# Lenses Lenses Lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 18, 2010)

```
<p><strong>From EOS-Numerique

<span style="font-weight: normal;">A thread has shown up on the EOS Numerique forum about what’s coming shortly. I will talk about what’s posted there.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.eos-numerique.com/forums/f11/les-nouveautes-canon-pour-la-rentree-153805/"><span style="font-weight: normal;">http://www.eos-numerique.com/forums/f11/les-nouveautes-canon-pour-la-rentree-153805/</span></a> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Here’s what I know so far

<span style="font-weight: normal;">As I wrote yesterday, 2 of the big white lenses are going to be replaced. The above link says all 4, however I’m still told it’ll just be 2 at a time.</span></strong></p>
<p>300 f/2.8L IS II

400 f/2.8L IS II</p>
<p><strong>[CR3]</strong> on at least 2 big white lenses getting replacements.</p>
<p><strong>Zooms

<span style="font-weight: normal;">The above link points to a 100-300L. I’ve heard a bit about this over the last few weeks.</span></strong></p>
<p>If I had to guess, it could be an EF 100-300 f/4L IS.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â It wouldn’t be 2.8 and I highly doubt it would be variable aperture.</p>
<p>A wide angle zoom is also coming, <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/07/new-f4l-ef-zoom-cr1/" target="_self">I’ve heard 16-50 f/4L IS</a>. It may be something different, but I do not see a 2.8 replacement of the 16-35 f/2.8 II.</p>
<p>The 8mm-12mm mentioned in the forum post I’ve heard nothing about.</p>
<p>Like we’ve said in the past, there are 3-4 lenses coming this fall.</p>
<p>I will <strong>[CR2]</strong> this.</p>
<p><strong>The Bad News

<span style="font-weight: normal;">I have heard NOTHING about the following desired lenses.</span> </strong></p>
<p><strong>24-70 f/2.8L IS

<span style="font-weight: normal;">If it’s coming, it’s been very well hidden. Not a single source has mentioned anything about it.</span> </strong></p>
<p><strong>50 f/1.4 II

<span style="font-weight: normal;">Nothing has come my way in a long time.</span> </strong></p>
<p><strong>August 19 Announcements

<span style="font-weight: normal;">The above thread also says there will be announcements tomorrow. To be honest, I’ve received an equal number of yays & nays for camera stuff being announced tomorrow.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">More soon</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Justin (Aug 18, 2010)

Very interesting. Wallet feeling loose. 

A 100-300L doesn't seem that appealing. 300mm isn't very long for f/4. A new lighter 300 2.8 would work though because we can pop a 2x on there for 600mm. 

Anyhow will have to wait to see how it all pans out.


----------



## muteteh (Aug 18, 2010)

The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens. My guess is Canon thinks sales would gain more from giving new photographers an advanced feature than giving other photographers a needed feature.

An EF 100-300 f/4 IS ? Between the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6, and existing EF 100-400mm, I don't see how this caters photographers' needs better than an upgraded EF 100-400mm.

An EF-S 8mm-12mm ? I think Canon needs to invest in it's wide angle lenses, but that an APS-C diagonal fisheye would sell better ?

[Why ? The Canon fisheye is a very good seller on Amazon, and practically every Canon body - including APS-C bodies ! - has a DxO module for the EF 15mm fishseye lens. The only lenses I am likely to buy from Canon in the next one to two years are ultra wide for FF, e.g. circular fisheye and EF 14mm-whatever f/4 or f/2.8]


----------



## funkboy (Aug 18, 2010)

A 100-300 f/4L IS would suit my needs perfectly.

Certainly better optically than the existing 100-400, plus no trombone zoom.

I'd much rather have a smaller/lighter 100-300 f/4 and add my 1.4x TC when I need it. A little more reach at f/5.6, great wide-open, and still retains AF without tape.

Of course, this would mean that I wouldn't be buying that 70-200 f/4L I've been wanting...


----------



## hmmm (Aug 18, 2010)

+1 to Funkboys comments. That was almost word for word what I was going to say. 

This is a great option for those who have been waiting for either a 300 f4L IS update or a 100-400 5.6L IS update. 

For ef-s shooters: with a 1.4x, the efl would be 670mm @ f 5.6 with current gen IS. Nice.


----------



## deeznuts (Aug 18, 2010)

16-50 looks good. not sure IS is needed but oh well. That's EF and not EFS? I would buy that pretty quickly


----------



## ronderick (Aug 18, 2010)

I think the 2 new f/4 lenses would strengthen the travel/outdoor gear package and compliment the 24-105 really nicely. 

So instead of the old set (17-40mm f/4 + 24-105mm f/4 + 100-400mm f/4-5.6), we get the new power-up version (16-50mm f/4 + 24-105mm f/4 + 100-300mm f/4). 

Like everyone else, I really hope that there's no more pull/push zoom on the white lens... it's such a royal pain when rain sets in...

However, I am a bit worried about the weight, size, and especially the $$$ of these new L lenses... :'(


----------



## Justin (Aug 18, 2010)

We're all worried friend. The way the 70-200 f/2.8 went up from 1799 street to 2499 is not encouraging for the future upgrades. 25% plus increases are unwelcome. The only thing they do preserve is the resale value on the previous versions--which I suppose is a good thing for some folks. 



ronderick said:


> I think the 2 new f/4 lenses would strengthen the travel/outdoor gear package and compliment the 24-105 really nicely.
> 
> So instead of the old set (17-40mm f/4 + 24-105mm f/4 + 100-400mm f/4-5.6), we get the new power-up version (16-50mm f/4 + 24-105mm f/4 + 100-300mm f/4).
> 
> ...


----------



## max (Aug 18, 2010)

I just bought a Sigma 100-300mm f/4... because the 70-200 was too short, and 100-400 with its push pull and the non constant aperture sold me. And the possibility of using a TC without loosing AF.

I would definetly change it for a canon version.

My 100-300 is not really that large in size and weight.


----------



## kubelik (Aug 18, 2010)

I agree with muteteh and Justin's sentiments about a 100-300 f/4; namely, it doesn't really do much for you that canon's current lineup doesn't already do. I hate comparing against nikon but I do think they had the right idea in going to a 200-400 f/4. 

I'd love to see the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS replaced by a 200-400mm f/4-5.6 IS that uses a conventional zoom ring, weathersealing, and newer IS. would I pay a 25% markup from the Dust Buster's price for a lens like that? a resounding heck yes. 

16-50 f/4 would be a great landscape walkaround lens to replace the 17-40, the extra bit of range on both ends makes a lot of sense. agree with CR guy that replacing the 16-35 II makes little sense for canon at the moment


----------



## Sebastian (Aug 18, 2010)

muteteh said:


> The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens.



I'm totally with you here. But remember that we've enough freaks in this very forum would happily cram an IS even in a fisheye. 



muteteh said:


> An EF 100-300 f/4 IS ? Between the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6, and existing EF 100-400mm, I don't see how this caters photographers' needs better than an upgraded EF 100-400mm.



Again, I fully have to concur. Owning both a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 100-400, I definitely wouldn't have a need for a 100-300 f/4 in between. (A f/2.8 would be a different thing. ) And personally, I really like the long end of my 100-400, so I also wouldn't replace it with a 100-300.

However, if a 100-300 f/4 would have a better built and image quality over the 100-400, people who haven't already got a lens that range could well choose the 100-300.


Regards,

Sebastian


----------



## match14 (Aug 18, 2010)

I would trade my 70-200 f/4L IS for a 100-300 f/4L IS


----------



## coldstone (Aug 18, 2010)

100-300 is a bad choice in my opinion
after buying a 70-200 4 IS thats even more frustrating (because this is one of my best lenses) since its almost the same range with a 1,5tc (with very little loss in image quality) ...
a 200-400 4-5,6 IS would be a better solution
the 16-50 is a good choice in my opinion since the 16-35 I/II were really bad in the corners 
and you had no other choice if you wanted a lens that can use filters (and yes that is important)
and is sharp (at least in the center)

16-50 70-200 200-400 would be just wonderful maybe with some HIS-macros at 100 (already there) and 200 
16-35 24-70... would be ok too


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 18, 2010)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p><strong>From EOS-Numerique
> 
> <span style=\"font-weight: normal;\">The above link points to a 100-300L. Iâ€™ve heard a bit about this over the last few weeks.</span></strong></p>
> <p>If I had to guess, it could be an EF 100-300 f/4L IS.Ã‚ Ã‚ It wouldnâ€™t be 2.8...



Why not? Sigma makes the pretty-solid 120-300/2.8. A 100-300/2.8 would compete well with the Sigma and the Nikon 200-400/4 (100-300/2.8 + 1.4 = 140-420/4). If they replaced the 300/2.8 with that, I think that would be great. Of course, I doubt they will but I see no reason they couldn't.


----------



## martijn (Aug 18, 2010)

It would be very nice if the new batch would include some reasonably priced models (below 2500 euros)...even the least expensive of those new tele-primes would be well over 5 grand I guess.

Actually I was hoping for an upgraded 100-400 but a 100-300/4 would be a reasonable alternative, with that one stop advantage.

A 100-300/2.8 would almost certainly be too heavy and expensive...

I was also thinking of getting the 300/4 prime, but now I'll wait and see if that 100-300/4 actually does emerge in the short term...with the latest technology that Canon has (like the 70-200/2.8 IS II), it may turn out to be at least as good or perhaps even better than the prime too (better IS, coatings etc.)...
I'd expect to pay something in the region of 1500-2000 euros for one, at least once the early premium has worn off a bit.


----------



## pgabor (Aug 18, 2010)

God, pls!!! Make canon release EF 16-50mm f/4.0L IS, i need that thing sooo badly!


----------



## muteteh (Aug 18, 2010)

Sebastian said:


> muteteh said:
> 
> 
> > The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens.
> ...



Maybe that circular fisheye would have gotten more votes if I had H-IS added, as well as f/1.0 & rounded 8 blades aperture for that shallow DOF with smooth bokeh effect.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 19, 2010)

deeznuts said:


> 16-50 looks good. not sure IS is needed but oh well. That's EF and not EFS?



EF-s wouldn't make much sense. Between the 17-55/2,8 and the 15-85 I don't see who could be the targeted customer group.


----------



## Justin (Aug 19, 2010)

I find it hard to believe Canon isn't going to match the Nikon 14-24 2.8. 

I find it harder to believe the 24-70 2.8 IS is falling off the rumor wagon. 

I find it ridiculous that Canon chooses now to upgrade all its super teles after the olympics and the world cup. 

I find it just plain dumb that Canon doesn't have a competitor or superior camera to compete with the D3s. 

Why no full frame, fast AF, clean high iso, high fps, monster from Canon. Why?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2010)

funkboy said:


> A 100-300 f/4L IS would suit my needs perfectly.
> 
> I'd much rather have a smaller/lighter 100-300 f/4 and add my 1.4x TC when I need it. A little more reach at f/5.6, great wide-open, and still retains AF without tape.





martijn said:


> It would be very nice if the new batch would include some reasonably priced models (below 2500 euros)...even the least expensive of those new tele-primes would be well over 5 grand I guess.
> 
> Actually I was hoping for an upgraded 100-400 but a 100-300/4 would be a reasonable alternative, with that one stop advantage.





hmmm said:


> +1 to Funkboys comments. That was almost word for word what I was going to say.
> 
> This is a great option for those who have been waiting for either a 300 f4L IS update or a 100-400 5.6L IS update.



Same here. I've used the 300 f4 and the 100-400. The 300 is a great lens and still very sharp with the 1.4 tele-converter. But, I did find the lack of zoom a bit problematic. While I'd still prefer an update on the 100-400, a sharp and affordable 100-300 constant aperture would be a reasonable compromise when combined with a tele-converter. 

Of course, we all lust after the 2.8 versions, but I'd settle for the slightly slower lens if it's affordable and then rent the faster lenses when needed. 

It seems like all these superfast, super long telephotos are great for niche shooters, but it's hard to justify the expense if you aren't using them every day.


----------



## drummstikk (Aug 19, 2010)

match14 said:


> I would trade my 70-200 f/4L IS for a 100-300 f/4L IS



Based on other posts, this may put me in a minority, but I'd seriously consider selling my 70-200 2.8 for a 100-300 4.0. My 70-200 spends a lot of time with the 1.4x on it anyway, and a 100-300 would complement my 24-105 4.0 very well. Performance of the 2.8 zoom with the 1.4x is very good, but I'd love to take it out of the optical path. My rare need for f/2.8 could be met by an occasional rental.

On the supposed 300mm 2.8 replacement: Anybody besides me hoping they do away with the removable tripod collar? That's just a very expensive accident waiting to happen in my opinion. The copy of the current IS-version 300mm 2.8 that I rent locally from time to time has wear on the interior surface of the collar that makes rotation stiff and gritty. That never happened with the original non-IS version of this lens that I forever regret selling.

If anybody ever removes the collar from this lens, can you tell me WHY? Even in the rare instance when I'm not using a monopod with that lens, the tripod mount rests perfectly in my palm and holds the lens barrel just far enough away from my hand for easy fingertip manual focus.


----------



## Sebastian (Aug 19, 2010)

muteteh said:


> Sebastian said:
> 
> 
> > muteteh said:
> ...



Yeah, that would've most likely done the trick. 


Regards,

Sebastian


----------



## Sebastian (Aug 19, 2010)

drummstikk said:


> match14 said:
> 
> 
> > I would trade my 70-200 f/4L IS for a 100-300 f/4L IS
> ...



That's a nice example how different photographers can be. 
Allthough I do own a 1.4x TC, I've never used since I bought the 100-400. I take the 70-200 f/2.8 whenever shooting in low-light conditions where I'm always happy with every f-stop I can get, so the TC stays off the lens.
And personally, while I'm very happy with the IQ of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I'd grade the combined quality of the 70-200 + TC 1.4x II as "OK", but not as "very good".


Regards,

Sebastian


----------



## MCK (Aug 19, 2010)

Sebastian said:


> muteteh said:
> 
> 
> > The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens.
> ...


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 19, 2010)

It seems like Sigma's 120-400 will still be the better way to go. As for the upgrades to the "Big Whites" Make them black. I really hate white colored lenses.


----------



## geohsia (Aug 19, 2010)

Sebastian said:


> I'm totally with you here. But remember that we've enough freaks in this very forum would happily cram an IS even in a fisheye.



The current 24-70 is very inconsistent. Whether it's manufacturing or design I don't know but it needs to be replaced with a lens where we don't have to worry if we just bought a good copy through an online store. As for IS on a mid-range lens I used to shoot a lot with Olympus so am used to having IS on everything. Was it always necessary? No. But was nice many times when I just had a bit more headroom for motion. For standard compositions and when you have time to setup I agree IS isn't needed but sometimes when you're moving fast and in a fast paced environment with shifting light sometimes your shutter speed is a little too close to 1/15 or 1/30 and a bit of assistance from IS is helpful. There are also multiple IS modes and it is helpful when doing panning as well. Is it absolutely necessary? No, but certainly is still a useful feature to have. Don't want it, buy the current one, but there will certainly be a group of users who can use any technology Canon tacks on to it and will find creative ways to push the boundaries. Also let's not forget that depending on how its done it might also be useful for video.


----------



## muteteh (Aug 19, 2010)

geohsia said:


> The current 24-70 is very inconsistent. Whether it's manufacturing or design I don't know but it needs to be replaced with a lens where we don't have to worry if we just bought a good copy through an online store. ... Don't want it, buy the current one, but there will certainly be a group of users who can use any technology Canon tacks on to it and will find creative ways to push the boundaries.



Once Canon starts manufcaturing an upgraded lens, say for the justified reason that the quality of the current 24-70 is inconsistent, the current lens will go out of the market, and I will no longer have the choice to buy a copy without IS. That IS will cost me extra, even though I don't want it.

Now, I could try to influence Canon to keep both lenses in production, but that might hurt me some other way, e.g. in other lenses Canon does not upgrade, say the 1979 Canon FD 7.5mm f/5.6 circular fisheye to an EF 7.5mm f/4 circular fisheye.


----------



## geohsia (Aug 19, 2010)

muteteh said:


> Once Canon starts manufcaturing an upgraded lens, say for the justified reason that the quality of the current 24-70 is inconsistent, the current lens will go out of the market, and I will no longer have the choice to buy a copy without IS. That IS will cost me extra, even though I don't want it.



Then buy one now. The point is, there is room for the lens to improve. It could be sharper especially wide open. It can be smaller though IS will negate that if added. Regardless if IS is added, the lens should be replaced. Its a good lens if you get a good copy but I don't think really gets the most out of the current bodies.


----------



## bejor (Aug 19, 2010)

So... where are the lenses???? I only see P&S Announcements 

By the way... Canon should make it's lenses warranties last longer... 1 year is too short for a $6,000 for example... the other side of the river gives 1+4 in the USA. :-X


----------



## MOT (Aug 20, 2010)

Lee Jay said:


> Why not? Sigma makes the pretty-solid 120-300/2.8. A 100-300/2.8 would compete well with the Sigma and the Nikon 200-400/4 (100-300/2.8 + 1.4 = 140-420/4). If they replaced the 300/2.8 with that, I think that would be great. Of course, I doubt they will but I see no reason they couldn't.



I agree, and a 100-300/2.8 would be perfect for me. I much prefer Canon's L glass, but have been seriously considering the Sigma 120-300/2.8 because I shoot a lot of really poorly lit nighttime, outdoor rodeos. The 70-200/2.8 is getting me by, but I could really use the extra 100mm on my FF.


----------



## craigkg (Aug 20, 2010)

I have been wanting a 100-300mm f/4L IS. I want a zoom that goes beyond 200mm, is constant maximum aperture of f/4 or larger and has image stabilization. I'm come close to pulling the trigger on the 70-200mm f/4L IS a few times, but kept thinking Sigma would probably upgrade their 100-300mm f/4 EX to has OS. I've used the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS several times as a rental, but have never been very impressed and am not fond of the push-pull design. On two of my four rentals, the lens was too soft at the long end and the needs better IS. A 100-300mm f/4 would also be brighter at every focal length than the 100-400mm. A 100-300mm f/4L IS meets perfectly with my wants. If I need a longer focal length, a 1.4x teleconverter can be used or I can rent a long prime. A 300mm f/4L prime doesn't make much sense for my purposes (landscape and wildlife) even though it is good for many sports uses where a 300mm f/2.8L is overkill or too expensive for some.


----------



## match14 (Aug 20, 2010)

The rumored 16-50 f/4L IS will probably turn out to be a 15-60 f/4L IS.


----------



## funkboy (Aug 21, 2010)

Hmmm, the Sigma 100-300 f/4 weighs almost exactly double the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS, and is 5cm longer. Granted it has internal focusing, so if the Canon 100-300L has an extending barrel then potentially it could be made shorter.

At the beginning of the EOS story, Canon did have a 100-300 f/5.6L. It was a push/pull design based on the FD version (basically they added an AFD AF motor and some plastic & that was about it). It weighed about the same as the 70-200 f/4L IS (~700g) and was apparently optically excellent from what I can see in the reviews.

Let's hope they can keep the size & weight down with the f/4L IS USM version. With the current trend in their telephotos this like likely, but we'll pay for it...

Now, from a marketing point of view, a 16-50 f/4L IS makes a lot of sense for Canon:

- a lot of people (including me) prefer to invest in FF-compatible lenses even if they use a crop body most of the time, either because they also own an FF body or don't want to rule out the possibility of getting one (or like me, they have a film camera sitting in the closet that might see some use one day...)

- there's a ton of competition in the crop standard zoom f/2.8 IS segment. Some folks buying the Sigma, Tamron, or even the Canon EF-S would be willing to put in a little more cash (or a lot more) to have a weathersealed FF compatible option (basically, to have a proper "L" lens).

- Recent copies of the current 17-40 f/4L are of very high optical quality, but on a crop camera it's an awful lot of money for something with such a short zoom range when there are stabilized f/2.8 competitors for less.
I started out with a 17-40 f/4L, didn't use it much, and traded it towards a 24-105 f/4L when that came out.

If they keep it close to the same size as the 17-40L I think it'll be a winner.


----------



## /dev/null (Aug 23, 2010)

You cannot compare a 100-300 f/4 to a 70-200 f/4. If you add a 1.4x TC to the 70-200 f/4, it becomes a 100-280 *f/5.6*. 
Therefore you should compare to a 70-200 *f/2.8* with 1.4x TC, which then behaves like a 100-280 f/4.
In fact, the current 70-200 f/2.8 L is very close in size and weight to the 300 f/4 L prime.


----------



## match14 (Aug 25, 2010)

funkboy said:


> Now, from a marketing point of view, a 16-50 f/4L IS makes a lot of sense for Canon:
> 
> - a lot of people (including me) prefer to invest in FF-compatible lenses even if they use a crop body most of the time, either because they also own an FF body or don't want to rule out the possibility of getting one (or like me, they have a film camera sitting in the closet that might see some use one day...)



Which is exactly why it would make more sense to be a 15-60 f/4L IS, on crop it would be a standard zoom (24-96) and on full frame it would be a wide angle zoom.


----------



## that1guy (Aug 26, 2010)

muteteh said:


> geohsia said:
> 
> 
> > The current 24-70 is very inconsistent. Whether it's manufacturing or design I don't know but it needs to be replaced with a lens where we don't have to worry if we just bought a good copy through an online store. ... Don't want it, buy the current one, but there will certainly be a group of users who can use any technology Canon tacks on to it and will find creative ways to push the boundaries.
> ...



Merry Christmas ;D !


----------



## muteteh (Aug 26, 2010)

that1guy said:


> muteteh said:
> 
> 
> > geohsia said:
> ...



Danke shcoen.

I'm an atheist, so I'll make it a happy winter solstice.


----------



## that1guy (Aug 26, 2010)

Well, you will have a great solstice then. And a happy Festivus too! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS7-jcsB_WQ&feature=related


----------



## pazuzu (Aug 26, 2010)

Really bummed out that the 24-70 2.8L IS and/or an upgraded version of the 35 1.4L with improved USM wasn't announced. I had high hopes for this latest round of news from Canon. Any idea if they're done with the announcements? Think maybe there's more to come??


----------



## pazuzu (Aug 26, 2010)

I just checked the Canon US site and the 24-105 4L IS isn't listed anymore; did that get an upgrade? Anyone have any news on that lens?


----------



## AlleyB (Aug 26, 2010)

24-105 is not showing on the Canon Europe site either....hmm.


----------



## pazuzu (Aug 26, 2010)

I'm desperately trying to refrain from getting overly excited about a possible upgrade to the 24-105 4L IS to prevent massive disappointment should it be a simple website issue. I'd love to get my hands on a 24-105 2.8L IS. That would be supa-sweet. If they announce that this week (ideally today or tomorrow) it should give me just enough time to save up and purchase it for an upcoming photo shoot later this year.


----------



## pazuzu (Aug 27, 2010)

Damn, the 24-105 4L IS is back on the web site so it must've been dropped by mistake. Serious bummer today...


----------



## Fuki (Aug 31, 2010)

I hope 17-40 replacement will come soon.

I'm upgrading from 300D to 7D in about 2 weeks and I need good wide angle lens for 7D.

I don't have the money for 16-35L f/2.8 II and I'm not willing to spend my money on 17-40, the lens that will be upgraded soon since it's more than 20 years since Canon first launched this lens.

Do you have any idea about the timing for the 17-40 replacement??


----------



## Grendel (Aug 31, 2010)

The EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS is actually pretty good and the EF-S 10-22mm is fairly decent (great range.) The 16-35 is great on a FF body.


----------



## Sebastian (Sep 1, 2010)

Fuki said:


> I'm upgrading from 300D to 7D in about 2 weeks and I need good wide angle lens for 7D.



So maybe you should start looking for the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM or something similar. 27-64mm 35mm-equivalent (that's what a 17-40 will give you on an APS-C body) is not what I would call a "wide angle lens".



Fuki said:


> I don't have the money for 16-35L f/2.8 II and I'm not willing to spend my money on 17-40, the lens that will be upgraded soon since it's more than 20 years since Canon first launched this lens.



Wrong. The 17-40 was launched in May 2003, which makes it a mere 7 years old.


HTH,

Sebastian


----------



## Fuki (Sep 1, 2010)

Grendel said:


> The EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS is actually pretty good and the EF-S 10-22mm is fairly decent (great range.) The 16-35 is great on a FF body.


I agree with you but I am reluctant on buying non L lenses.


----------



## Fuki (Sep 1, 2010)

Sebastian said:


> Fuki said:
> 
> 
> > I'm upgrading from 300D to 7D in about 2 weeks and I need good wide angle lens for 7D.
> ...


I'm sorry for not articulating what I wanted more accurately. By saying "wide angle lens" I meant standard zoom lens on an APS-C body. 



Sebastian said:


> Fuki said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have the money for 16-35L f/2.8 II and I'm not willing to spend my money on 17-40, the lens that will be upgraded soon since it's more than 20 years since Canon first launched this lens.
> ...


Then the information provided here is wrong.
Nevertheless I'm hoping for an update.


----------



## Sebastian (Sep 1, 2010)

Fuki said:


> Sebastian said:
> 
> 
> > Fuki said:
> ...



Seems to be - I guess Canon should really know when they launched this lens. 
@CR-guy: mind fixing that little error? 


Regards,

Sebastian


----------

