# sorry i have to ask....



## Lightmaster (Mar 19, 2014)

so 2014... "the year of the lens".

and the no. 1 canon rumor website has no clue at all what´s coming?

NSA secrets are leaked but canon is tight as an oyster?

80% of the articles on this website are deals lately.
sure the website has to make money but the lack of true rumors is a bit disappointing.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 19, 2014)

I think we need the help of Edward Snowden. :-\


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 19, 2014)

There have been quite a few rumours of late. The 800 ii, new wide angles, new versions of existing prime lenses and that is just the lenses.

What lens were you hoping for?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 19, 2014)

Canon has over 70 lenses available. How many more do you need? 

Seriously, it's past time for a 35L II.


----------



## tolusina (Mar 19, 2014)

TS-E 43mm f/2.8L


----------



## climber (Mar 19, 2014)

I'd like to see one which would be able to make Brenizer effect in one shot. Something with f/0.04 let say. 

Just kidding


----------



## Lightmaster (Mar 19, 2014)

what i would like to know is what we can expect in 2014.
a CR2 or better CR3 would not be bad. 

when you ask me what lenses i want:

a very sharp 12-24mm f2.8.

an updated and really sharp 17-40mm f4

a new EF 100-400mm, without push design.
or even better a EF 200-600mm f5.0-f6.0 for ~2200 euro. 

i know canon wants f5.6 for AF on most cameras. but hey it works for others so...  
or make it 200-550mm f5-5.6 .. would make me happy too.
at least when it has canons AF, IS and is really sharp at the long end.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Mar 19, 2014)

Seems like a lot of folks are interested in the extreme lenses in the long range.

Me, I would like to see a 24-105 ver II. I would also like to see a 16-35 III.

Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.

The 24-70 ver II that came out was obviously a hit but also way overpriced.

For most mid-range enthusiasts, the 24-105 has been a great lens. It is likely most folks 1st L lens with good reason. Why doesn't Canon improve that lens after all this time? Seems like it would sell well for them.


----------



## Lightmaster (Mar 19, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.



the 24mm IS has come to a reasonable price here.
from around ~800 euro to 450 euro.

but yes the introduction price was too high.


----------



## climber (Mar 19, 2014)

I'd like to have 14-24 2.8 too, which would be a great combo with 24-70 and 70-200.


----------



## Lightmaster (Mar 19, 2014)

climber said:


> I'd like to have 14-24 2.8 too, which would be a great combo with 24-70 and 70-200.



yes and then imagine a EF 200-600mm. 

would that not make a great line of zooms.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 19, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> climber said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to have 14-24 2.8 too, which would be a great combo with 24-70 and 70-200.
> ...


+1


----------



## distant.star (Mar 19, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> so 2014... "the year of the lens".
> 
> and the no. 1 canon rumor website has no clue at all what´s coming?
> 
> ...



You may want to temper your expectations about the site, kiddo.

1. CR, as I understand it, is a passive reporting site. When they are told something from a reasonable source, you as a reader have a place where you can find out about it. I don't seem them doing "investigative journalism," spending days and nights on the phones cultivating deep sources, poring over arcane documents and shipping information, etc. I believe they also walk a fine line -- Canon is not averse to legal actions. I may be wrong, but I think there have already been skirmishes here.

2. As I've often said, the state of journalism in the photography world is abominable. The information about what's coming is not that hard to get -- there are too many suppliers and shippers involved to be otherwise. A good journalist could get indicative information that could be confidently reported. Hell, Apple can't keep secrets. There's also the point of playing the game a certain way. Many manufacturers use controlled leaks, and that does not appear to be common in the photography equipment world.

Finally, as for NSA "secrets" getting out, you may have noticed the people who got the info out are now tightly locked up in limbo situations. I wouldn't expect CR to go out on that kind of a limb.

So, in between the waves of really juicy rumors, we bide our time here in forum chattering mostly about silly things.


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 19, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> For most mid-range enthusiasts, the 24-105 has been a great lens. It is likely most folks 1st L lens with good reason. Why doesn't Canon improve that lens after all this time? Seems like it would sell well for them.


There are plenty of lenses in the Canon line-up whose designs are much older than the 24-105's. I'm sure that a lot more than design age figures into which models Canon updates or replaces (market size, margin opportunity, revenue & profit forecasts, etc.)

I'd like a 150-450mm f/4-5/6L IS. (Or at least 200-400.)


----------



## Lightmaster (Mar 19, 2014)

distant.star said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > so 2014... "the year of the lens".
> ...



i will try fetus. ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon has over 70 lenses available. How many more do you need?
> 
> Seriously, it's past time for a 35L II.


Here you go :


----------



## Drizzt321 (Mar 19, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Seems like a lot of folks are interested in the extreme lenses in the long range.
> 
> Me, I would like to see a 24-105 ver II. I would also like to see a 16-35 III.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, unless a new 24-105 v2 was significantly improved (f/2.8? highly unlikely) I doubt it'd sell in vast numbers. Mostly it'd probably be sold as part of a kit, like it is now, which wouldn't boost sales really. Just like with the new Sigma 24-105. It's a bit better in some ways, and if I were to buy a new FF camera and didn't have the current 24-105L, I'd probably buy that instead with a bare camera instead of as a kit. But since I already have the 24-105L, I'm not going to buy it.


----------



## LuCoOc (Mar 19, 2014)

You seem to forget that it wasn't Canon, who said "2014 will be the year of the lens". CR guy said it *could* become a good year for lens announcements based on his rumor-sources....

But seriously, there are a few lenses I would like to see, although I might never own them (12/14-24 2.8, 35 II, TS-Es, 50 1.?). Just sit back, enjoy what's comming and what's not and keep clicking.




mackguyver said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has over 70 lenses available. How many more do you need?
> ...



This is just the cinema version of the current 35mm L, but nice try.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 19, 2014)

LuCoOc said:


> This is just the cinema version of the current 35mm L, but nice try.


I know (note the wink) -- I'm just having fun


----------



## scyrene (Mar 19, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Seems like a lot of folks are interested in the extreme lenses in the long range.
> 
> Me, I would like to see a 24-105 ver II. I would also like to see a 16-35 III.
> 
> ...



I imagine you'd be better off getting the new Sigma 24-105. And funnily enough, the 35 IS is probably the next lens I'll buy. IS on a wideish lens is great for handheld landscapes (when I'd be stopping down) and interiors with low light/events. The price has come down to less than £450 here which I think is fine.


----------



## Ruined (Mar 22, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.



Crazy!

The 24 IS and 35 IS lenses are both spectacular for different reasons.

First, they replace older designs that were far inferior optically.

Second, the 24 IS has significantly less flare closed down (where most landscapers would use it) than both the 24L II and the 24-70 II. The smaller size also makes it more portable for hiking.

Third, the 35 IS has rounded aperture blades unlike the 35L, plus it is smaller and lighter than the 35L. Fantastic for a city walkabout lens for those reasons, plus less obtrusive/expensive looking.

Fourth, these lenses have the added bonus of IS, which can be useful in select circumstances when you lack a tripod. IS is really only a bonus though, the real beauty is in the other advantages mentioned.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Mar 22, 2014)

Ruined said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.
> ...



Thanks Ruined! Now call me '_corrected_'! 

I appreciate the concise list of reasons why the 24 & 35 ver II prime lenses are more desirable now. I always knew the original 24 and 35 EF primes could have been much better (and probably _were_ a waste of time) but the outrageous price of the ver II lenses soured my opinion of them prematurely. I thought the necessity of IS for wide prime lenses was debatable and a lame excuse to offer the new versions for such a high price. I'm glad that they dropped in price a bit and I'm glad to know there are other reasons other than IS to consider them.


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 22, 2014)

scyrene said:


> ... the 35 IS is probably the next lens I'll buy.



Same here.


----------



## Ruined (Mar 23, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I appreciate the concise list of reasons why the 24 & 35 ver II prime lenses are more desirable now. I always knew the original 24 and 35 EF primes could have been much better (and probably _were_ a waste of time) but the outrageous price of the ver II lenses soured my opinion of them prematurely. I thought the necessity of IS for wide prime lenses was debatable and a lame excuse to offer the new versions for such a high price. I'm glad that they dropped in price a bit and I'm glad to know there are other reasons other than IS to consider them.



No prob 

A lot of people remember to look at sharpness, but forget to look at other tests like this:

Flare - 24 IS (mouseout) vs 24L II (mouseover) closed down for landscape work:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=7

Flare - 24 IS (mouseout) vs 24-70L II (mouseover) closed down for landscape work:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5


----------



## Woody (Mar 25, 2014)

One possible reason is that Canon is waiting to reach their 100 millionth lens milestone. They reached their 90 millionth lens milestone on May 2013. Going by their previous records, they should be able to sell 10 million lenses in less than a year. I guess sales deterioration must have led to a delay here.

It's also possible that after seeing the decline in their sales results, Canon has decided to cancel all their plans concerning the so-called Year of the Lens.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Mar 25, 2014)

Ruined said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.
> ...



I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 26, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.



The 28 f/2.8 IS is 352 + tax (in stock) at the Canon refurb store now, and the 24 f/2.8 IS is 384 + tax (currently out of stock).


----------



## Drizzt321 (Mar 26, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.
> ...



Refurb, not retail. Although, not that I'm opposed to refurb, often some good equipment you can pick up for a discount there.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 26, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...



It doesn't matter as much as it used to with the refurbs now coming with a 1 year warranty. I picked up new 28 f/2.8 IS before last Christmas for 350 from a Canon authorized dealer, which was an even better price than what it is going for in the refurb store with 20% off now. The point is that at 300-500 (when you can find deals on them), the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS offer a lot for the price.


----------

