the 80s and 90s I had this FD 28-55 f/3.5-4.5 for my T90.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdzooms/2855.htm

Nice and lightweight, only 200g while the T90 body I had was bulky and heavy compared to the 6d body.
Current standard zoom lenses are all heavy. Lightweights are possible as the old 28-55 shows, it was a fullframe lens as well. Even the most compact one, the 17-40 f/4L is a lot bulkier. I am very happy with my 24-105 f/4L despite its heavy 600 grams but it provides a 4x zoom range, but I'd wish a lighter one with smaller zoom range. Shame that the 15-85 sold with the 7d is EF-S only, otherwise I kept it.

I wouldn't want a short zoom that has a max aperture of f/4.5 at 55mm.  It's not even 2x, may as well use a prime.

mermaidkiller wrote:

[snip] I am very happy with my 24-105 f/4L despite its heavy 600 grams but it provides a 4x zoom range, but I'd wish a lighter one with smaller zoom range. Shame that the 15-85 sold with the 7d is EF-S only, otherwise I kept it.

The 15-85's predecessor, the EF-S 17-85 IS USM, is the old EF 28-135 IS USM full-frame lens with a few rear elements changed to project the same image onto a smaller sensor. And the 28-135 was still available until comparatively recently so you possibly could have bought one. But the 24-105 is a significantly better lens - heavier or not, I think you made the right choice.

But to answer the main question, it does seem that Canon offers a pretty good entry-level full frame in the 6D, but with no corresponding non-L full frame zooms below the 70-300 in focal length. The rumour mill is suggesting that there will be a lot of new lenses this year, so perhaps a compact standard zoom for full frame will be among them.

PerChr wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

The rumour mill is suggesting that there will be a lot of new lenses this year, so perhaps a compact standard zoom for full frame will be among them.

Compact standard zoom for full frame = EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM

Hmmm well, it's 600 g (vs 670 g for the 24-105) so it's not much lighter; it's only 14 mm shorter, and it's considerably more expensive. I hadn't forgotten about it, I just don't think it fulfils the OP's requirement.

Having said that, the EF-S 15-85 is 575 g so none of these is light really. I think a lot of 6D owners could be very interested in a resurrected EF 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 at 380 g and less than 70 mm long.

victorian squid wrote:

Peter Kwok wrote:

Canon made some very lightweight zoom lens in the past, such as the 3 versions of 28-90mm for their Rebel film cameras. Their cheap constructions kept their weight below 200g. Unlike lightweight kit lens for crop bodies, they fit your FF camera.

In this digital era where we can pixel-peep every lens before we buy, lens like these would not survive the criticism on-line. The 24-105L is considered the minimum quality for FF DSLR.

Dolly Dog - October 2003 - April 2013, one of the few pictures she let me get of her

My ancient Rebel and Nikkor AI 50mm f1.4 (circa 1980) beg to differ. Even with my 6D and 24-70 f2.8L II, I don't really pull a whole heck of a lot more out in terms of sharpness or bokeh. Pixel peep away.

You beg to differ that the old slow zooms of the past are not cutting the mustard on digital FF 135 format, because... a 50mm f1.4 prime works for you? What kind of logic is behind that?

Probably why manual Zeiss lenses that are small and light are commanding such high prices, and why this particular Nikkor lens, as well as my 28/28 are still manufactured.

Don't blame DP, blame us for hanging around gear forums rather than actual gallery forums. It's here because we groove on gear. It's fun. Old and new.

I too have old primes (older than your 50mm), which can deliver nice results, and yet I do know that the slow zooms of the past in general were soft and had a lack of contrast.

-- hide signature --

"I'm afraid that if you look at a thing long enough, it loses all of its meaning." Andy Warhol

Peter Kwok wrote:

Canon made some very lightweight zoom lens in the past, such as the 3 versions of 28-90mm for their Rebel film cameras. Their cheap constructions kept their weight below 200g. Unlike lightweight kit lens for crop bodies, they fit your FF camera.

In this digital era where we can pixel-peep every lens before we buy, lens like these would not survive the criticism on-line. The 24-105L is considered the minimum quality for FF DSLR.

But lenses like those, and even cheaper ones in fact, are made - for crop bodies. The demand for inexpensive lenses still exists and Canon is happy to satisfy that need. They haven't been made for full frame because it was judged - rightly in my opinion - that few people would want to spend £/$3000 minimum on a full frame DSLR body then stick a cheap lens on it. The 6D, which brings full frame digital within the reach of a wider market, could lead to a change.

Also, I think many people have forgotten how cheap entry level film SLRs used to be. I remember buying a brand new Canon film SLR in the 1990s for under £200 - yes "full frame" for £200. I don't know of a source of £/$ prices for that era but Canon's Camera Museum tells me that the original Japanese market price of the 24-85 USM I mentioned in a previous post was 58,000 yen while the EOS Rebel XS was almost exactly the same price at 59,000 yen. Would you want to pay the price of a 6D (today's cheap full-frame body) for that lens?

The 24-105L has been accused by some of being not worthy of the L designation. I don't want to get too deeply into that debate, but it is a fact that its optical quality is good rather than great, it's not weatherproof, and it is one of the few IS lenses with no panning mode. And of course it is actually quite inexpensive compared with the alternatives. The OP's criticism that it's a big and heavy is fair enough, but in most respects it fills the same slot as those old mid-level USM lenses.

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Peter Kwok wrote:

Canon made some very lightweight zoom lens in the past, such as the 3 versions of 28-90mm for their Rebel film cameras. Their cheap constructions kept their weight below 200g. Unlike lightweight kit lens for crop bodies, they fit your FF camera.

In this digital era where we can pixel-peep every lens before we buy, lens like these would not survive the criticism on-line. The 24-105L is considered the minimum quality for FF DSLR.

But lenses like those, and even cheaper ones in fact, are made - for crop bodies. The demand for inexpensive lenses still exists and Canon is happy to satisfy that need. They haven't been made for full frame because it was judged - rightly in my opinion - that few people would want to spend £/$3000 minimum on a full frame DSLR body then stick a cheap lens on it. The 6D, which brings full frame digital within the reach of a wider market, could lead to a change.

Also, I think many people have forgotten how cheap entry level film SLRs used to be. I remember buying a brand new Canon film SLR in the 1990s for under £200 - yes "full frame" for £200. I don't know of a source of £/$ prices for that era but Canon's Camera Museum tells me that the original Japanese market price of the 24-85 USM I mentioned in a previous post was 58,000 yen while the EOS Rebel XS was almost exactly the same price at 59,000 yen. Would you want to pay the price of a 6D (today's cheap full-frame body) for that lens?

That makes no sense. The 6D contains an expensive FF chip, which dictates the price. It is als not a cheap all plastic body with plastic mount, as that entry level film SLR was that you bought.

You can buy an SL1 with 18-55mm STM for way less now (taking inflation into account).

The 24-105L has been accused by some of being not worthy of the L designation. I don't want to get too deeply into that debate, but it is a fact that its optical quality is good rather than great, it's not weatherproof,

The lens is not water proof (no lens is) but it is weather sealed with rubber gaskets. Maybe you confuse it with some other L lenses.

and it is one of the few IS lenses with no panning mode.

One can pan with it just fine. Older IS lenses needed a panning mode, but the loci have been improved so that the IS systems notice when one pans and adjust accordingly. So, the lack of IS mode switch just tells us something about the generation of IS (for this focal length range, for longer lenses different IS modes keep on beneficial).

The also weather sealed 24-70mm f4 L IS USM also has no IS mode switch, simply because it is not needed.

And of course it is actually quite inexpensive compared with the alternatives. The OP's criticism that it's a big and heavy is fair enough, but in most respects it fills the same slot as those old mid-level USM lenses.

One can also just buy one of those mid level USM lenses for the 6D, anyway. The 24-88mm USM, the 28-105mm f3.4-4.5 USM (II), the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM all will do exactly what the OP is wishing for.

anisah wrote:

About 20 years ago I bought 2 excellent EF zoom lens - a 28 - 80mm f3.5-5.6, and a 70 - 210mm f3.5-4.5. Both were of the highest optical quality,

There have been at least 7 different 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 versions, and some of those were just terrible. My 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 is a joke in the digital era. Which version do you have?

I am guessing that "the highest optical quality" is a hyperbole that can be taken with a grain of salt?

though they were not top of the range at the time. Both produced many pictures that were subsequently published. Neither lens was particularly heavy, certainly not of the weight of present day lens. I now have an EF 70 - 200mm f4 L series lens (not IS), but in truth it is not as good as my old 70 -210mm which I still sometimes use. It is lighter, shorter, and, I find, better balanced than my modern L series lens. Unfortunately, after nearly 20 years of relatively heavy use, there is some slippage in the zoom mechanism which I am told is beyond repair as the parts no longer exist, otherwise it would be in full time use.

The only reason I use my EF 24 - 105mm IS f4 L series in preference to the 28 - 80mm is the greater range that it provides, the IQ is really no better and it is very considerably heavier.

I remain unconvinced that modern lens are necessarily always providing better IQ than those previously available in terms of optical quality, especially for FF. The increase in weight may be a corollary of the development of IS, which has certainly improved the possibility of getting the shot you want, and the use of better methods of mechanical operation which have led to greater speed and accuracy in AF. There is no doubt that these two improvements are frequently worth the increased weight of the lens and result in us getting better images more often.

brightcolours wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Peter Kwok wrote:

Canon made some very lightweight zoom lens in the past, such as the 3 versions of 28-90mm for their Rebel film cameras. Their cheap constructions kept their weight below 200g. Unlike lightweight kit lens for crop bodies, they fit your FF camera.

In this digital era where we can pixel-peep every lens before we buy, lens like these would not survive the criticism on-line. The 24-105L is considered the minimum quality for FF DSLR.

But lenses like those, and even cheaper ones in fact, are made - for crop bodies. The demand for inexpensive lenses still exists and Canon is happy to satisfy that need. They haven't been made for full frame because it was judged - rightly in my opinion - that few people would want to spend £/$3000 minimum on a full frame DSLR body then stick a cheap lens on it. The 6D, which brings full frame digital within the reach of a wider market, could lead to a change.

Also, I think many people have forgotten how cheap entry level film SLRs used to be. I remember buying a brand new Canon film SLR in the 1990s for under £200 - yes "full frame" for £200. I don't know of a source of £/$ prices for that era but Canon's Camera Museum tells me that the original Japanese market price of the 24-85 USM I mentioned in a previous post was 58,000 yen while the EOS Rebel XS was almost exactly the same price at 59,000 yen. Would you want to pay the price of a 6D (today's cheap full-frame body) for that lens?

That makes no sense. The 6D contains an expensive FF chip, which dictates the price. It is als not a cheap all plastic body with plastic mount, as that entry level film SLR was that you bought.

You can buy an SL1 with 18-55mm STM for way less now (taking inflation into account).

You are totally missing the point. Until very recently the minimum entry point for full frame was in the region of £/$3000. This meant there was NO demand for full frame lenses from people with a budget of a few hundred $/$.

Yes you can buy an entry-level crop body and kit lens with that budget of a few hundred £/$. But not full frame and that's the distinction that the OP was making and therefore the point I was answering.

The 24-105L has been accused by some of being not worthy of the L designation. I don't want to get too deeply into that debate, but it is a fact that its optical quality is good rather than great, it's not weatherproof,

The lens is not water proof (no lens is) but it is weather sealed with rubber gaskets. Maybe you confuse it with some other L lenses.

My mistake, I stand corrected.

and it is one of the few IS lenses with no panning mode.

One can pan with it just fine. Older IS lenses needed a panning mode, but the loci have been improved so that the IS systems notice when one pans and adjust accordingly. So, the lack of IS mode switch just tells us something about the generation of IS (for this focal length range, for longer lenses different IS modes keep on beneficial).

Do some more homework on this one - the 24-105L is not like, for example, the 55-250 which has automatic panning mode. The 24-105L's IS system doesn't support panning at all. That doesn't mean you can't get away with panning the camera of course.

The also weather sealed 24-70mm f4 L IS USM also has no IS mode switch, simply because it is not needed.

And of course it is actually quite inexpensive compared with the alternatives. The OP's criticism that it's a big and heavy is fair enough, but in most respects it fills the same slot as those old mid-level USM lenses.

One can also just buy one of those mid level USM lenses for the 6D, anyway. The 24-88mm USM, the 28-105mm f3.4-4.5 USM (II), the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM all will do exactly what the OP is wishing for.

But none of those is available new today - see the recently updated UK web site.