# More Lens Suggestions [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 14, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/more-lens-suggestions-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/more-lens-suggestions-cr1/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/more-lens-suggestions-cr1/"></a></div>
<strong>The year of the lens?

</strong>We mentioned previously Canon may have a “record year” for lens announcements in 2012. Below are more suggestions and info about new lenses.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>EF 35 f/1.4L II</strong>

Suggested announcement in April/May 2012. Expect the cost to be high.</p>
<p><strong>EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS

</strong><strong>300 f/4L IS

400 f/4L IS

</strong>Suggested announcement in the fall. Perhaps showing for Photokina? A replacement to the EF 400 f/5.6 could realistically come in the shape of a new, and much better EF 100-400L IS. A 400 f/4L IS could fit nicely between the 100-400 and 200-400 (which is going to be very expensive). The built in teleconverter on the 200-400 is going to be a big feature to a lot of photographers and will help justify the cost. I don’t think the 300 f/4L IS needs replacement, but it may be a matter of easy manufacturing to do a 300 and 400 at the same time.</p>
<p><strong>EF135 f/1.8 IS

</strong>It was suggested that this lens exists, but has been “shelved” for the time being. This seems odd considering the new <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/ef2470f28lii" class="pretty-link-keyword">EF 24-70 f/2.8L II</a> didn’t get IS.</p>
<p><strong>2013

</strong>The new lens madness may continue into 2013.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<div class="prli-social-buttons-bar"><a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/delicious_32.png" alt="Delicious" title="Delicious" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/stumbleupon_32.png" alt="StumbleUpon" title="StumbleUpon" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/digg_32.png" alt="Digg" title="Digg" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=RT @prettylink:  [url=http://www.canonrumors.com/]http://www.canonrumors.com/[/url] (via @prettylink)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/twitter_32.png" alt="Twitter" title="Twitter" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.mixx.com/submit?page_url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/mixx_32.png" alt="Mixx" title="Mixx" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://technorati.com/faves?add=http://www.canonrumors.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/technorati_32.png" alt="Technorati" title="Technorati" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&t=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/facebook_32.png" alt="Facebook" title="Facebook" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&h=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/newsvine_32.png" alt="News Vine" title="News Vine" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/reddit_32.png" alt="Reddit" title="Reddit" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/linkedin_32.png" alt="LinkedIn" title="LinkedIn" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/yahoobuzz_32.png" alt="Yahoo! Bookmarks" title="Yahoo! Bookmarks" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a></div>
```


----------



## dolina (Feb 14, 2012)

35 makes sense

100-400, 300 and 400 makes little sense

135 makes more sense.

Wish they'd do the 400/5.6 IS. But seeming I don't like shooting wildlife anymore...


----------



## GL (Feb 14, 2012)

No mention of a 14-24, for which a patent exists? A 14-24/24-70II/70-200II 'trinity' could be the new 35-85-135 given the low-noise high-ISO super-AF bodies being rumoured...


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 14, 2012)

wow the 135 f1.8 would be worth a look


----------



## kpk1 (Feb 14, 2012)

One thing is for sure: Canon rumors are quantum leap better then Canon launches. Big LOL. ;D
Btw the lines, rumors don't materialize so often, as much as I wish. 

The 35/1.4 II is on the top of my list for some time. 
The 24-70 screwed with its price and lack of IS. Waitting for a big rebate, lower the price or 24-70 I or III. Not mentioning that I was expecting a larger focal distance; let's say 24-80. 

The marketing man at Canon is completly dumb. Their strategy is more of keeping what they have, not evolving, not stilling market from Nikon, not to impress their loial customers. C'mon grandma! Nikon can do it, U don't ?

Let's look at their prime lenses lineup. I want to buy:
The 24 II exists and is very good. I'll buy it.
The 35 is god but not stellar compared to the 35/2.0 so it doesn't make much sense the L. The II is iminent.
The 50/1.4 it's lack of real USM and after 3 lenses tested the focus is little eratic and at f2.0 it's not that good. The Nikon counterpart is at least 1 step better.
The 50/1.2 is a big disappointment. The close focusing error; until f2.0 it's not up to an L. Sigma knows!
The 85/1.2 II - focusing speed and I said it all. The Nikon and Sigma are in a way better investments.
The 85/1.8 it's ok but not that good wide open.
The 135. We all are expecting IS on this as much as on every tele lens.


----------



## vlim (Feb 14, 2012)

> I don’t think the 300 f/4L IS needs replacement


 i really hope it'll have one, this lens is a great one but almost 15 years old ! i'm waiting for it 

i would be ready to pay twice the actual price for a new IS, better optical formula and weather sealed lens without a doubt !

But if it's the 400 f/5.6 which is updated in same way, i would be OK too ! This is a great lens but a 20 years old one...

I think we're a lot of "wildlife photographers" who can't afford the big L lenses but under 2500 $ or € many of us are ready to buy great updated lenses like the 300 f/4 or 400 f/5.6.


----------



## Gcon (Feb 14, 2012)

kpk1 said:


> One thing is for sure: Canon rumors are quantum leap better then Canon launches. Big LOL. ;D
> Btw the lines, rumors don't materialize so often, as much as I wish.
> 
> The 35/1.4 II is on the top of my list for some time.
> ...



I agree you hit the nail on the head right there with those points! The only thing is I'm not overly fussed with no IS on the new 24-70/2.8 II but I know some people are really upset with that.

The new 35/1.4 II is definitely imminent. The current one - the bokeh is really busy and that's to do in part by the non-rounded aperture blades. When you've got L primes with 8 non-rounded blades, and zooms out there now with 9 rounded blades - you know the primes will soon get an upgrade.  The 24/1.4, 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 L lenses all have 8 rounded blades. The 35/1.4 doesn't have rounded aperture blades. Pick the odd one out that's due for an upgrade. I'll grab the mark II version.

The 135/2.0 also doesn't have rounded blades. This is another lens that's really due for that aperture blade upgrade. If they bolt IS onto it, then it's a guaranteed purchase for me. That'll be my street shooting tour de force! They had better keep it black though!! White lenses stand out like the proverbials on the street.

The 50/1.2. Yeah I've heard that about that lens, which is why I've steered clear of it. Must look at that Sigma again 

The Canon 50/1.4. Great image quality but horrible horrible lens in all other respects. Do not buy! You could sit there for days with that thing hunting for focus with the centre AF point. Really disappointing lens. If only they'd put the 85/1.8's AF into it, it'd be sooo much better.

85/1.8. Owned that one as well. Awesome AF speeds, but CA CA CA! Soft wide as well, but the CA got me to upgrade to the 85/1.2.... which still has big CA but not as bad.


The new 35/1.4L and 135L will come.

What needs to come before any of those is a decent wide zoom! I'm hoping that Canon will bring out at least one of these three awesome wide-angle zooms this year:

14-24/2.8L (no filter thread)
16-40/4L
16-35/2.8LIII.

I want the 16-35/2.8L III but really I'm so desperate for a decent wide zoom I'll probably get whatever they release first. It'll finally be a lens with decent corner sharpness! Canon have proven with the 8-15/4 fisheye and new 24-70/2.8II that they can engineer wide zooms with decent corners.

Another lens they should update is the 24-105/4. I've gone to f/2.8 zooms, but that lens is still popular and Nikon have a 24-120/4 which I am envious of for travel. Pair that up with a couple of fast primes and you've got a pretty decent travel kit.


----------



## Tiosabas (Feb 14, 2012)

The 400 f4 IS sounds exciting alright. It will obviously be longer and a little heavier than the DO for around the same price tag. Will the 400 DO be discontinued?
I think a 400 5.6L IS would appeal more to the masses, pricewise.


----------



## lol (Feb 14, 2012)

135/1.8 IS makes sense to me, in that as a longer focal length it would benefit more from it than a 24-70 would. The increase speed would also then match the Sony/Zeiss and one-up Nikon too. But would you still want it if it was double the price of the current one?...


----------



## JR (Feb 14, 2012)

Oh boy! This will be an expensive year!   

Cant wait to get the 35 mkII and I am anxious to see if they will do the 135 1.8IS. I would love that!


----------



## docsmith (Feb 14, 2012)

I guess I think a little differently, all of these lenses make sense to me. There is now a huge price gap between lenses. The 300 f/4 and 400 f/4 could help fill that gap while clearly differentiating the lenses. I can see a 400 f/2.8 at ~$11.5k, 400 f/4 at $3.5-5k and a 400 f/5.6 at $1-1.5k. Then throw the 100-400 f4-5.6 in there at ~$2.8k and you have well differentiated lenses at every price point.

I'd be very tempted by a 400 f/4, depending on the optics and price point. I'd be even more tempted by a 500 mm f/5.6.


----------



## jwphotography (Feb 14, 2012)

I want the EF 135 f/1.8L IS right away please! If the IQ is as good as the 135 f/2L then I'm sold already! 

IS makes more sense in a longer prime. I don't get it in the 24 and 28 slow f/2.8 primes.. I just don't get those at all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> The year of the lens?



Hmmm...a look at the wayback machine reveals a late-2010 pronouncement that, "*2011* will be the year of the lens." Clearly, it wasn't. But, hope springs eternal...


----------



## tron (Feb 14, 2012)

I do hope it's the year of the lens (My wallet however disagrees...)

*35 f/1.4L II*
I would be interested as I do not have a current 35mm. However, everyone reports the existing one as being very good. Appart from weather resistance and the use of newer coatings Canon could improve the edge and corner performance (according to photozone.de). I have seen rumors about this lens since 2008 though...
Now that price comments...

*EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS*
It has been discussed before. Nothing to add. I agree of course, although I have a fine current 100-400 that I will keep.

*EF300 f/4L IS*
Actually it has to be 300 f/4L IS II. There is already an IS version.

This is very welcome considering the need to have a top quality weather resistant lens with IS. It is reported that the non-IS version has better optical quality than the current IS version (Just like 70-200 f/2.8L vs. the 1st version 70-200 f/2.8L IS). I do not have an opinion of the IS version but I am crazy about my non-IS 300mm L lens. 

*EF400 f/4L IS*
Actually I was hoping for an update of the 400 f/4 DO lens. I realize though that in that case a possible second version -assuming that an improvement in optical quality is possible - would cost as much as the 500mm f/4L IS II (~10000 dollars, euros, whatever  )

So this (L version) will be more than welcome I guess.

Where is our 400mm f/5.6L IS though ? ? ?

*EF135 f/1.8 IS*
IS would be a real gift. However I like my EF135 L lens so much that it would be difficult to upgrade considering the price. But still...


----------



## torger (Feb 14, 2012)

Where's all the new TS-Es? 

I'd love to see a TS-E 45mm upgrade (to improve optical performance), and after that a TS-E 90mm (to improve movement capability, optically it is already good).


----------



## dswatson83 (Feb 14, 2012)

I wish Canon would focus more on the most popular lenses. The 50mm f/1.4 is only OK at best and is REALLY old. This is a bread & butter lens, along with the 85mm f/1.8, and really these should be top priority. A stellar 50mm & 85mm would make someone consider switching brands. Canon does not have great quality in the non L wider angle primes either (20-35mm range). The newly announced primes with IS are too expensive and cheap looking for a non L leaving a void. There is no excuse for not having a stellar non-L prime lineup with 24-35mm, 50mm, and 85mm. Nikon has brought out a new 50mm & 85mm too.


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The year of the lens?
> ...



Well, 2012 is the EOS 25th Anniversary, so it would make sense for Canon to make a big deal about it with a bunch of new bodies and lenses.



tron said:


> I do hope it's the year of the lens (My wallet however disagrees...)
> 
> *EF300 f/4L IS*
> Actually it has to be 300 f/4L IS II. There is already an IS version.
> ...



Perhaps the EF 400mm f/4 IS would be the replacement for *both* the 400mm f/4 DO and the 400mm f/5.6L? I'd love to get the 400mm f/2.8L IS II, but it would break both the bank and my back! 

In any case, I hope they keep the built-in hood for the 300mm f/4 IS and 400mm f/5.6 replacements. It was (and still is) a great idea, and is so convenient.


----------



## Jamesy (Feb 14, 2012)

dswatson83 said:


> I wish Canon would focus more on the most popular lenses. The 50mm f/1.4 is only OK at best and is REALLY old. This is a bread & butter lens, along with the 85mm f/1.8, and really these should be top priority. A stellar 50mm & 85mm would make someone consider switching brands. Canon does not have great quality in the non L wider angle primes either (20-35mm range). The newly announced primes with IS are too expensive and cheap looking for a non L leaving a void. There is no excuse for not having a stellar non-L prime lineup with 24-35mm, 50mm, and 85mm. Nikon has brought out a new 50mm & 85mm too.



I agree that they should focus on a 50 1.4 replacement but the 85 1.8 is a pretty solid lens - much better than the 50 1.4, IMO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2012)

DJL329 said:


> Perhaps the EF 400mm f/4 IS would be the replacement for *both* the 400mm f/4 DO and the 400mm f/5.6L? I'd love to get the 400mm f/2.8L IS II, but it would break both the bank and my back!



I can't see a 400/4L IS as a replacement for the 400/5.6L...the 400/4L might not break your back, but it would likely put a big strain on your bank. Consider - 400mm/5.6 = 71mm aperture (similar to 300/4, 200/2.8, etc.), whereas 400mm/4 = 100mm aperture, which is much closer to 300/2.8 = 107mm. Accordingly, I'd expect a 400/4L IS to be closer to the 300/2.8 II in size and cost, perhaps a little less for both, say 4.5 lbs and $5800.


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> DJL329 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the EF 400mm f/4 IS would be the replacement for *both* the 400mm f/4 DO and the 400mm f/5.6L? I'd love to get the 400mm f/2.8L IS II, but it would break both the bank and my back!
> ...



Oh, sure and the next thing you're gonna tell me is that I won't be able to fold it up and stick it in my back pocket! :

Why do you have to ruin my dreams? And so quickly?!? ;D Oh, well, that's what I get for not doing the math...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2012)

DJL329 said:


> Why do you have to ruin my dreams? And so quickly?!? ;D Oh, well, that's what I get for not doing the math...



LOL.

One more point to drive it home - compare a hypothetical 400/4L IS to the existing 400/4 DO IS. What diffractive optics do is, in effect, bend the light more sharply. That means a DO lens can be shorter than an non-DO counterpart (the 400/4 DO is shorter than the 300/2.8), but it still needs the same diameter, and it won't necessarily be much lighter. It could be less expensive, since Canon's DO lenses do seem overpriced for what they are.


----------



## Tiosabas (Feb 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> DJL329 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you have to ruin my dreams? And so quickly?!? ;D Oh, well, that's what I get for not doing the math...
> ...



Well it would look like this prototype 400 f4L non-DO with an IS switch. Scroll about half way down.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2000/9/6/canon_400do


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 14, 2012)

kpk1 said:


> One thing is for sure: Canon rumors are quantum leap better then Canon launches. Big LOL. ;D




;D

Anyway I though this was the year of the dragon not lenses???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2012)

Tiosabas said:


> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2000/9/6/canon_400do



Great find, thanks! Suggests there was a prototype, or at least a mockup, over 11 years ago! Here's the image:







400/4 DO on top, non-DO version on bottom, no colored rings on them...


----------



## kpk1 (Feb 14, 2012)

As more as you wish a lens as much Canon will fail you. Look at the 24-70. They put on the price and they cut on the performance, no IS.
So if you want something then ssssssst, Canon is working on it. The surprise is guarantied.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 14, 2012)

kpk1 said:


> Look at the 24-70. They put on the price and they cut on the performance, no IS.



The 24-70 never had IS, so how can that be a cut in performance? As for the price, yes a few hundred dollars less would be nice, but at the same time by the sounds of it the optics of the lens are going to be great. So that doesn't come cheap, unfortunately.


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 14, 2012)

Fail you? Look at theese, they are taken with the new 24-70 II.

http://500px.com/photo/5022029


----------



## jrista (Feb 14, 2012)

Wow, the 135 f/1.8 is really intriguing. Would that be the fastest short telephoto lens made today? It would be doubly awesome if it offered controllable soft focus as well.


----------



## lol (Feb 14, 2012)

Sony/Zeiss already do a 135/1.8 so that's nothing new. I'd pass on the soft focus though, as that's very niche. The existing 135 soft focus isn't exactly desirable it seems. I only got one as it was practically given away - I've spent more on filters! Ones at a more typical used price aren't moving fast.


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2012)

lol said:


> Sony/Zeiss already do a 135/1.8 so that's nothing new. I'd pass on the soft focus though, as that's very niche. The existing 135 soft focus isn't exactly desirable it seems. I only got one as it was practically given away - I've spent more on filters! Ones at a more typical used price aren't moving fast.



Well, I'd say the current 135 SF is just too old and clunky to be desirable. I've played with the Nikon SF lens a few times, and seen some truly fantastic portrait shots from it...its truly a beauty. If Canon could make a lens with the same quality and the SF feature, I think it would be highly desirable.


----------



## stabmasterasron (Feb 15, 2012)

@dswatson83: exactly! I wish they would upgrade these old lenses. I really want a nice quality 50mm lens (I have the 1.8 right now). And I would be willing to spend some cash, but for a lens that is older than me (not really, just a joke). Anyway, the lens is old. They seem to update the L primes every 5 years or so. But for some reason these non-L primes are old as hell. I would think canon could update these primes with modern features without adding L prices to them. But maybe enough people are still buying them that canon sees no reason to update them.


----------



## Stone (Feb 15, 2012)

I'm hoping for the 35L II to be released in the near future to replace my Sigma 30. The current 35L doesn't really outpeform my siggy in any way so I'm having a hard time justifying $1200 for the "upgrade" but the siggy has to go since I'm going FF this year. I agree the 50mm might be the most needed upgrade and the 85 1.8 could also use a refresh to tame the excessive purple fringing wide open. I can't see the 135L getting any better optically, but IS might be nice update, alot of people are dumping it for the 70-200 2.8 IS which seems to make up for the 1-stop advantage.


----------



## kpk1 (Feb 15, 2012)

bigblue1ca said:


> kpk1 said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the 24-70. They put on the price and they cut on the performance, no IS.
> ...



The expected 24-70 was with IS at least, as many of us wrote. The improvement in border area is justifying the increased price ? For me, not. 
I quess when 24-70/2.8 III with IS will show you won't mind paying 3000$ on it just because it has something added.
I agree with a price increase because it's a new model and 2-300$ more is justified, so I have been with 1700 in my pocket for this, but 2300 is ridiculous.
Another thing, Nikkor 24-70 is around 1850. If they can do it don't you mind being fulled with 450$ more ??? I am.
Put it this way, Canon 24-105 is 1050$. Proportionally speaking the new 24-70, 2300$ it isn't justified. Make it 1300 or 1400 but the difference is pure marketing and I can see is that good done because some of us really think it's worth.


----------

