# The Next L Lens From Canon to be a Fast Zoom [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 31, 2015)

```
A great new lens was announced last week, but people will always ask ‘what’s coming next?’</p>
<p>We’re told again that the next L lens from Canon will be a fast zoom (f/2.8), and the thinking is it will be an EF 16-35 f/2.8L III. We were originally <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/03/ef-16-35mm-f2-8-replacement-ii-cr1/" target="_blank">told this back in March</a>, and a patent for such an optical formula <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/05/patent-canon-ef-16-35-f2-8l-iii/" target="_blank">became public in May</a>.</p>
<p>There could be other lenses announced in the meantime, and we’re still waiting for a new Non-L, Non-DO 70-300 to arrive, a lens we’ve been expecting for quite some time.</p>
<p>We expect some specialty lenses to arrive in the next few months, most notably new tilt-shift lenses and a new macro. There’s also a possibility of a couple of updated or new supertelephoto lenses.</p>
<p>L lens development is a slow process, and I don’t expect to see any new L lens announced until the new EF 35 f/1.4L II stock levels are good and we have a new camera body or two.</p>
```


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 31, 2015)

Whilst the replacement for the EF 16-35mm f2.8 seems likely, there is of course the EFs 17-55mm that is perhaps in more dire need of replacement. Also, are there any wild cards likeky, fast Macro zoom ? Sigma 120-300 f2.8 alternative ? Integrated extender ?


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 31, 2015)

I'd love it to be a 12-24mm f/2.8 but I think logically, it will be a 16-35 f/2.8 mkIII


----------



## infared (Aug 31, 2015)

I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8L II to buy the 16-35mm f/4L IS. (It was an even wash for me financially). I am glad that I made that change strictly to get sharper images. The IS helps at times to compensate for the slower f/stop...and I am generally not looking for low DOF with a SuperWideAngle lens. For economic reasons I think that this lens will stay in my quiver even with the intro of this new SuperWideAngle f/2.8 III zoom. It's going to be a wallet-bender, but it hopefully will have the resolution improvement that Canon has always lacked in this area compared to the competition.
We shall see soon.


----------



## Vivid Color (Aug 31, 2015)

I would love a lighter replacement for the 180 mm macro that has IS, if that's possible.


----------



## rowlandw (Aug 31, 2015)

To me fast is f/2. Any chance of that in a zoom?


----------



## rs (Aug 31, 2015)

rowlandw said:


> To me fast is f/2. Any chance of that in a zoom?


Sigma managed it with the 24-35mm f/2 Art


----------



## Etienne (Aug 31, 2015)

I expect this will be pricey


----------



## ecka (Aug 31, 2015)

35-105/2.8L would be nice 

or 35-85/2L
:


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 31, 2015)

Haydn1971 said:


> Whilst the replacement for the EF 16-35mm f2.8 seems likely, there is of course the EFs 17-55mm that is perhaps in more dire need of replacement.


Certainly, users of 7D Mark II would like a 17-55mm L.
Why would someone pay dearly for a body weather sealed, if the standard zoom lens does not have the same resistance?
While I do not have the option of a 17-55mm L, I will content myself with 70D.


----------



## siegsAR (Aug 31, 2015)

ecka said:


> 35-105/2.8L would be nice
> 
> or 35-85/2L
> :


I'd love these, but I doubt Canon will make them. But who knows.


----------



## ecka (Aug 31, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > Whilst the replacement for the EF 16-35mm f2.8 seems likely, there is of course the EFs 17-55mm that is perhaps in more dire need of replacement.
> ...



I think many would prefer the Sigma 18-35/1.8 anyway ...


----------



## Etienne (Aug 31, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > Whilst the replacement for the EF 16-35mm f2.8 seems likely, there is of course the EFs 17-55mm that is perhaps in more dire need of replacement.
> ...



I owned the EFS 17-55 2.8, and it was a very nice lens. Sold it about 5- 6 years ago when I went full frame. The IQ was excellent, IS was excellent, AF awesome, but the bokeh was nervous, build quality was uninspiring, zoom action was not dampened, and the zoom creep was really annoying.

This lens is definitely worth a second version with full L-lens treatment. And Canon may do this because it would be an excellent lens for the C100, C300 cameras (I would buy it for that alone) as well as for the 7DII.


----------



## RGF (Aug 31, 2015)

infared said:


> I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8L II to buy the 16-35mm f/4L IS. (It was an even wash for me financially). I am glad that I made that change strictly to get sharper images. The IS helps at times to compensate for the slower f/stop...and I am generally not looking for low DOF with a SuperWideAngle lens. For economic reasons I think that this lens will stay in my quiver even with the intro of this new SuperWideAngle f/2.8 III zoom. It's going to be a wallet-bender, but it hopefully will have the resolution improvement that Canon has always lacked in this area compared to the competition.
> We shall see soon.



+1. or perhaps a 14-35 F2.8 at the IQ of the 16-35 F4.


----------



## RGF (Aug 31, 2015)

rs said:


> rowlandw said:
> 
> 
> > To me fast is f/2. Any chance of that in a zoom?
> ...



I suspect that it is much easier to make a 24 F2 zoom than 16 F2 zoom.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 31, 2015)

ecka said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Haydn1971 said:
> ...


I could live with zoom 16-something in APS-C cameras, but 18mm wide angle really is not enough to photograph groups of people indoors.


----------



## AJ (Aug 31, 2015)

I think it's a 24-70/2.8 IS


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 31, 2015)

OK [cracks knuckles] let's read some tea leaves. From the rumor:


L lens = it's not an EF-S or EF-M mount. An EF-S 17-55 f/2.8*L* IS USM is a wonderful dream, but it's a pipe dream. L is reserved for EF and that's that. Canon wants > $1k lenses on full-frame rigs. (Pullthrough, profit, all that.)


Fast zoom = f/2.8 -- were it an f/2 zoom, Canon would be hyping this far, far more as a gamechanging innovation (even if Sigma beat them to it).


So that leaves us with the following possibilities:


*16-35 f/2.8L III* - In my mind, this is the most likely. Canon has made it's big UWA zoom releases for the landscapers/videographers (16-35 f/4L IS) and the architecture/U-U-UWA people (11-24 f/4L), so the event/sports people would logically round out the UWA zoom arena.


*24-70 f/2.8L IS* - This is a dark horse, but I believe it has to come eventually in light of Nikon finally pulling the trigger. This is a bread-and-butter pro lens segment and therefore speaks to the pride of the company, and even the _perception_ of lagging behind Nikon may prompt Canon to offer IS as well. My theory is that they've already designed this back when they did the 24-70 f/2.8L II but did not commercialize it b/c they weren't sure there was a market for a $2,500 standard zoom. Now, with Nikon offering one, Canon will see how well that lens sells and possibly follow suit.



*14-24 f/2.8L* - Not seeing it. Canon could have made this lens instead of the 11-24. This is Nikon's preeminent *do everything* UWA zoom -- events, landscape, etc. But Canon's strategy is different. They don't want to waste landscaper's time with weight tied to an aperture they'll never use and they also know how important front-filtering is, so they split the UWA zoom market into three segments -- landscape, architecture, and events. Once Canon puts out a 16-35 F/2.8L III, each camp will be far, far happier than being saddled with a single 14-24 f/2.8L that would be unfilterable for landscapers and not wide enough for interior architecture. Canon might the right call by not pursuing a 14-24 f/2.8L.




*70-200 f/2.8L IS III* - too soon for this?


Some beast of a higher multiple tele zoom or shifted range of a current zoom: *70-300 f/2.8L IS, 120-300 f/2.8L IS, etc.* - That's a Sigma play to be disruptive. I don't think Canon would ever do this as it would undermine/jeopardize 70-200 sales, but I could be wrong. 


- A


----------



## andrewflo (Aug 31, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> OK [cracks knuckles] let's read some tea leaves. From the rumor:
> 
> 
> L lens = it's not an EF-S or EF-M mount. An EF-S 17-55 f/2.8*L* IS USM is a wonderful dream, but it's a pipe dream. L is reserved for EF and that's that. Canon wants > $1k lenses on full-frame rigs. (Pullthrough, profit, all that.)
> ...



Nicely put. This seems like a pretty solid roundup of the latest rumors in Canon camp. Agreed on pretty much everything here.

Personally, it seems a 16-35mm f/2.8L II replacement seems most likely. But a 24-70 f/2.8L IS would be very generously welcomed!


----------



## meywd (Aug 31, 2015)

andrewflo said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > OK [cracks knuckles] let's read some tea leaves. From the rumor:
> ...



+1 , and no way a 70-200 f/2.8L IS III will come soon, I don't think it will ever come before DO is all over the L lenses, because how much sharper can they go? with the weight and price as well.


----------



## pedro (Aug 31, 2015)

this makes kind of sense with an upcoming 1DX2


----------



## midluk (Aug 31, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> L lens = it's not an EF-S or EF-M mount. An EF-S 17-55 f/2.8*L* IS USM is a wonderful dream, but it's a pipe dream. L is reserved for EF and that's that. Canon wants > $1k lenses on full-frame rigs. (Pullthrough, profit, all that.)


Canon might end that unwritten rule like the rule that one digit bodies are not APS-C. What use is a 7D(II) without an adequate standard zoom?


----------



## rs (Aug 31, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> L lens = it's not an EF-S or EF-M mount. An EF-S 17-55 f/2.8*L* IS USM is a wonderful dream, but it's a pipe dream. L is reserved for EF and that's that. Canon wants > $1k lenses on full-frame rigs. (Pullthrough, profit, all that.)



There are some exceptions to this rule:
Canon PowerShot Pro1
Canon 10x42 L IS
Canon CN-E 14.5-60 L
etc


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 31, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I could live with zoom 16-something in APS-C cameras, but 18mm wide angle really is not enough to photograph groups of people indoors.



+1

Especially on Canon where the crop factor is 1.6x I even prefer to get to 15mm. But yes 18mm is just not wide enough for me.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 31, 2015)

midluk said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > L lens = it's not an EF-S or EF-M mount. An EF-S 17-55 f/2.8*L* IS USM is a wonderful dream, but it's a pipe dream. L is reserved for EF and that's that. Canon wants > $1k lenses on full-frame rigs. (Pullthrough, profit, all that.)
> ...



You are making sense about Canon's marketing. Stop that. 

Canon wants 7D2 users to buy 1DX rigs and thoughtfully plunk down the $10k+ to get their birding reach back with longer EF superteles. Why on earth would they do those users a solid by giving them an EF-S 16-50 or 17-55 f/2.8 with a red ring on it? That only encourages them to stay with a crop body...

- A


----------



## Perio (Aug 31, 2015)

Maybe 24-70 2.8 IS?


----------



## hovland (Aug 31, 2015)

Perio said:


> Maybe 24-70 2.8 IS?



yes please


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 31, 2015)

Etienne said:


> I owned the EFS 17-55 2.8, and it was a very nice lens. Sold it about 5- 6 years ago when I went full frame. The IQ was excellent, IS was excellent, AF awesome, but the bokeh was nervous, build quality was uninspiring, zoom action was not dampened, and the zoom creep was really annoying.
> 
> This lens is definitely worth a second version with full L-lens treatment. And Canon may do this because it would be an excellent lens for the C100, C300 cameras (I would buy it for that alone) as well as for the 7DII.



They might make a new 2.8 EF-S zoom, but it won't be branded L.


----------



## adventureous (Sep 1, 2015)

I was hoping to pre-order this today, as it is my most used lens. Thank you Canon !!!!!


----------



## drs (Sep 1, 2015)

16-35L F/2.8 III 
Yes, please. I hope with the new "blue secret sauce" of the 35/1.4.

;o)

The v2 is not bad and often in use here. It has a small sweet spot, but as long as I stay there, I get good results. I wish I could let go of that (memorizing the sweet-spots for 16; 24; 35 settings) and use with the v3 all options.

My concern is only that the price point might be above $2K -- given the tendency of the past year, and then it is not really interesting anymore.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 1, 2015)

The 16-35 f2.8 MkII is a dog when compared to the latest wide and ultrawide lenses from Canon, the 16-35 f4 IS illustrates what a severely compromised lens the f2.8 MkII is, the TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 MkII, along with the 11-24 have demonstrated Canon's total dominance in the wide, ultrawide and specialty wide categories to all but the most Sony/sensor-centric image makers/forum dwellers. 

Funny because Canon are so often accused of not having innovation yet I am sure Nikon and Sony would both pay a fortune for Canon's wide angle design team!

Anyway, onto the next L zoom, I think it is a toss up between the much needed 16-35 f2.8 MkIII and the 24-70 f2.8 IS. Nikon have released their 24-70 f2.8 VR so Canon can't be that far behind and it would finish the 24-70 segment off, but that 16-35 is a real thorn in their side now all the other Canon wides are so good.


----------



## ecka (Sep 1, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



Well, 24-105L on FF may still beat the EF-S 17-55L, so what's the point? 5D3+24-105L vs. 7D2+17-55L, both ~$3k? What's next? EF-S 10-22L to match the good old 17-40L?
7D2 is made for big whites, IMHO . For the price of 17-55/2.8L, you could get 18-35/1.8 ART and an UWA lens (like Tokina 11-16) and still have some money left. Or maybe you expect it to sell for $999 or less? I think $1500 is more realistic and if you seek perfection, why start with a crop body in the first place? Don't tell me you need 10fps to photograph people indoors. Indoors, F1.8 is what matters more, not 1mm (or 2) extra wide (not to mention distortion and stuff...).


----------



## TAF (Sep 1, 2015)

ecka said:


> 35-105/2.8L would be nice
> 
> or 35-85/2L
> :



Interesting thoughts.

Fixed F stop isn't that important to me, but f2.8 or larger is, so I would prefer a 24-150 F1.8-2.8 L IS.


----------



## pwp (Sep 1, 2015)

I see the most likely update will be a 16-35 f/2.8III. Currently my somewhat unloved 16-35 f/2.8II is up for sale to finance a 16-35 f/4is. I'll go ahead with this plan in spite of the possibility of the 16-35 f/2.8III which I have no doubt will be a comprehensive upgrade on the 16-35 f/2.8II, along with a reassuringly high price tag. 

-pw


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 1, 2015)

AJ said:


> I think it's a 24-70/2.8 IS


+1, I hope so.


----------



## TheJock (Sep 1, 2015)

I think that regardless if it’s a new 24-70 with IS or a 16-35III it will come with the new BR lens configuration, I think they will adopt this new technology as the new staple on all future L series lenses.


----------



## ecka (Sep 1, 2015)

TAF said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > 35-105/2.8L would be nice
> ...



Sounds too heavy


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 1, 2015)

On a rational point of view I agree with ahsanford that the 24-70 2.8 IS is the most probable new release.

Personally I would enjoy a (black!) 50-200 4.0 IS or *40-200 4.0 IS * with nearly the size/weight of the current 70-200 4.0 lenses. If such a lens delivers excellent IQ in such a compact package f/4.0 would be relatively fast - o.k., in absolute terms it isn't ... I see three two-body-two-lens-setups which are interesting for me:
- 16-35 + 40/50-200 general allround
- 40/50-200 + 100 Macro hiking with interesting macro subjects
- 40/50-200 + 400 5.6


----------



## Chapman Baxter (Sep 1, 2015)

I've been contemplating the Tamron 15-30mm but haven't pulled the trigger yet. I have the focal length range already covered with other lenses so it's more about upgrading image quality and speed for me. One thing that makes me hesitate over the Tamron is its weight. I do hope a 16-35mm III won't weigh too much more than Canon's current version. With this caveat, I think I'd be willing to stump up the much higher asking price over the Tamron, for the additional benefits of filterability, focusing quality, and that feeling of extra robustness and longevity that all L lenses seem to have.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 1, 2015)

For my shooting needs, a 16-35 f2.8 III L is a far more useful lens than a 16-35mm f4 LIS. If light levels are low, I'd rather have the extra stop than rely on IS technology. IS can stabilise my camera but it can't freeze fast moving objects For hand held wedding work...i need a shutter speed of 1/50th or higher due to my moving targets. For my landscape work...I'd rather use a tripod than rely on an IS system. If I need a 15 second exposure...that needs a stable platform and an IS unit can't do those kinds of shutter speeds. 
While I recognise that the newer 16-35 f4 LIS design is optically superior....the rest of the lens is what is giving me the working problems. I need the extra stop...end of story. So i'm hoping a new mkIII design can rectify my shooting needs with my optical desires. The mkII is easily my weakest lens in my bag in terms of optical distortion, vignetting, soft corners, curved field coverage and strong CA. 
What I like about it is AF, weather sealing, build quality, versatility, flare control and the sunstars are the best I've seen from this lens....Canon please keep the same effect.....it's awesome and better than the f4 variant in this regard.


----------



## C_Raven (Sep 1, 2015)

meywd said:


> andrewflo said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I agree that a 70-200 f/2.8L IS III is practically impossible right now, but what about a 70-200 f/2.8L II? Do you think canon will not produce telezooms without IS anymore?


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 1, 2015)

Chapman Baxter said:


> I've been contemplating the Tamron 15-30mm but haven't pulled the trigger yet. I have the focal length range already covered with other lenses so it's more about upgrading image quality and speed for me. One thing that makes me hesitate over the Tamron is its weight. I do hope a 16-35mm III won't weigh too much more than Canon's current version. With this caveat, I think I'd be willing to stump up the much higher asking price over the Tamron, for the additional benefits of filterability, focusing quality, and that feeling of extra robustness and longevity that all L lenses seem to have.



Unless you only shoot events, I would think twice before buying that Tamron. What seems like a bargain has some strings attached.

The decision to go for 15mm and eliminate the filter ring was a disastrous call, IMHO. You may not need filters often, but when you do, you'll be stuck old-school hand-holding them or ponying up a lot more money for the external Lee or Wonderpana setups. That's a staggeringly high price to pay for 1 extra mm wider. 

Why Tamron didn't just make a 16-35 f/2.8 VC with a front-filter ring and grab all of Canon's 16-35 f/2.8L II users' business is utterly beyond me. They would have snapped up everyone's money.

That said, I appreciate that there are not a tremendous number of truly sharp and modern f/2.8 UWA zooms out there, and it might be perfect for your needs. But caveat emptor if you ever need to tame reflections, manage a tough sky, etc. with such a lens.

- A


----------



## Mancubus (Sep 1, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> OK [cracks knuckles] let's read some tea leaves. From the rumor:
> 
> 
> L lens = it's not an EF-S or EF-M mount. An EF-S 17-55 f/2.8*L* IS USM is a wonderful dream, but it's a pipe dream. L is reserved for EF and that's that. Canon wants > $1k lenses on full-frame rigs. (Pullthrough, profit, all that.)
> ...



Apart from the 24-70mm 2.8 IS, I think all the others on this list are pretty useless or at least unnecessary. 

16-35 just got the f/4 IS which is pretty good and sharp.
14-24 wouldnt make much sense because of the brand new 11-24.
70-200 2.8 IS is already a masterful lens that excels at everything it's intended to.

But a 24-70 2.8 with IS would be great, especially now that Nikon has one. I don't consider Tamron or Sigma, gave up on 3rd party brands after a major disappointment with a Sigma not being compatible with my new 7d2 body and never answering my support request emails.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 1, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Chapman Baxter said:
> 
> 
> > I've been contemplating the Tamron 15-30mm but haven't pulled the trigger yet. I have the focal length range already covered with other lenses so it's more about upgrading image quality and speed for me. One thing that makes me hesitate over the Tamron is its weight. I do hope a 16-35mm III won't weigh too much more than Canon's current version. With this caveat, I think I'd be willing to stump up the much higher asking price over the Tamron, for the additional benefits of filterability, focusing quality, and that feeling of extra robustness and longevity that all L lenses seem to have.
> ...



Doesn't the Tamron have low coma? If so, I'd consider that a great choice for astro. Similar to 14 at f/2.8 but will more framing options.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 1, 2015)

Mancubus said:


> Apart from the 24-70mm 2.8 IS, I think all the others on this list are pretty useless or at least unnecessary.
> 
> 16-35 just got the f/4 IS which is pretty good and sharp.
> 14-24 wouldnt make much sense because of the brand new 11-24.
> ...



The problem is that there are event photographers, up close sports photogs, etc. who desperately need f/2.8 in an ultrawide. The stellar 16-35 f/4L IS does nothing for them, so they've stuck with their 16-35 f/2.8L II and quietly pined for something sharper, esp. on the wide open end.

It's a bigger need than you think, and I'm fairly confident that's the next L zoom we're going to see.

- A


----------



## NWPhil (Sep 1, 2015)

not that a lens patent telsl the whole story, and I would prefer to see a 24-105 or similar upgraded lens, but:

http://photorumors.com/2013/10/22/the-latest-lens-patents-from-canon-pentax-and-sony/
- reinforces the 24-70mm 2.8 IS

and then
http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/05/patent-canon-ef-16-35-f2-8l-iii/
hmmmm...


and many more interesting patents that probably will never see the daylight


----------



## StoneColdCoffee (Sep 2, 2015)

Chapman Baxter said:


> I've been contemplating the Tamron 15-30mm but haven't pulled the trigger yet. I have the focal length range already covered with other lenses so it's more about upgrading image quality and speed for me. One thing that makes me hesitate over the Tamron is its weight. I do hope a 16-35mm III won't weigh too much more than Canon's current version. With this caveat, I think I'd be willing to stump up the much higher asking price over the Tamron, for the additional benefits of filterability, focusing quality, and that feeling of extra robustness and longevity that all L lenses seem to have.




I finally sold my Canon 16-35/f2.8L II and bought the Tamron 15-30. Mostly I shoot Landscape Astro and while the Canon served a great purpose, the Coma flare at the edges I always had to overlook. so my next thought was to buy a Nikon 14-24with adapter. after watching many reviews I went with the Tamron. I really really like the tamron. IQ is much better. but one thing thatyour right about..this lens is a beeasttttt. its huge! its the weight of the body and you really feel it carrying it around. plus its just large in size. but it was the trade off I made for better quality. now. I believe the new lens will be the 16-35 III. it has to be. and it will be expensve. I really hope not the $3k expensive of the f/4. but it probably will be. So ill keep the Tamron for awhile. and wait for the price drop to $2200. the 70-200II was $2200 and its still the sharpest lense I own. then later ill sell the tamron..it is great quality. plenty of light comes in.


----------



## tron (Sep 3, 2015)

ecka said:


> 35-105/2.8L would be nice
> 
> or 35-85/2L
> :


35-105 2.8 is doable as well as 28-105 2.8.

See Tamron 28-105MM F/2.8 LD Aspherical (IF)


----------

