# List of rumored lenses



## ROBOTTI2009 (Jul 21, 2010)

Since the lens rumors tend to pile up and get lost in the archives (apart from the fan favorite 24-70 f/2.8L IS), I thought I'd collect the lenses that get most mentions. Inspired by a post by user [Canon 14-24].

I haven't included some of the more obvious CR1 fakes. Feel free to contribute or correct my mistakes.

PS: Yeah I am bored & obsessed & love CR 


_Updated July 23, 2010_
_- Added *EF/EF-S Mystery f/2 zoom*. The information regarding this is sketchy at best but there are a number of posts about it. Thanks [pierlux]._

_Updated July 21, 2010_
_- Added *EF 16-50 f/4L H-IS*.
- Moved *14-24 f/2.8L* to Zooms. Thanks [Justin]._


*Primes & Macros*

*EF Mystery prime*
Last rumor: July 14, 2010
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/07/this-that/

*EF/EF-S 30/35 f/1.8*
Last rumor: May 20, 2010
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/new-30-f1-8-type-prime-cr1/

*EF 35 f/1.4L II*
Last rumor: April 24, 2010
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/04/ef-35-f1-4l-discontinued-2/

*EF 50 f/1.2L II*
Last rumor: May 28, 2010
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/50l-85l-135l-to-get-upgraded-cr1/

*EF 50 f/1.4 II*
Last rumor: June 19, 2010
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/06/backorders-telling-tales/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/06/lenses-cr2/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/03/ef-50-f1-4-ii-usm-cr2/

*EF 60 f/2.8 IS Macro*
Last rumor: July 6, 2010
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/07/lenses-lenses-lenses-cr1/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/07/more-60d-conflicting-information-cr1/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/ef-60mm-f2-8-is-macro/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/04/1ds-mark-iv-lenses-cr2/

*EF 85 f/1.2L III*
Last rumor: May 28, 2010
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/50l-85l-135l-to-get-upgraded-cr1/

*EF 135 f/2L IS*
Last rumor: May 28, 2010
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/50l-85l-135l-to-get-upgraded-cr1/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/ef-135-f1-8l-is-cr1/

*EF 200 f/4L IS Macro*
Last rumor: July 6, 2010
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/07/lenses-lenses-lenses-cr1/


*Zooms*

*EF/EF-S Mystery f/2 zoom*
Last rumor: February 16, 2010
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/02/canon-ef-s-17-55-f2-is-patent/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/01/predictions-for-2010-part-2-lenses/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/a-canon-first-cr1/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/09/from-the-archive/

*EF 14-24 f/2.8L*
Last rumor: April 14, 2010
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/04/ef-14-24-coming-in-2010-cr1/

*EF 16-50 f/4L H-IS*
Last rumor: July 20, 2010
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/07/new-f4l-ef-zoom-cr1/

*EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS*
Last rumor: July 6, 2010
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/07/lenses-lenses-lenses-cr1/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/07/more-60d-conflicting-information-cr1/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/06/a-tale-24-70-f2-8l-replacement/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/06/backorders-telling-tales/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/04/1ds-mark-iv-lenses-cr2/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/03/1ds4-5d3-lenses/

*EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS*
Last rumor: July 9, 2010
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/07/new-lenses-cr1/

*EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II*
Last rumor: June 3, 2010
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/06/making-sense-of-small-tidbits-of-info/


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 21, 2010)

Nice job, are you the one that emailed me about this sort of thing?


----------



## ROBOTTI2009 (Jul 21, 2010)

Yesssir


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 21, 2010)

Stickied it, it'll be a very good resource.


Thanks


----------



## ROBOTTI2009 (Jul 21, 2010)

My pleasure


----------



## papa-razzi (Jul 21, 2010)

Well done. This would be really great to keep current.
Thanks! 8)


----------



## Justin (Jul 21, 2010)

14-24 goes in the zoom list 

Also add the 15-50 ;D

And wasn't there some rumor about the 50 1.4 II being an L series lens?


----------



## ROBOTTI2009 (Jul 21, 2010)

Justin said:


> 14-24 goes in the zoom list


Done 



Justin said:


> Also add the 15-50 ;D


Done.



Justin said:


> And wasn't there some rumor about the 50 1.4 II being an L series lens?



I try to keep this list as objective as possible but I highly doubt this one. I think there is only one mention regarding this and it had to do with the debunked rumor about Canon getting rid of the non-L EF-lenses. I believe there is a market for an upgraded consumer grade 50 1.4. I also believe that Canon can improve on and keep the 50mm L-series as a 1.2.


----------



## John (Jul 21, 2010)

Thanks Robo, this is a great reference.


----------



## able (Jul 22, 2010)

New user here, but have been shooting both still and motion for over forty years. 

Not a rumor, but some assumptions on my part... 

Based on how Canon is promoting IS with tutorials and other marketing collateral presentations/literature on their site and elsewhere, I made the assumption that Canon is replacing most of the lenses is their most recent promotion with IS versions, supplemented in the lease case with the most recent optical coatings and manufacturing materials. 

I own both the 16-35mm and 17-40mm. I typically use my F/4 lens series (17-40, 24-105, and 100-400 along with a 100mm f2.8 IS macro) when working in the field shooting wildlife, landscapes and for general backpacking. They are lighter and cut down on the load I lug about in the field. My f/2.8 lenses are almost exclusively used for in-studio and on-location product and advertising work. The latter is more because, I store the lenses in different cases best suited for different kinds of photography along with accessories I would generally use in those photography fields.

Increased ISO support aside, there are numerous reasons why a photographer would prefer to shoot with a faster lens depending on their current photo shooting session and these have nothing to do with ISO speed although increased or decreased ISO speeds do come into play in certain shooting scenarios. 

Also an assumption on my part, but we may see some price drops as some older lenses such as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mark I are sold off, making it possible to drop the price of the Mark II (which appears to be happening already at some web sites). The L series TSE lenses have dropped a bit in price in recent weeks. 

What I am hoping to see from Canon are some hybrid lenses better suited for shooting video with a DSLR. Canon manufactures almost as many interchangeable cine/video lenses as still lenses, so they have the technology. It would be nice to see a more modular high-end camera body that could be adapted to shoot both still and motion. 

Increased zoom ranges would be appreciated in whatever ranges Canon decides to support. I've made some other assumptions about zoom ranges based on what the competition has to offer. 

Would love to see the TSE 90mm upgraded to L along with macro capability. I sometimes use it with an extension tube for a lot of work I do both in the field and in the studio. 

An 180mm IS Macro IS or a "L" zoom macro is on my personal wish list. 

Regarding the 100-400mm, I use it by itself or with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. This lens is unbelievably sharp with or without a teleconverter out to the edges. The panning IS mode is especially useful for shooting wildlife such as fast moving sea birds and other moving subjects. Unless Canon has some new mind boggling technology on the horizon, I don't see a replacement coming any time soon. 

The zoom range of the 24-70 sucks. I hope to see it replaced with a f2.8 version of the 24-105mm f4 to allow some focal length overlap in the f/2.8 series of zooms.


----------



## pierlux (Jul 22, 2010)

ROBOTTI2009 said:


> PS: Yeah I am bored & obsessed & love CR



Me, too! 

I also remember of a rumored f/2 zoom, not to be added to the list, of course, not knowing any other spec. Don't crucify me, but I believe this f/2 zoom could be feasible, in the 35-70 range maybe. It's one of my obsessions since a couple of years now.


----------



## ROBOTTI2009 (Jul 22, 2010)

pierlux said:


> I also remember of a rumored f/2 zoom, not to be added to the list, of course, not knowing any other spec. Don't crucify me, but I believe this f/2 zoom could be feasible, in the 35-70 range maybe. It's one of my obsessions since a couple of years now.



Was this on canonrumors? Do you have a link?


----------



## pierlux (Jul 22, 2010)

ROBOTTI2009 said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > I also remember of a rumored f/2 zoom, not to be added to the list, of course, not knowing any other spec. Don't crucify me, but I believe this f/2 zoom could be feasible, in the 35-70 range maybe. It's one of my obsessions since a couple of years now.
> ...



Yes it was on CR, half a year ago or so. And somewhere else, also, but I don't remember where. I'll look back and try to post the link. But it was a CR1 or CR0, I remember this f/2 zoom just because I'd love Canon to produce an EF 35-70 f/2 L IS which will perfectly fill the gap between the 16-35 and 70-200...


----------



## pierlux (Jul 22, 2010)

ROBOTTI2009 said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > I also remember of a rumored f/2 zoom, not to be added to the list, of course, not knowing any other spec. Don't crucify me, but I believe this f/2 zoom could be feasible, in the 35-70 range maybe. It's one of my obsessions since a couple of years now.
> ...



Robo, I was not able to spot exactly the one I remember (Murphy's law always works fine), but here are other more recent links to f/2 zoom-related posts on CR:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/09/from-the-archive/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/a-canon-first-cr1/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/01/predictions-for-2010-part-2-lenses/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/02/canon-ef-s-17-55-f2-is-patent/
I went back to July 2009, maybe the one I remember is older.


----------



## ROBOTTI2009 (Jul 23, 2010)

pierlux said:


> ROBOTTI2009 said:
> 
> 
> > pierlux said:
> ...



The information seems bit sketchy but since there are so many posts about it, I added it - thanks


----------



## Woody (Jul 25, 2010)

To further lend weight to some of the lens rumors, you may want to post the patents for these lenses. 

For example, in here: http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-lens-patents-review/, you'll find patents for 14-24 f/2.8L, 60 f/2.8 IS macro and 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk2. The last has already been released, so I'm sure we'll see the 14-24 and 60 macro surfacing sooner than later.

Patents for other lenses (e.g. 17-55 f/2 IS) can be found at:
http://www.canonrumors.com/category/photography/canon-patents/


----------



## ROBOTTI2009 (Jul 26, 2010)

Woody said:


> To further lend weight to some of the lens rumors, you may want to post the patents for these lenses.
> 
> For example, in here: http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-lens-patents-review/, you'll find patents for 14-24 f/2.8L, 60 f/2.8 IS macro and 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk2. The last has already been released, so I'm sure we'll see the 14-24 and 60 macro surfacing sooner than later.
> 
> ...



I'm on the road right now so I'll have to do this later, but thanks for the suggestion. I will propably dig out the actual patents, since some have been just unverified rumors.


----------



## match14 (Jul 29, 2010)

EF 15-60mm f/4L IS USM


----------



## scott (Jul 30, 2010)

I want the EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS, but think it will easily be $700 more since it will have IS.


----------



## ROBOTTI2009 (Aug 6, 2010)

I'm still alive and back from vacation!

I'll try to update the thread today or tomorrow.


----------



## muteteh (Aug 10, 2010)

scott said:


> I want the EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS, but think it will easily be $700 more since it will have IS.



Why is it that so many people want an EF 24-70mm lens with IS ?


----------



## ronderick (Aug 11, 2010)

muteteh said:


> Why is it that so many people want an EF 24-70mm lens with IS ?



There's been reports of QC issues with the current EF 24-70mm (focusing problems, etc.).

Also, an H-IS version of this mid-range zoom would give you more control in low-light situations.


----------



## that1guy (Aug 11, 2010)

ronderick said:


> muteteh said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it that so many people want an EF 24-70mm lens with IS ?
> ...



Two more reasons:
1-If it was H-IS, it would be even better for video, and video seems to be big for Canon (and growing for that matter).

2-Some people like to use that nice sharp lens stopped down sometimes (say for landscape), but they don't always have a tripod (happens to me all the time); IS could be really handy in a situation like that. It is basically taking one of the most used lenses, and giving it one more tool.


----------



## Sebastian (Aug 16, 2010)

ronderick said:


> muteteh said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it that so many people want an EF 24-70mm lens with IS ?
> ...



So Canon should design a EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM II. (I'd buy one, BTW, if it's significantly better than the current 24-70...)



ronderick said:


> Also, an H-IS version of this mid-range zoom would give you more control in low-light situations.



As I have pointed out earlier on the CR blog, IS doesn't help you one tiny bit if your subject's moving. Yes, that might happen...


Regards,

Sebastian


----------



## Mike79 (Aug 26, 2010)

PLEASE tell me why Canon are ignoring the calls for an updated 24-70 2.8 (or new 24-105 2.8)? Surely there must be enough demand for this fabled improved lens to be developed!?!?


----------



## kubelik (Aug 30, 2010)

mike, I would suspect that it's because people haven't been clamoring for a 24-70 L IS until fairly recently ... and it's still not clear to me if there's actually a lot of people out there clamoring for it, or if it's just on the CR forums. the 24-70 L is one of the first lenses that anyone who goes full-frame gets, so basically everyone has to decide to upgrade to a 24-70 L IS that costs in the $2K range

I would think that there are three things that determine the timetable for development and release of such a lens:

1. market demand
2. current projects competing for development resources
3. profit goals for original lens to be replaced

unless there is massive and sustained demand for it, canon will probably take its time clearing out the projects it has already planned off its plate before putting a redesign of the 24-70 into the queue.


----------



## pazuzu (Aug 30, 2010)

kubelik said:


> ... I would suspect that it's because people haven't been clamoring for a 24-70 L IS until fairly recently ... and it's still not clear to me if there's actually a lot of people out there clamoring for it, or if it's just on the CR forums. the 24-70 L is one of the first lenses that anyone who goes full-frame gets, so basically everyone has to decide to upgrade to a 24-70 L IS that costs in the $2K range ...



Actually, a 24-70mm 2.8L IS lens has been on wish lists since before 2008 (possibly 2007). If you do a search, you'll see that there has been speculation about that lens for quite some time. Each year it would seem there's some sort of rumor about a fabled 24-70 2.8L IS lens that is in "development" or "pre-production" and is "ready for public release" usually around big events like Photokina yet there has always been disappointment. I had hoped that this year would be different but alas it seems it's another year for big wishes and bigger disappointments.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 1, 2010)

Sebastian said:


> As I have pointed out earlier on the CR blog, IS doesn't help you one tiny bit if your subject's moving. Yes, that might happen...


I thought the Hybrid IS of the 100mm macro was specifically designed for that situation - where you are rotating the lens, but not moving it up or down, in order to follow a subject.


----------



## Sebastian (Sep 1, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Sebastian said:
> 
> 
> > As I have pointed out earlier on the CR blog, IS doesn't help you one tiny bit if your subject's moving. Yes, that might happen...
> ...



No, that would be more commonly referred to as "panning".
Canon's Hybrid IS is designed to compensate _accidental_ camera movement and doing so not only for "shift" movements as the "classic" IS does, but also for rotational movements.


Regards,

Sebastian


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 1, 2010)

So maybe not the Hybrid IS, but have you heard of Mode 2 IS? It detects panning and shuts down the IS function in the direction of the intended movement. Some discussion of that here, plus an example image:
http://photo.net/sports-photography-forum/00QCCh

Don't really see any reason this wouldn't work for movies. Image stabilizers *are* used in some video cameras after all. Hope I'm not misunderstanding what you mean.


----------



## that1guy (Sep 3, 2010)

^the reason that I have heard (from Vincent Laforet) that the H-IS is better for video is that it is smoother when it activates and is a little less "jerky". This isn't a problem shooting stills, but when you are shooting video constantly it can make a difference. Hearing him talk about it was the thing that finally got me excited about H-IS. As for the specific type of movement it helps alleviate, I couldn't tell you that.


----------



## Son of Daguerre (Sep 15, 2010)

The *EF 24-70mm Æ’/2.8L USM* is "only" 8 years old. 'Fraid it won't be replaced for a few years.


----------



## Flake (Sep 24, 2010)

The 24 - 70mm may only be 8 years old, but it has a significant defect in the field curvature it displays, this is especially noticable on FF. This is Canons flagship standard zoom, it has the IS technology to hand and a redesign is badly needed, I think it's time for a better flagship product regardless of how old the design is.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 24, 2010)

approaching this slightly differently, it's not like Canon even has to officially declare a replacement for the 24-70 f/2.8 L ... they can go ahead a release a new IS version and continue to sell the original. there's probably going to be a significant enough price gap that these will now serve different tiers of the market. so the fact that the original has only been on market for 8 years is irrelevant


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2010)

kubelik said:


> approaching this slightly differently, it's not like Canon even has to officially declare a replacement for the 24-70 f/2.8 L ... they can go ahead a release a new IS version and continue to sell the original. there's probably going to be a significant enough price gap that these will now serve different tiers of the market. so the fact that the original has only been on market for 8 years is irrelevant



Makes sense, analogous to their flagship telezoom series, the 70-200's, which are available with and without IS.


----------



## rejames1 (Sep 27, 2010)

What are the chances of us ever seeing an updated and faster version of the 28-300 L ? I know it's a heavy beast, but I love it!


----------



## Flake (Sep 27, 2010)

Not a chance of replacing the 28 - 300mm IS L, it was only released in 2004 replacing the 35 - 350mm version, and is a good performer. How on earth do you think they could improve it realistically?
IS is 3rd generation, and the amount of glass required and pro spec body means it's going to weigh quite a bit.
There are quite a few lenses I'd like to see replaced before this one, the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 L and a new decent performing wide angle too!


----------



## traveller (Sep 27, 2010)

CR Guy, I don't know how you manage to assign your CR ratings to all the rumours that you must be sent. By this I mean that the level of 'background noise' in the rumour mill must be immense. It doesn't take much to think up believable specifications for a possible new lens. 

About the only people who are posting truely whacky lenses are Canon themselves... 8-15mm fisheye; 70-300mm f4-5.6 L; and of course the superteles and 'extenders' desparately needed an update. 

Not that these lenses aren't welcome, but I'm sure that there are a lot of people who would have suggested other lenses as a higher priority.


----------



## rejames1 (Sep 28, 2010)

Flake said:


> Not a chance of replacing the 28 - 300mm IS L, it was only released in 2004 replacing the 35 - 350mm version, and is a good performer. How on earth do you think they could improve it realistically?
> IS is 3rd generation, and the amount of glass required and pro spec body means it's going to weigh quite a bit.
> There are quite a few lenses I'd like to see replaced before this one, the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 L and a new decent performing wide angle too!



I don't know how they could realistically improve it really. I rented one for 30 days from lensrentals.com for my honeymoon to the Canadian Rockies and loved it, in spite of the weight. I did find myself wishing many times that it was faster. 

I am a simi-pro photographer and am looking into purchasing a good tele-zoom. 

I currently own the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM and the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. These lenses are mounted on a full frame 5d (mk1) and the 1.6 cropped Xsi. (I'm waiting for the 5D III to be released before I upgrade bodies) 

I found the 28-300 L to be a great "all around" lens. I loved the reach of that 300mm (being that I was used to a reach of only 200) and 28mm was wide enough I didn't have to carry additional lenses. I am seriously concidering the new EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM... I just wish it was a little wider to keep from having to swap out lenses mid shoot. I could care less about the yet to be released 70-300 because of the slow speed. 

So... I was in "wishfull thinking land" hoping that there might be a faster version of the 28-300 in the works. But I guess that's just a pipe dream. I'll probably end up buying the new 70-200 with an extender... I'll still need something for that mid-range though. I guess I'll worry about that if and when they release a new 24-70.

As for your decent wide angle hopes... I know it's only 16mm, but I really enjoy my EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM.

Keep on clicking...


----------



## kubelik (Sep 28, 2010)

rejames, you are one strong individual if you're hoping for a faster version of the 28-300 ... that thing is already a monster of a lens


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2010)

kubelik said:


> rejames, you are one strong individual if you're hoping for a faster version of the 28-300 ... that thing is already a monster of a lens



It's no bigger and not much heavier than the 100-400mm, which is fine to carry around for the day (for me, at least). But, take that 28-300mm and make it a constant f/4 - _now_ you're talking about a beast of a lens!


----------



## ronderick (Sep 29, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > rejames, you are one strong individual if you're hoping for a faster version of the 28-300 ... that thing is already a monster of a lens
> ...



Read somewhere that this lens targets photojournalists, but I guess so far I haven't seen any local media people lugging one of these around ;D

Which brings up another question: how is it possible that Nikon is introducing a lens with similar specs for half the price? ($2,500 vs. $1,000)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2010)

ronderick said:


> Which brings up another question: how is it possible that Nikon is introducing a lens with similar specs for half the price? ($2,500 vs. $1,000)



The white paint that Canon uses is a _very_ costly component of the manufacturing process. In fact, the only more expensive component that Canon uses to make lenses is the special green paint they use for the rings on their two DO lenses...


----------



## kubelik (Sep 30, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> The white paint that Canon uses is a _very_ costly component of the manufacturing process. In fact, the only more expensive component that Canon uses to make lenses is the special green paint they use for the rings on their two DO lenses...



nice one neuro. +1

joking aside ... looking at the MTF charts, there does appear to be a difference in the quality of the optics delivered by the nikon and canon 28-300 zooms. I suspect there are differences in build quality, too; I don't know for certain if the nikkor is a plastic fantastic, but the canon L lens definitely isn't


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 4, 2010)

kubelik said:


> it's not like Canon even has to officially declare a replacement for the 24-70 f/2.8 L


Are any Canon retirements anything but stealth ones? Meaning that, sure, it might get mentioned that one lens is discontinued, somewhere near the bottom of an email from somebody who works at Canon, but not in an actual press release...speaking of approaching the question differently.


neuroanatomist said:


> The white paint that Canon uses is a _very_ costly component of the manufacturing process. In fact, the only more expensive component that Canon uses to make lenses is the special green paint they use for the rings on their two DO lenses...


You're lucky they just used that non-toxic paint (it makes it safe to dance on, unlike the wings of a B2 bomber - you see the government can only afford the toxic variety), instead of opting for a recessed ring of pure, highly polished synthetic turquoise stone.

In all seriousness, after my previous huge post, I'm more interested in whether the 70-300mm L stands up that much better to abuse (and scores well enough on the other bullet points) than the new Tamron to be worth the price premium. (Don't tell me that Canon's "price high, aim kind of high" problems are affecting ALL their products...) It's obviously worth more, but $1100 more? Guess I've already signed away on the image quality end of the spectrum...man, the one thing of Ken Rockwell's that I need to keep in mind is that lenses are tools, not coture objects. *shakes fist at Canon*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Are any Canon retirements anything but stealth ones?



Sure - pretty much any time they update a lens, i.e. release a Mk II version, the previous version is retired. It might remain on some country-specific websites for a while, if they still have some of the old version in stock, but production of the old one is halted prior to the release of the updated. But that's not necessarily the case when they release a new lens, even if it seems a lot like the old one. The 100mm L macro isn't an upgrade of the non-L version. A 24-70mm f/2.8L IS would not be an upgrade of the 24-70mm f/2.8L, so they may or may not discontinue the non-IS version. They certainly didn't discontinue the non-IS versions of the 70-200mm zooms when they released the IS versions (although they did discontinue the 70-200/2.8 IS when they released the MkII version of that lens).


----------



## kubelik (Oct 4, 2010)

from what I've seen, Canon likes to do the "stealth retirement" as edwin calls it; the lens simply unceremoniously disappears from the website. what's more, they usually pre-empt the shakeup with a "crazy webpage" day, where all sorts of lenses go missing temporarily, throwing everyone into a tizzy, before putting most of them back right where they were, with a big grin on their face. I don't know if it's the way their web-design is set up, but I doubt it -- I call Canon shenanigans on that


----------



## DoesNotFollow (Oct 26, 2010)

Any chance the new 24-70 will be f2?


----------



## Flake (Oct 26, 2010)

none I'd say! the f/2.8 is heavy enough and so far as I know there's no current DSLR f/2 zoom. Cost would also be prohibitive just look at the price of the 200mm f/2


----------



## scalesusa (Nov 7, 2010)

Flake said:


> none I'd say! the f/2.8 is heavy enough and so far as I know there's no current DSLR f/2 zoom. Cost would also be prohibitive just look at the price of the 200mm f/2



I agree that a f/2 24-70 EF lens is extremely unlikely, but Canon has patented a EF-S 17-55mm f/2, and other lenses do exist.


Check this one out

http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/35-100_20/

or 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/546539-REG/Olympus_261011_14_35mm_f_2_0_ED_SWD.html

These lenses are for 4/3 DSLR's, so they are smaller and lighter than they would be if FF, but f/2 Zooms do exist.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 28, 2010)

Speaking of the 24-70mm L, is there a rumor that a new one is coming along?

I've spent the last week looking at various standard zooms for my APS-C camera but with compatibility for a full-frame (or larger than APS-C) camera in the future, and the current 2002 model of the EF 20-70mm f/2.8 L seems my best bet. Upgrade or not, I need coverage in that focal length. The 17-55mm EF-s is, well, EF-s, and it has a poor minimum focus distance. Sigma and Tamron have interesting-looking options but word is the Tamron 17-50 isn't sharp at f/2.8, and (I missed this until now) the Sigma 17-70mm is a variable focal length option - 70mm is just f/4. One thing I'm wondering about is how the 24-70mm would stack up against the 17mm TS-e or the 24mm II and the other lenses shown in the frame edge comparisons - the 17-40mm and the 16-35 II don't seem all that great (though chromatic abberation isn't too big a deal), though the 16-35 II isn't dropping as much resolution as the 17-40mm.

The only downside to the Canon, besides price, appears to be the lack of IS. Flare characteristics seem pretty good. Of course the zoom range isn't as wide as 17mm, but I have a lens dedicated to that.


----------



## scalesusa (Nov 28, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> The 17-55mm EF-s is, well, EF-s, and it has a poor minimum focus distance.



Are you referring to magnification? Minimum focus distance for the 17-55mm lens doesn't seem to be poor, none of these are Macro lenses.

The magnification is the best indicator of how large of a image you can get on your sensor, and a lens like the 24-70 with a fairly short MFD and a longer focal length is going to win.

17-55mm Min focus Distance 13.8 inches Max Magnification .16X

24-70mm L Min focus Distance 15 inches Max Magnification .29X

Sigma 17-50mm Min focus Distance 11 inches Max Magnification .20X


----------



## max (Dec 17, 2010)

I have a 50mm 1.8II and want to upgrade it... but the 1.4 seems to be so unreliable and crappy constructed that it wont even last....

Should I get it, keep the one I have and wait for a newer version, or get the sigma 1.4?


----------



## kubelik (Dec 17, 2010)

lot of people shooting pretty happily with 50 f/1.4s with no problems, and I'm one of them. definitely shoot plenty with it, and plenty with it in AF mode. considering it costs just over 3 times as much as the f/1.8, the question is really, is it 3 times better. between the image+bokeh quality and the build quality and the extra 2/3 stop of light, I'd say definitely yes.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Mar 20, 2011)

This should be added to the Canon Rumors site and kept updated somewhere!


----------



## tzalmagor (Mar 20, 2011)

Flake said:


> none I'd say! the f/2.8 is heavy enough and so far as I know there's no current DSLR f/2 zoom. Cost would also be prohibitive just look at the price of the 200mm f/2



The EF 24-70mm has a front element large enough to be f/0.95, which makes me wonder - is the lens really as small as it can be ?


----------



## dougkerr (Mar 20, 2011)

tzalmagor said:


> The EF 24-70mm has a front element large enough to be f/0.95, which makes me wonder - is the lens really as small as it can be ?


The entrance pupil (whose diameter determines the f-number) rarely falls at the front element, but usually behind it.

As a result the front element may well need to have a greater diameter to avert vignetting.

Best regards,

Doug


----------



## hutjeflut (Mar 22, 2011)

i wouldnt mind the 100-400 getting updated as it might press the price of the old one down a little but i doubt that would happen im never that lucky.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 3, 2011)

DoesNotFollow said:


> Any chance the new 24-70 will be f2?


lol! highly unlikely! The current 24-70L is a bit over weight for what it is (although fantastically robust). An f2 design would require the whole lens to double in size and weight.
There was a prototype 35-70/f2 that was seen tested quite a few years back but I haven't heard anything about that lens for a long while.


----------



## NXT1000 (May 3, 2011)

why would canon need to release 35mm f1.4L ?? other than to sell it at higher price, it is perfect already, just like 300mm f2.8L, it is a perfect lens, they just want to make more money by raising price. 

135mm f2 IS, that is good product if it is true. If they have no IS, again no reason other than to raise the price of the lens and make more profit. 

Since they are unable to deliver lens that they promise, like 300mmL f2.8II etc, i expect zero new lens announcement, they have limited number of engineers, if they are firefight problem with those lens and damage by earthquake and power shortage, how in the world they can deliver new lens? 

no power from nuclear plant = no lens, as simple as ABC.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2011)

NXT1000 said:


> why would canon need to release 35mm f1.4L ?? other than to sell it at higher price, it is perfect already



The 35L could be a little sharper in the corners, and I'd really like weather sealing (and be willing to pay for it!).


----------



## NXT1000 (May 6, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 35L could be a little sharper in the corners, and I'd really like weather sealing (and be willing to pay for it!).



come on, it is 35mm, wide lens, for a bit more than 1000 EURO, that is a bit too demanding. Of course in real world, if you pay 4000 EURO, you might get a bit better corners. Look at Leica price.


----------



## NXT1000 (May 6, 2011)

Flake said:


> none I'd say! the f/2.8 is heavy enough and so far as I know there's no current DSLR f/2 zoom. Cost would also be prohibitive just look at the price of the 200mm f/2



i would like f2 lens zoom, i love 200mmf2, the only reason why i did not buy it, because i will die from exhaustion if i have to carry it around.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2011)

Flake said:


> none I'd say! the f/2.8 is heavy enough and so far as I know there's no current DSLR f/2 zoom.



Not for Canon or Nikon. There are f/2 zoom lenses for m4/3-format bodies (2x crop).


----------



## danpekr1857 (May 11, 2011)

Any word on a efs 17-55 is.
The is need updating or sigma will walk all over canon.
Dan


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2011)

danpekr1857 said:


> Any word on a efs 17-55 is.
> The is need updating or sigma will walk all over canon.



What does Sigma offer that 'walks all over' the current Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS?!?


----------



## idigi (May 16, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 35L could be a little sharper in the corners, and I'd really like weather sealing (and be willing to pay for it!).



Just curious: what is weather sealing for on 35L? Do you photograph with your Canon bodies in rain, snow or in sand that current 35L cannot deal with? Or is weather sealing more for peace of mind and primarily for general dust issues?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2011)

idigi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The 35L could be a little sharper in the corners, and I'd really like weather sealing (and be willing to pay for it!).
> ...



I do shoot in the rain and snow with my 7D and weather-sealed lenses. Could the current 35L deal with that? I don't know...and I don't plan to take it out in the rain and test to the point of failure. 

Honestly, I use the 35L most frequently on my 5DII for outdoor shooting at night, where the 7D's noise at high ISO would be a problem. So how useful would a sealed 35L be for me today? I've had occasions where I wanted to go out and shoot on a rainy night, but skipped it. Since lenses should significantly outlast bodies, I'm planning for the future, where a 1-series body is something I'll likely have.


----------



## Heidrun (Jun 6, 2011)

Anybody heard anything about the lenses 14-24 L and 24-70 L mk II


----------



## krboynton (Jul 4, 2011)

ROBOTTI2009 said:


> Justin said:
> 
> 
> > 14-24 goes in the zoom list
> ...



I wouldn't be so sure. Canon has developed a sub-L build quality with the L label (100mm f/2.8L MACRO). Nikon has gotten away from their "non-L" style lenses and Canon is doing the same. If you want an inexpensive lens, buy an inexpensive camera that takes EF-S, a line that will continue to build. I would be shocked if any prime lens is unveiled that is not at least an 'L' in name.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 4, 2011)

krboynton said:


> Canon has developed a sub-L build quality with the L label (100mm f/2.8L MACRO).



How is the build quality of the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS 'sub-L'? Mine feels quite solid, definitely a step up from my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. The 100L Macro is weather-sealed, many of my other L lenses are not. If you think it's 'sub-L' because the barrel is 'engineering plastic', well, most black L lens barrels are the same material.



ROBOTTI2009 said:


> the debunked rumor about Canon getting rid of the non-L EF-lenses.



How and when was the idea that Canon is done with non-L EF lenses debunked? The only non-L EF lens released since the launch of the first Canon APS-C camera was the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens, and it's pretty well known that the cost savings from EF-S telephoto lenses are a diminishing return. There hasn't been a new non-L EF prime lens since well before the D30.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Jul 8, 2011)

EF 10-200mm f/2.8L Macro. IT'S COMING.


----------



## ions (Jul 23, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> krboynton said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has developed a sub-L build quality with the L label (100mm f/2.8L MACRO).
> ...



I'm curious to hear how the 100L is sub L quality too.


----------



## PXL_Pusher (Jul 25, 2011)

ions said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > krboynton said:
> ...



It's funny how something can be perceived as "cheap", or as stated above, "sub L" quality based on build material and weight alone. The truth is, as 95% of the photographers on this site will tell you, a lens doesn't gain it's classification into the "L" series based on build quality alone. Otherwise you could take the components from a 18-55 f/4.5-5.6 and assemble it within a 2lbs. weather sealed housing, and call it an "L".... 

In my opinion, its the physics behind the optics and the image that it can produce in combination with rigidity and build quality that classifies the lens. Don't get me wrong... the build quality is most definitely important in a L - series lens, being their professional line and all. I just find that what they did with the 100mm 2.8L is perfectly adequate.
Can you drop it from 5ft onto concrete and still use the lens? Probably not, and i'm most certainly not willing to test that. BUT - it does have some nice weather sealing that has held up to light/moderate rain on my 7D just fine, and that in combination with the fantastic images I can capture classify it as an "L- Series" lens for me.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 11, 2011)

Plastic has improved shock absorbing qualities over metal, so I'd not be surprised if it actually did well in that respect. It doesn't conduct heat as readily either, which is important too (i.e. preventing fogging and sweating).

This whole "metal versus polycarbonate" debate reminds me of people talking about handguns. "I wouldn't buy one of the new plastic guns..." but of course they're used everywhere, and lighter too.


----------



## rocketdesigner (Aug 12, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Plastic has improved shock absorbing qualities over metal, so I'd not be surprised if it actually did well in that respect. It doesn't conduct heat as readily either, which is important too (i.e. preventing fogging and sweating).
> 
> This whole "metal versus polycarbonate" debate reminds me of people talking about handguns. "I wouldn't buy one of the new plastic guns..." but of course they're used everywhere, and lighter too.



FWIW, Yes the Glock 9mm is virtually all plastic, and it is the most widely used handgun - including law enforcement (and yours truly). It is virtually indestructible.


----------



## kubelik (Aug 12, 2011)

rocketdesigner said:


> Edwin Herdman said:
> 
> 
> > Plastic has improved shock absorbing qualities over metal, so I'd not be surprised if it actually did well in that respect. It doesn't conduct heat as readily either, which is important too (i.e. preventing fogging and sweating).
> ...



I think that's exactly the point Edwin was trying to make.

I'm another who has no problem with the build quality and materials used in the 100mm f/2.8 L Macro. I appreciate the reduced weight, not because I don't like carrying much weight around, but because it balances on the camera well. the image quality is fantastic and the AF works extremely well, and that's the number 1 and 2 things I care about in my lenses.


----------



## Nickbroberts (Sep 8, 2011)

Having studied materials at university, I would consider engineering polymers to generally be superior materials for lens barrel and camera construction to metals for most uses - and the 100 L macro certainly doesn't feel insubstantial to me. The only L lens I've owned that does feel lighter than I would expect, but is not flimsy, is the 70-200 f4 L IS, and the only L lens I've had that's fallen apart is my ancient and metal-barrelled 20-35 f2.8 L, and that only after it was dropped - and it used to belong to a press photographer in its prime, anyway, so it's had a hard life.


----------



## Joseph (Oct 10, 2011)

ROBOTTI2009 said:


> Since the lens rumors tend to pile up and get lost in the archives (apart from the fan favorite 24-70 f/2.8L IS), I thought I'd collect the lenses that get most mentions. Inspired by a post by user [Canon 14-24].
> 
> I haven't included some of the more obvious CR1 fakes. Feel free to contribute or correct my mistakes.
> 
> ...



Beautifully built list !!!!


----------



## Joseph (Oct 10, 2011)

PXL_Pusher said:


> ions said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You know , there are several metal alternatives out that are more durable than the current metal housings on some of the L series lenses - I love the lighter weight on some of the newer lenses - 

CANON LISTEN UP !!!! It would be awesome for Canon to put serious consideration into making alternative L series lenses , built around higher quality , lighter weight materials . I would pay more for a light weight version of my 24-70mm 2.8L , that damn things torques down on my fingers and wrist like crazy in a long day of shooting - which I have to do all hand held with a 1D body , flash frame and a 580 on top of it.

Think about it !


----------



## Joseph (Oct 10, 2011)

kubelik said:


> lot of people shooting pretty happily with 50 f/1.4s with no problems, and I'm one of them. definitely shoot plenty with it, and plenty with it in AF mode. considering it costs just over 3 times as much as the f/1.8, the question is really, is it 3 times better. between the image+bokeh quality and the build quality and the extra 2/3 stop of light, I'd say definitely yes.



I've never used the 1.8 or 1.4 , but I have read so many articles of photojournalist using the 1.4 in the field - they say that it can take an incredible beating , and shoot amazing images in harsh situations - I only own all L series lenes , but I really considered getting one of these from the stories I have heard !


----------



## Leopard Lupus (Oct 13, 2011)

I have used the 50mm 1.4 for the last year, and have only taken it off my camera body a few times to switch out for an 85mm. It is by far my favourite, well priced, durable lens that is only slightly under the L version in IQ. I highly recommend this nifty-fifty.


----------



## psycho5 (Nov 16, 2011)

Nickbroberts said:


> Having studied materials at university, I would consider engineering polymers to generally be superior materials for lens barrel and camera construction to metals for most uses - and the 100 L macro certainly doesn't feel insubstantial to me. The only L lens I've owned that does feel lighter than I would expect, but is not flimsy, is the 70-200 f4 L IS, and the only L lens I've had that's fallen apart is my ancient and metal-barrelled 20-35 f2.8 L, and that only after it was dropped - and it used to belong to a press photographer in its prime, anyway, so it's had a hard life.



LOL, totally agree with you. Same reason why soldiers perfer using MAGPUL pmags over the traditional 'metal' mags... THEY LAST LONG ENOUGH TO NOT ONLY CARRY YOU THROUGH ONE FIGHT BUT MANY MORE THEREAFTER. 

However, the only issue with polymers is getting the tight tolerances and consistentcy that metals can offer. This is one reason why Apple sticks with Aluminium


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 21, 2011)

Canon still uses metal for the parts of lenses where those tight tolerances matter, however.

Apple is just...Apple. You pay for that image, and image is really all that the aluminum cases offer (well, that and perhaps some insignificant benefit for cooling since the cases don't have heat-dissipating ridges that I can see - they still use fans, as far as I can tell, on everything that doesn't have an iPhone class of CPU inside). Admittedly, my old Motorola Razr has a lot of metal on the shell.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Nov 23, 2011)

Apple marketing has done a brilliant job marketing that little white apple logo. Seriously, everyone wants an apple product. I've that the next gen of macbook pros might not be aluminum, can't remember exactly what it's going to be but something like liquid steel or something.

I wonder if Canon would consider changing how it builds its lenses - perhaps not using liquid steel or whatever, but forgo the metal within the next 50 years.

*I kinda wish it was 2012 already so we'd have MORE info/specs/confirmation on the next 24-70!! ;D*


----------



## GeorgeMaciver (Nov 29, 2011)

Er, nope, I've never wanted an apple product  Don't think I ever will either


----------



## xROELOFx (Dec 17, 2011)

GeorgeMaciver said:


> Er, nope, I've never wanted an apple product  Don't think I ever will either


haha, i'm with you. i'm totally allergic of apple and it's marketing strategy.

but hey, let's get back on topic.
i hope they will announce the 200-400mm soon. can't wait to see what this baby can do and how much it will cost


----------



## EchoLocation (Dec 26, 2011)

What about a 17-40L II? I want a wide walk around lens with a bit of zoom for my 5D. I am considering buying the 17-40 I, but they just don't seem to sharp and this is a very old lens. When's the refresh coming?


----------



## AcinonyxJG (Dec 27, 2011)

Is there any more about the new Canon 100-400mm? I am keen to know what kind of price it will bee going for...


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 27, 2011)

EchoLocation said:


> What about a 17-40L II? I want a wide walk around lens with a bit of zoom for my 5D. I am considering buying the 17-40 I, but they just don't seem to sharp and this is a very old lens. When's the refresh coming?



My 17-40 is very sharp on the 5D - what makes you think they aren't??


----------



## dolina (Dec 27, 2011)

I hope the updated 35, 135m 180 Macro and 400/5.6 be released in 2012.


----------



## EchoLocation (Jan 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > What about a 17-40L II? I want a wide walk around lens with a bit of zoom for my 5D. I am considering buying the 17-40 I, but they just don't seem to sharp and this is a very old lens. When's the refresh coming?
> ...


I borrowed my cousins 17-40 to use on my 5DC for a few weeks and I got very few sharp shots. He is selling his and I really want to buy it, but I just feel like it's not a sharp lens(or maybe just his copy.)
Regardless, anyone have any ideas about the timetable for a 17-40 II announcement? I'm really loving the other "II" lenses that have been released so I'm definitely curious about this lens.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 8, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > EchoLocation said:
> ...



The 17-40 is at its sharpest between f/8 and f/11 so ideal for landscapes.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 16, 2012)

Joseph said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > lot of people shooting pretty happily with 50 f/1.4s with no problems, and I'm one of them. definitely shoot plenty with it, and plenty with it in AF mode. considering it costs just over 3 times as much as the f/1.8, the question is really, is it 3 times better. between the image+bokeh quality and the build quality and the extra 2/3 stop of light, I'd say definitely yes.
> ...



Amazing stories about the 50 1.4 taking harsh beatings???
?? The 50 1.4 has just about the worst build of any canon lens. The AF is easily damaged or broken. 
All I see is stories about how the AF broke yet again, etc.
Every person I know who has had one has had it break and yet I don't know anyone who has ever had any other Canon lens ever break.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 16, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Amazing stories about the 50 1.4 taking harsh beatings???
> ?? The 50 1.4 has just about the worst build of any canon lens. The AF is easily damaged or broken.
> All I see is stories about how the AF broke yet again, etc.
> Every person I know who has had one has had it break and yet I don't know anyone who has ever had any other Canon lens ever break.



Never had a problem with mine 
I had the AF fail on my 70-200 f/4


----------



## kdsand (Feb 25, 2012)

How often are these failing? I can see how plastic components like gears do wear out or fail but hasnt Canon been using plastic internal componants in all most everything for ages? 

I hear how bad the 60D plastic body is. If I had the choice I would have paid extra for magnesium but it wasn't a deal breaker.


----------



## hoousi (Feb 25, 2012)

Just posted this in the other thread:

My local cps/nps shop already has the 200-400 posted on his website, below is the thumbnail.
I don't know if the photo is just a placeholder, also his canon official links goes to the main page of canon switzerland. But I believe the 200-400 is in front of the door.


----------



## VASH1291 (Mar 24, 2012)

Fingers crossed that a 14-24 f2.8 is on the cards this year ;D


----------



## facedodge (Mar 28, 2012)

I own the 35L, 50L and 135L. I'd like faster AF on the 50L. I'd like IS on my 135L so long as it didn't affect IQ. The 35L is perfect. I hope they get a faster AF on the 18 1.2. 

They can upgrade anything they want... I just hope they do it soon. The sooner they release, the sooner the price comes down to earth.


----------



## Koen_S1 (Mar 29, 2012)

What about the new 18-135 lens that should come with the canon eos 650D?
I have a question to btw: can you fit a nikon lens on a canon body? (I dont know how to start a topic myself, any tips?)
Thanks!


----------



## facedodge (Mar 30, 2012)

I have a 18-135 for sale.... And yes you can put Nikon glass on canon with adapter.


----------



## blufox (Apr 4, 2012)

I am an amateur photographer and recently got very interested in Bird photography.
Right now I have very constrained gear in a 550D, 70-200 F4L IS.

I do not like the 18MP sensor 550D has as it is too noisy above 800 ISO along with horrible noise in shadows.
Since Canon 7D has the same sensor, I do not want to buy 7D. Waiting for 7D mk II with high hopes is the only thing I can do.

On lens part, I thought of buying a 100-400 L but then decided not to seeing rumors about the new 100-400 floating around. 

Is it wise to pony up and save for next 100-400 L ?


Thanks,


----------



## darash (Apr 7, 2012)

I'm planning to buy the 100mm macro L lens. Anyone heard of an upgrade coming this year?


----------



## kdsand (Apr 7, 2012)

darash said:


> I'm planning to buy the 100mm macro L lens. Anyone heard of an upgrade coming this year?



I would be shocked if its up graded within two or three years. It's at present one of Canon's finest lenses.


----------



## BJNY (Apr 9, 2012)

I'm interested in all the rumored normal lenses:
• 40mm pancake
• 45mm TS-E II
• 50mm 1.2 II
• 60mm Macro
Does anyone have an idea when they'll be available?


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 16, 2012)

BJNY said:


> I'm interested in all the rumored normal lenses:
> • 40mm pancake
> • 45mm TS-E II
> • 50mm 1.2 II
> ...


I would be interested too if we had a Canon dSLR the size of an old film AE or smaller. Unfortunately we'd need wafer-thin components first.


----------



## IIIHobbs (May 6, 2012)

With the upcoming 200-400 F4 w/1.4x, how likely would it be for Canon to manufacture a variant of the 200-400 f4 without the 1.4x as an alternative?!  This lens could be offered at a much lower price point than the 200-400 w/ 1.4x, but likely well above what the current 100-400 is going for (guess $5k). Looking at the L Series offerings, a 200-400 (non 1.4x) would fit well in the current line of super-telephoto zooms and primes.


----------



## Jerome M (May 22, 2012)

For those in search for a new camera or a lens, here is the latest update in my Excel Chart (Major update with the old Minolta Cameras, and discontinued Canon Lenses)
http://www.photoexposition.fr/2012/05/15/update-excel-sheet/


----------



## Razor2012 (May 24, 2012)

I'm hoping for something in that 10/14-24 range also...to fill in that bottom end gap. There is the 16-35, but doesn't fit in as nice.


----------



## briansquibb (May 24, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> I'm hoping for something in that 10/14-24 range also...to fill in that bottom end gap. There is the 16-35, but doesn't fit in as nice.



16-35 on ff is as wide as the much praised 10-22 ef-s thing


----------



## Razor2012 (May 24, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm hoping for something in that 10/14-24 range also...to fill in that bottom end gap. There is the 16-35, but doesn't fit in as nice.
> ...



True. Canon needs their own 'Holy Trinity'.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 29, 2012)

i think they should make a 35-85 f2L to fill the gap it would fit in perfectly with the 16-35


----------



## pwp (May 29, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i think they should make a 35-85 f2L to fill the gap it would fit in perfectly with the 16-35



Great idea. But think big WW! L28-105 f/2is ? Hang the expense...

PW


----------



## lonebear (May 29, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i think they should make a 35-85 f2L to fill the gap it would fit in perfectly with the 16-35



If IQ matches primes, I would like to get one, even it's 1k above 24-70 II.


----------



## briansquibb (May 29, 2012)

pwp said:


> Great idea. But think big WW! L28-105 f/2is ? Hang the expense...



Every wedding photographer would buy one .... or at least, lust after one

Add a 100-200 f/2 for the second body ....


----------



## Birdshooter (May 29, 2012)

I would rather have a 10-600 f/2 perfectly alligned for an APS-C, weighing not more than 500 gram, which has perfect image quality, no vingetting or CA at all, fully sharp wide open, and is delivered as a kit lens.

Sold seperately for under $1000.

Likelyness it is going to happen? About the same as other suggestions made here


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 2, 2012)

ef 20mm f2 L, anyone?


----------



## untitled10 (Jun 6, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> ef 20mm f2 L, anyone?



If this really were a lens I would be fist in line, getting a fast wide is essential in gig photography, a little wider than 24 would be unbeatable.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 16, 2012)

untitled10 said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > ef 20mm f2 L, anyone?
> ...



Yes, the ef 20mm f1.8L. Sigma has a version, so we know it's possible.


----------



## aznable (Jun 17, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Razor2012 said:
> ...



holy trinity.... 

i have some nikon friends that use this


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 17, 2012)

aznable said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Heh yep, Nikon has it first. Damn, lol.


----------



## kdsand (Jun 18, 2012)

Birdshooter said:


> I would rather have a 10-600 f/2 perfectly alligned for an APS-C, weighing not more than 500 gram, which has perfect image quality, no vingetting or CA at all, fully sharp wide open, and is delivered as a kit lens.
> 
> Sold seperately for under $1000.
> 
> Likelyness it is going to happen? About the same as other suggestions made here



You forgot it also needs to be a pancake


----------



## aznable (Jun 20, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> aznable said:
> 
> 
> > Razor2012 said:
> ...



they are crazy


----------



## pharp (Jul 5, 2012)

how about this one?

http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-18-45mm-f3-5-5-6-lens-for-mirrorless-camera/


----------



## haring (Jul 24, 2012)

I would love to have my EF 24-70 f/2.8L with IS! In a dark church it would make a huge difference!!!


----------



## mathino (Aug 2, 2012)

haring said:


> I would love to have my EF 24-70 f/2.8L with IS! In a dark church it would make a huge difference!!!



You can get the new Tamron. Ive heard it is little sharper than 24-70 f/2.8 L and has IS.


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 4, 2012)

mathino said:


> haring said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to have my EF 24-70 f/2.8L with IS! In a dark church it would make a huge difference!!!
> ...



Waiting for the 24-70II.


----------



## Wideopen (Aug 7, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> mathino said:
> 
> 
> > haring said:
> ...



Same here ;D


----------



## M.ST (Aug 14, 2012)

I want a EF 14-24 f/2.8L and sell my 16-35 II.


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 14, 2012)

M.ST said:


> I want a EF 14-24 f/2.8L and sell my 16-35 II.



That's the next lens I'm hoping for after the 24-70II. The 16-35II will seem out of place sitting next to the 24-70II & 70-200 2.8II.


----------



## steliosk (Sep 10, 2012)

16-35 f/4 would be nice instead of 17-40 f/4
16-40 f/4 even better

and a 12-24 which nobody has except sigma, is a MUST for wide angle photography.

and of course a 14-24 2.8


----------



## fotografnuntaiasi (Sep 11, 2012)

Thanks 10X, more easy to get info's with you'r links.


----------



## DzPhotography (Sep 16, 2012)

I really need that 14-24 asap


----------



## mirekti (Sep 16, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> I really need that 14-24 asap



me too!!! :'(


----------



## Viggo (Sep 21, 2012)

Not a word anymore about the 35 L II?


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2012)

kdsand said:


> Birdshooter said:
> 
> 
> > I would rather have a 10-600 f/2 perfectly alligned for an APS-C, weighing not more than 500 gram, which has perfect image quality, no vingetting or CA at all, fully sharp wide open, and is delivered as a kit lens.
> ...


You also forgot that it has to have IS, tilt, shift and macro capabilities too ;D


----------



## caruser (Sep 21, 2012)

tron said:


> kdsand said:
> 
> 
> > Birdshooter said:
> ...


Wouldn't buy, no soft focus!


----------



## Nishi Drew (Sep 21, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Not a word anymore about the 35 L II?



I think Sigma has that covered


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2012)

Nishi Drew said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Not a word anymore about the 35 L II?
> ...


Hey! It is a Canon site


----------



## Viggo (Sep 21, 2012)

tron said:


> Nishi Drew said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Yeah, I actually thought the new Siggy looked cool, they've taken a big step, by the looks of it at least. I couldn't really locate if it was weathersealed or not.

What you guys think, does it top the current 35 L? Af and wideopen performance are my biggest points.


----------



## tron (Sep 22, 2012)

Viggo said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Nishi Drew said:
> ...


The point for me is not whether it is a little better or worse than its Canon equivalent. It is a matter of future compatibility. I have a Tokina ATX28-70 f/2.8 and a Sigma 14mm that are nice paper weights.
They cannot be upgraded for the digital Canons. The Sigma works only fully open which is next to useless and the Tokina had ceased working since the advent of Canon 50E !!! (It works though with my EOS1n camera!).
Both companies responded that they cannot upgrade their lenses. Now, my version 1 Canon EF50mm 1.8 still works!
There is a single exception to


----------



## Viggo (Sep 22, 2012)

tron said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I thought that was the idea with new firmware docking... but I can't say it is a compatibility problem that 30 year old lenses from thirdparty doesn't work with digital. It's not that long ago Canon's own flashes bought can't be used with digital.


----------



## tron (Sep 22, 2012)

tron said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


----------



## tron (Sep 22, 2012)

Viggo said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...


Tokina was not 30 years old. I bought it in 1993 and it was useless in 1996 with my 50E!


----------



## tron (Sep 22, 2012)

tron said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


Old Canon flashes do not work but all old Canon lenses do work! 35mm L by the way is a very old lens which works OK! Ofcourse someone is free to take chances especially when the price is much better!


----------



## anden (Oct 5, 2012)

These:

EF-S 15mm f/1.8 IS USM
EF-S 30mm f/1.8 IS USM
EF-S 40-150 f/2.8 IS USM


----------



## Patrick (Oct 5, 2012)

Now, my version 1 Canon EF50mm 1.8 still works!
[/quote]
Finally someone else who still has a 50 f1.8 mk1! I originally bought mine when the EOS 1 was launched back in 1989 (?)


----------



## tron (Oct 6, 2012)

Patrick said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Now, my version 1 Canon EF50mm 1.8 still works!
> ...


Don't you long for the days when the lenses were so much cheaper? I had gotten the EF28mm f/2.8 for around 100$ new. Now they had to do something to get money even from these lenses. They put IS on 24 and 28 and raised the price insanely as if they aren't just 2.8 lenses...


----------



## Patrick (Oct 8, 2012)

tron said:


> Patrick said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I certainly do!


----------



## Greatland (Oct 11, 2012)

I would be a happy camper if they could just start delivering the new 600 that has been out for awhile....I have had mine on order for awhile now and not really able to get much information on why they are taking so long to get them in circulation.


----------



## tron (Oct 11, 2012)

Greatland said:


> I would be a happy camper if they could just start delivering the new 600 that has been out for awhile....I have had mine on order for awhile now and not really able to get much information on why they are taking so long to get them in circulation.


They are practically doing it for us their valued customers!
The longer we wait the greater the satisfaction ;D


----------



## SJTstudios (Oct 17, 2012)

A 35-70 2 IS L is crazy, the new 24-70 ii is 2400 dollars, this going to be wortha hell of a lot. And the only is lens with f2 is the 200mm f2. Building this lens would exterminate the 24-70 ii.

I did however hear a couple rumors from my local camera store who coordinates with canon, and actually shared with me the official 6d specs before it was announced. They say there is a new 2.8 ef-s is zoom that will update the 17-55. It will have different focal length, and a better is motor. Also, ther is a rumored 24-105 replacement. It will have a similar hybrid is system like the 100mm macro, a 3.5/4 aperture, and a 20/24/35-105/110/120. All options are being considered. Canon is actually working on a lot of these rumors, especially the 14-24 to go with the 3d x, and everything else is going to be launched with the new Aps-c line, a new sensor with hybrid af will be in the (T5i, 70d, and the 7d ii, and there is a rumored special 1.7-1.8x sensor supposed to be in the "pro wildlife" dslr. This is like the Arab spring of canon dslrs. New ef-s STM lenses are to accompany them, and some new ef primes are rumored to. I did not hear anything about when we will see some new l zooms. (with the 14-24 excepted)


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 19, 2012)

My most wanted lens is this

135mm F/1.8L IS USM


----------



## SJTstudios (Oct 21, 2012)

I'm confused, what lens is supposed to fill the 17-40's place, I bet canon would add is, but I don't think they'd bump it up to 50-60mm?


----------



## TeenTog (Oct 22, 2012)

> but I don't think they'd bump it up to 50-60mm?



probably not. I think its a really good focal length at a really good price. I doubt Canon will update it/replace it for awhile. It is a very widely used lens, and at the cheapesed L glass available, it is quite popular. Why would canon replace and raise the price of a lens that doesent have much room for improvement and is already getting them so much revenue? I guess a guy can hope, though!


----------



## drs (Nov 4, 2012)

If it is for film-makers, make it manual, super sharp wide open, and nearly no breathing. ... and a stable image while rack focusing.

For anything else most of us have already glass with lower F stops. Having said that, I would love to have the double f stop of the 1/1.2, but 1/1.4 is fine, 1/2.0 would be the next, and half of the light performance, which makes not really sense to have a prime then (for my personal needs of course, using 1/2.8 zooms). 

But I guess, this wish plays too much into the area of the new Cine-lenses which are $4,990 for the T 1/1.3 50mm.


----------



## SJTstudios (Nov 15, 2012)

that1guy said:


> ronderick said:
> 
> 
> > muteteh said:
> ...



But the 24-70 is a portrait lens, canon wants pros to invest in other gear. And if you really want to stop down for landscapes, you will use a tripod, or otherwise use flash. Get the 24-70 f4 is if the is, and stopped down sharpness is important. This lens and the 85mm 1.2 are some of the lenses that I wished they didn't put on aperture blades, if you need to stop down, there is an alternative.


----------



## Jmanc (Nov 21, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> My most wanted lens is this
> 
> 135mm F/1.8L IS USM



I want that one as well.


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 29, 2012)

If they could make the same 135mm f2 with IS, I would be more than satisfied, I'm afraid the extra 1/3 of stop of a 1.8 version would only add weight, bulk, a larger filter size and 3 times the price. The new 135mm f2 IS when it comes will likely sell for 1899$ anyway.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 29, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> If they could make the same 135mm f2 with IS, I would be more than satisfied, I'm afraid the extra 1/3 of stop of a 1.8 version would only add weight, bulk, a larger filter size and 3 times the price. The new 135mm f2 IS when it comes will likely sell for 1899$ anyway.



Zeiss already make's a 135 F/1.8. It should be no big deal for canon.


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 29, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > If they could make the same 135mm f2 with IS, I would be more than satisfied, I'm afraid the extra 1/3 of stop of a 1.8 version would only add weight, bulk, a larger filter size and 3 times the price. The new 135mm f2 IS when it comes will likely sell for 1899$ anyway.
> ...



I guess it's no big deal, after all Nikon even had a 300mm f2 in the past; I just wonder if the extra 1/3 stop would justify all the negatives (weight, bulk, filter size, price).


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 29, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > symmar22 said:
> ...



If canon made a 300mm F/2L IS USM, that would also be in this list of wanted rumored lenses. ;D

That Zeiss 135mm F1.8 is just stunning.


----------



## kubelik (Nov 29, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> If canon made a 300mm F/2L IS USM, that would also be in this list of wanted rumored lenses. ;D



haha I bet a bunch of the owners would also be in some list of wanted felons 8) that would need some serious, serious cash to blow


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 29, 2012)

Just for the fun.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/300mmedif20/index.htm


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 29, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> Just for the fun.
> 
> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/300mmedif20/index.htm



It's only 17 Pounds. : Completely handhold able.


----------



## steliosk (Dec 3, 2012)

some wide angle lenses are needed

16-35 f/4 IS USM
however i'd love to have a canon 12-24 4-5.6 USM


----------



## symmar22 (Dec 3, 2012)

steliosk said:


> some wide angle lenses are needed
> 
> 16-35 f/4 IS USM
> however i'd love to have a canon 12-24 4-5.6 USM



+1, though I would refer a fixed aperture (like 12-24 f4L USM). One super wide prime would be good as well to fill the gap : 

17mm f2.8 USM, as a cheaper and lighter alternative to the 17 TS-E.


----------



## hemidesign (Dec 10, 2012)

Oh Lord, Can't wait for the new 135mm F2 with IS.. WOW!
I don't care how much will cost, I'll buy right now! 8)


----------



## curby (Dec 13, 2012)

It's great to have a stickied summary of rumored lenses, but the first post hasn't been updated in over two years. Could we find another volunteer to take over maintenance and updates, or unsticky this post to prevent confusion?


----------



## hemidesign (Dec 24, 2012)

I have my aside money to get:
14-24 f2.8 - 85 f1.2 iii and 135 f2 IS.. Can't wait!


----------



## tron (Dec 25, 2012)

hemidesign said:


> I have my aside money to get:
> 14-24 f2.8 - 85 f1.2 iii and 135 f2 IS.. Can't wait!


Oh yes you will wait ;D


----------



## ashmadux (Jan 8, 2013)

a proper 12-24 for full frame would be absolutely killer. the 16-35 just isnt sharp enough for such duty. I am iteching to go full frame but not having a 10-22 kinda sucks


----------



## hemidesign (Jan 9, 2013)

ashmadux said:


> a proper 12-24 for full frame would be absolutely killer. the 16-35 just isnt sharp enough for such duty. I am iteching to go full frame but not having a 10-22 kinda sucks



I really don't know if they can make 12-24 (12mm without being fisheye).. I think 14mm is the minimum wide for full frame images..


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 9, 2013)

hemidesign said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > a proper 12-24 for full frame would be absolutely killer. the 16-35 just isnt sharp enough for such duty. I am iteching to go full frame but not having a 10-22 kinda sucks
> ...



http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/13mm.htm


----------



## rs (Jan 9, 2013)

hemidesign said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > a proper 12-24 for full frame would be absolutely killer. the 16-35 just isnt sharp enough for such duty. I am iteching to go full frame but not having a 10-22 kinda sucks
> ...


Sigma make a 12-24 full frame rectilinear ultrawide zoom. By all accounts it's far from great optically, but it does have a unique angle of view. 

Hopefully the new Canon ultra wide zoom will be a worthy rival for the Nikon 14-24/2.8. Their patent is for a 14-24 - I've not seen any 12-24 patents out there, so that suggests they can come up with something close to optical perfection like the Nikon 14-24.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 11, 2013)

ashmadux said:


> a proper 12-24 for full frame would be absolutely killer. the 16-35 just isnt sharp enough for such duty. I am iteching to go full frame but not having a 10-22 kinda sucks


The 16-35IIL really is sharp and far better than the ef-s 10-22. But it's a general use ultra wide, so it's not too angular distortion corrected. So it works well photographing landscapes and groups of people. Heavily corrected wide angle lenses are great for photographing building and things with straight lines but anything with a circle or curve gets distorted due to the angle of view....so people or groups of people get very out of shape. The 16-35IIL's achillies heel isn't it's sharpness (which most forums seem to spout on about) but it's CA and flare control. It's an old design and due for a new optical formular....but it's still younger than the vernable 17-40L. 
The Nikkor 14-24mm is a great lens for shooting charts, but less so for real world shooting. The huge difficulty in fitting and using filters is big problem for landscape shooters (compare it to how easy 82mm filters are to handle) and due to it's recitiliear design, it's not that great for people shots. Yes it's very sharp wide open, but then again who needs really sharp corners at f2.8? Most landscapers stop down to achieve sufficient DOF and the 16-35IIL easily matches it by f8. For group shots, a bit of vignetting and corner softness looks nice. 
Many of my pro photographer friends who shoot Nikon have all sold this lens and gone back to their older 17-35mm options. So I do wonder if a new Canon 14-24mm lens will be that useful if it behaves the same as the Nikkor version. For the extra 2mm wider angle of view and the PITA filter handling...Hmmm...


----------



## wayno (Jan 11, 2013)

Is the 16-35 ii good sharp at edges at F8 at 16? I'd be surprised.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 11, 2013)

wayno said:


> Is the 16-35 ii good sharp at edges at F8 at 16? I'd be surprised.



I've been using one for 4 years now....have you tried one? I hope you aren't basing your opinions on forum chatter. Please take a look at my flickr page and see if there are any landscapes where the 16-35IIL is found to be lacking...then again, I never found the 17-40L particularly lacking either. Both are excellent lenses.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## FunPhotons (Jan 11, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Many of my pro photographer friends who shoot Nikon have all sold this lens and gone back to their older 17-35mm options. So I do wonder if a new Canon 14-24mm lens will be that useful if it behaves the same as the Nikkor version. For the extra 2mm wider angle of view and the PITA filter handling...Hmmm...



Exactly my thoughts. I shoot around 20mm, with less or more useful if I can't sneaker around. Much as I'd love another zoom covering 20mm, the bulb/filter issue means I'm unlikely to try it. I do much of my landscape shots in less than ideal weather.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 11, 2013)

FunPhotons said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Many of my pro photographer friends who shoot Nikon have all sold this lens and gone back to their older 17-35mm options. So I do wonder if a new Canon 14-24mm lens will be that useful if it behaves the same as the Nikkor version. For the extra 2mm wider angle of view and the PITA filter handling...Hmmm...
> ...



Yup, I recently used my TS-e 17 to photograph St Mary's Lighthouse. The initial composition didn't really thrill me, so I used some flowing water around the beach rocks as a foreground interest. The spray on the front bulbous element was a complete faf to remove and ruined a number of shots. It was a lot harder to clean than my 16-35, each spot seemed to be huge in the images. Next time i'll go back to my 16-35IIL, sure I would have to correct verticals in post, but that's a small price to pay for the filter issues and cleaning such a big bulbous front element. I've just started using the new Photoix filter options for the TS-e (polariser and 5 stop ND). The 16-35IIL is SO much easier to use in so many ways, which when knee deep in icy water and fading light...simplicty and ease of use are high on my list!


----------



## wayno (Jan 11, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> wayno said:
> 
> 
> > Is the 16-35 ii good sharp at edges at F8 at 16? I'd be surprised.
> ...



I haven't used one but I've read reviews to suggest its still a bit soft around the edges at F8, just as I feel the 17-40 is. I love the 17-40, I think it's dead sharp across most of the frame but certainly is far from perfect around the corners. I always took the 16-35 to be optically pretty similar to the 17-40 after about 5.6... I assume yours is sharp to the edges from the sounds of it.


----------



## caruser (Jan 11, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> wayno said:
> 
> 
> > Is the 16-35 ii good sharp at edges at F8 at 16? I'd be surprised.
> ...



Now you might be right, but a couple of low-resolution images on flickr are unable to show the technical merits of the lens (I like the photos though) because nearly everything looks sharp down-sized so much...


----------



## tron (Jan 11, 2013)

caruser said:


> Now you might be right, but a couple of low-resolution images on flickr are unable to show the technical merits of the lens (I like the photos though) because nearly everything looks sharp down-sized so much...


+1 We need 100% magnification for this. A screenshot from a corner of a 100% enlarged image could do I guess...


----------



## florianbieler.de (Feb 13, 2013)

The 50 1.4 suffered heavy price drops here in germany today, about 15% down on several retailers. Hope that means they're getting rid of it and its replacement is on the way.


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 13, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> The 50 1.4 suffered heavy price drops here in germany today, about 15% down on several retailers. Hope that means they're getting rid of it and its replacement is on the way.



I would be very interested in how a new canon 50 would compare to a sigma art 50... Hope these are both available soon!


----------



## florianbieler.de (Feb 13, 2013)

What is a "Sigma Art 50"?


----------



## caruser (Feb 13, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> What is a "Sigma Art 50"?


http://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/sigma-corporation-announces-reorganization-of-lens-lineup-new-products-and-quality-control


----------



## florianbieler.de (Feb 13, 2013)

Oh you mean like the 35 1.4 which is a big ass dream contrary to the older 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 which just ****** up on every full frame?


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 13, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> Oh you mean like the 35 1.4 which is a big ass dream contrary to the older 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 which just ****** up on every full frame?



exactly. Which I hope against hope will rival Canon's 50 1.2L at the price of Canon 50 1.4 mk2. ;D


----------



## wayno (Feb 13, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> Oh you mean like the 35 1.4 which is a big ass dream contrary to the older 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 which just ****** up on every full frame?



Not on every full frame. My Sigma 85 works like a dream. AF is fine.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 14, 2013)

wayno said:


> florianbieler.de said:
> 
> 
> > Oh you mean like the 35 1.4 which is a big ass dream contrary to the older 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 which just ****** up on every full frame?
> ...



Not in my experience. The Sigma 50mm has a horrendous in-consistency getting focus.


----------



## florianbieler.de (Feb 14, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> wayno said:
> 
> 
> > florianbieler.de said:
> ...



Same for me. I got it once to play around with, sharpness is really nice but it not only focused wrong, it even focused wrong differently when focusing near or far so you couldn't even correct it with in-camera focus correction. Some people apparently have sent in their cameras and the lens to let it adjust at Sigma but boy I won't send them my 5D3 so that they can play around and adapt their lens to my body. This seems to happen mainly on full frame cameras and also with the 85mm.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 14, 2013)

.. And nothing about the 35 L II, well it's only rumored several times a year for the last better part of a decade.


----------



## florianbieler.de (Feb 17, 2013)

They better give me a 50 IS soon. Can put my Tamron to rest then.


----------



## pedro (Feb 17, 2013)

steliosk said:


> some wide angle lenses are needed
> 
> 16-35 f/4 IS USM
> however i'd love to have a canon 12-24 4-5.6 USM



What would be the advantage of a 16-35 f/4 IS over a 16-35 f/2.8 II L? Sharpness? F/1.4 on my 50mm gives it the edge sometimes, even wide open...


----------



## RGF (Feb 25, 2013)

I believe that I have read discussions (though not a rumor) that the 45 and 90 TS would be replaced. Or is this wishful thinking on my part?


----------



## gary (Mar 29, 2013)

It seems to me that 2010 was a really good year for rumours, maybe the year that Bigfoot was rumoured to be hiding out somewhere????


----------



## Skilsaw (Apr 1, 2013)

Newbie here.
Was I the only one who bit on this joke?

Now, if you must know, I'm a lefty!
And I ordered my first digital SLR on Saturday from the Canon eStore.
Logged on this morning and saw the joke.

First thought it would be a 7D Professional, like the EF lenses with the "L" in their designation.

Wondered for a moment if I could cancel my existing order, and get a 7DL instead.


----------



## pedro (Jul 11, 2013)

as the rumor mill was working hard these past months: a WA? 12-24, 14-24?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 29, 2013)

RGF said:


> I believe that I have read discussions (though not a rumor) that the 45 and 90 TS would be replaced. Or is this wishful thinking on my part?



I'm not really sure that a pair of oddball, low volume, niche architectural pro lenses would constitute a "big" announcement. Maybe these two, a 35IIL, 200LIS macro and a 100-400IIL would though!


----------



## M.ST (Nov 14, 2013)

I think (hope) we will see the 100-400 IS replacement, the 17-40 L replacement, the 14-24 2.8 L, the 24-70 2.8 IS lens, the 50 mm 1.4 replacement and the Tilt-Shift replacements.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 13, 2013)

M.ST said:


> I think (hope) we will see the 100-400 IS replacement, the 17-40 L replacement, the 14-24 2.8 L, the 24-70 2.8 IS lens, the 50 mm 1.4 replacement and the Tilt-Shift replacements.



Me too. The long rumored 100-400 replacement is a bit of a mythical unicorn....along with a 35mm f1.4 L replacement. 
Personally, I'm not too fussed with a 24-70 L IS...I know some are looking forwards to it. But the mkII non IS is very very good. A 14-24L would be nice, a 12-24L would be better and not preclude the need for a 17-40 or 16-35.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 5, 2014)

RGF said:


> I believe that I have read discussions (though not a rumor) that the 45 and 90 TS would be replaced. Or is this wishful thinking on my part?



I read on a website that the TS-E 90mm would be replaced by a TS-E 135mm but at the time it seemed like they were just pulling that FL out of their 4$$. Still no update announcement. A TS-E 90mm replacement (L-series) is the lens I most desire. The current 90mm loses IQ when shifting wide open. Unfortunately TS-E seems to be low on Canon's priorities.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 21, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that I have read discussions (though not a rumor) that the 45 and 90 TS would be replaced. Or is this wishful thinking on my part?
> ...



I see the same thing with my TS-e 17L and TS-e 45mm. I guess it's a fact of such a large swing / shift movement. I've seen simular with the TS-e24IIL, although less pronounced. I have to confess, I've not tried the TS-e 90...it's not a lens I have a need for yet. I suspect that Canon are in no particular hurry to replace the 45 and 90, they are still selling as well as a TS-e is to be expected . A new version with have a inevitable double price hike...which will most probably kill the new sales. It's a lot of cash for a marginal increase in optical quality and the newer movement chassis. One would have a strong "need" to justify that kind of cost!


----------



## ClayStevens (Feb 28, 2014)

A lot of interests in EF 35 f/1.4L II.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 28, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > I think (hope) we will see the 100-400 IS replacement, the 17-40 L replacement, the 14-24 2.8 L, the 24-70 2.8 IS lens, the 50 mm 1.4 replacement and the Tilt-Shift replacements.
> ...



Do you ever use the Sigma 12-24? It's supposed to be decent.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 28, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Do you ever use the Sigma 12-24? It's supposed to be decent.


I had the lens for a while and really liked it. The 12mm rectilinear view is unlike anything you've ever used - it's nearly 1/3 wider than a 14mm lens! I sold it with half of my other lenses when I got the 300mm f/2.8 IS II, but do miss it sometimes. It wasn't super sharp, was rather distorted, and had bad CA in the corners, but if you kept it at f/11 and 12mm, it was pretty decent. Besides, you could hand hold it at 1/15s! I'd LOVE it if Canon released a 12-24L  Here are some shots at 12mm to give you an idea of what that'd be like:


----------



## waelelgendy (Mar 15, 2014)

It's interesting to see that the rumored lenses in 2010 remain as is in 2014!


----------



## tron (Mar 15, 2014)

waelelgendy said:


> It's interesting to see that the rumored lenses in 2010 remain as is in 2014!


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 9, 2014)

The rumors need to start materialising as lenses. The newer cameras (before we even get to 45 or 85MP as been rumored here) such as the 6d show up the problems of the EF-17-40mm f4L, EF24-105mm f4L both of which have pronouced chromatic abberations at 17mm and 24mm respectively. As sensors improve the faults of lenses masked at 8, 10, 12 or 18MP now show up and this undermines the system ability to produce great results. Sigma have shown improvement are possible (so has Zeiss at a price) and still remain competitive to Canon pricing.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 20, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> The rumors need to start materialising as lenses. The newer cameras (before we even get to 45 or 85MP as been rumored here) such as the 6d show up the problems of the EF-17-40mm f4L, EF24-105mm f4L both of which have pronouced chromatic abberations at 17mm and 24mm respectively. As sensors improve the faults of lenses masked at 8, 10, 12 or 18MP now show up and this undermines the system ability to produce great results. Sigma have shown improvement are possible (so has Zeiss at a price) and still remain competitive to Canon pricing.



A 24-105 II L really would be nice, especially mated with a 100-400 II L combo. Very versatile!


----------



## transpo1 (Jul 28, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > The rumors need to start materialising as lenses. The newer cameras (before we even get to 45 or 85MP as been rumored here) such as the 6d show up the problems of the EF-17-40mm f4L, EF24-105mm f4L both of which have pronouced chromatic abberations at 17mm and 24mm respectively. As sensors improve the faults of lenses masked at 8, 10, 12 or 18MP now show up and this undermines the system ability to produce great results. Sigma have shown improvement are possible (so has Zeiss at a price) and still remain competitive to Canon pricing.
> ...



+1 for the 24-105L II lens. This is the most versatile lens Canon makes. 

Also, Canon- a 14-24 2.8 for under $2500 please.


----------



## sengineer (Aug 27, 2014)

The Canon Camera Museum tech report for the EOS-M 55-200mm lens shows 5 lens in the family. http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/2014/08/


----------



## tron (Aug 27, 2014)

transpo1 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...


Can I order my 16-35 2.8 III please ? 8)


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 29, 2014)

Canon already has an EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM Full Frame lens.

Canon already has an EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens for their Mirrorless APS-C camera.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make an *EF-S 22mm f/2 STM* for their non-mirrorless APS-C cameras.

BTW 24mm = 38mm FF and 22mm = 35mm FF

An EF-S 22mm f/2 STM lens would be a good reason to replace my *heavy* EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM with a *light* EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM


----------



## Rocky (Sep 13, 2014)

sengineer said:


> The Canon Camera Museum tech report for the EOS-M 55-200mm lens shows 5 lens in the family. http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/2014/08/


The first one on the left is a EF to EF-M adapter. Therefore there are only 4 EF-M mount lens.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 16, 2014)

I feel like the most anticipated, mainstream lenses that are rumored are the least likely to come out, while lenses that people say "wtf?" to (ie: the new cheaper 24-105 non L which costs just $100 less than what white box 24-105 f/4L lenses are currently going for) are likely to continue to pop up.

Maybe I'm just losing hope. I've been following this site much longer than I've been a forum member and I don't understand why Canon is so reluctant to develop/release lenses that they should know their customer base keeps hoping for.


----------



## Efka76 (Sep 16, 2014)

> Maybe I'm just losing hope. I've been following this site much longer than I've been a forum member and I don't understand why Canon is so reluctant to develop/release lenses that they should know their customer base keeps hoping for.



I also can not understand why Canon is not updating its popular lenses, e.g 50 mm 1.4, 50 mm 1.2, 100-400 mm and others. Now Canon released USD 7000 (in Europe such lenses cost GPB 7,000). I and many other photographers will never have such lenses. However, Sigma and Tamron are able to release very high quality and affordable lenses. I think that Canon will have to revise its lens pricing strategy. Why we should pay for marginally better quality lenses for double price


----------



## dolina (Sep 16, 2014)

Still disappointed that the 35/1.4L, 135/2L, 180/3.5L Macro and 400/5.6L are not replaced yet.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 21, 2014)

dolina said:


> Still disappointed that the 35/1.4L, 135/2L, 180/3.5L Macro and 400/5.6L are not replaced yet.



+1


----------



## Helios68 (Sep 23, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> An EF-S 22mm f/2 STM lens would be a good reason to replace my *heavy* EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM with a *light* EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM



I do not find the EF-S 10-22mm really heavy. But a 22mm with large aperture would be useful for IQ (better CA control) and low light conditions (inside a church, night architecture, handheld use...)


----------



## StoneColdCoffee (Dec 1, 2014)

Also, Canon- a 14-24 2.8 for under $2500 please.
[/quote]

+1 on that. or a 11-24mm f/2.8..just pleaseeee not the $3000 I keep hearing


----------



## lintoni (Dec 1, 2014)

StoneColdCoffee said:


> Also, Canon- a 14-24 2.8 for under $2500 please.



+1 on that. or a 11-24mm f/2.8..just pleaseeee not the $3000 I keep hearing
[/quote]
The rumoured imminent super-doopah ultra mega wide angle is 11-24 f/4.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 7, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > The rumors need to start materialising as lenses. The newer cameras (before we even get to 45 or 85MP as been rumored here) such as the 6d show up the problems of the EF-17-40mm f4L, EF24-105mm f4L both of which have pronouced chromatic abberations at 17mm and 24mm respectively. As sensors improve the faults of lenses masked at 8, 10, 12 or 18MP now show up and this undermines the system ability to produce great results. Sigma have shown improvement are possible (so has Zeiss at a price) and still remain competitive to Canon pricing.
> ...



+1...I don't think it'll happen though unfortently.


----------



## Arty (Dec 17, 2014)

Efka76 said:


> > Maybe I'm just losing hope. I've been following this site much longer than I've been a forum member and I don't understand why Canon is so reluctant to develop/release lenses that they should know their customer base keeps hoping for.
> 
> 
> 
> I also can not understand why Canon is not updating its popular lenses, e.g 50 mm 1.4, 50 mm 1.2, 100-400 mm and others. Now Canon released USD 7000 (in Europe such lenses cost GPB 7,000). I and many other photographers will never have such lenses. However, Sigma and Tamron are able to release very high quality and affordable lenses. I think that Canon will have to revise its lens pricing strategy. Why we should pay for marginally better quality lenses for double price


I would really like to see a fast, new 50 mm lens with IS and USM.


----------



## Joey (Dec 20, 2014)

Helios68 said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > An EF-S 22mm f/2 STM lens would be a good reason to replace my *heavy* EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM with a *light* EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
> ...


I don't find the 10-22 lens heavy either - it's one of the lightest lenses in my bag. 385g against 240g for the 10-18, and it has a longer zoom range and wider max aperture - and USM focusing. It's a great lens. If I didn't have it, I might buy the 10-18 for its compact size and IS but since I have the 10-22 and don't miss the IS, I'm sticking with what I have. I certainly wouldn't be thinking of changing for the weight saving!


----------



## Joey (Dec 20, 2014)

Arty said:


> Efka76 said:
> 
> 
> > > Maybe I'm just losing hope. I've been following this site much longer than I've been a forum member and I don't understand why Canon is so reluctant to develop/release lenses that they should know their customer base keeps hoping for.
> ...


You and me both. Canon's 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses are very old designs (I seem to remember they're closely based on the old FD lenses from before the days of autofocus) and I haven't bought one, hoping for a modern design replacement. When my camera was a T90 I took for granted that I could get really good portraits with backgrounds thrown well out of focus, using the cheapest lens in my bag, my 50mm f/1.4. Now my widest aperture lens is f/2.8 and I want a portrait lens for my crop camera with an f/1.4 aperture but Canon don't make one that I want to buy...


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 20, 2014)

Joey said:


> Arty said:
> 
> 
> > Efka76 said:
> ...



Core lens design is a very mature science, things like modern coatings and IS add somewhat, but the actual core design possibilities have been well understood, and made, for a very long time.

As for Canon's 50 f1.4, I can understand people not wanting to buy one, but if they want a fast 50 they are being silly. It is a very good lens that is available secondhand for crazy good value. Mine focuses spot on at 1.4 every single time, it has been sitting in the bottom of my bag for over ten years and has never given me an issue (in the same time I have sent L lenses to Canon over half a dozen times for repair), it weighs next to nothing and at f5.6 and smaller it is sharper than a 100 L Macro (which I also own).


----------



## Joey (Dec 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Joey said:
> 
> 
> > Arty said:
> ...


Point taken, but may I refer the court to the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 which if reviews are to be believed is way sharper edge to edge than the Canon - because it's not a Tessar- or Sonnar-based lens but a more complex CAD-influenced design??


----------



## davidcl0nel (Dec 21, 2014)

I don't want a Sigma 50 Art (its too heavy) from Canon, maybe this is the league of the next 50L (and maybe only 1.4 also!).
I want a replacement for the 50 1.8 or 50 1.4 class, and with IS. Usable and versatile as the 35 IS (i am a very big fan of this), sharp, no moving parts (inner focus), so nothing can break so easy. The 50 1.4 has a very poor design on focus tube and there are many many broken in the world...
85 1.8 is ok, but maybe here also a 85 2.0 IS with less fringing, maybe I would buy this.


----------



## fragilesi (Dec 21, 2014)

Joey said:


> Helios68 said:
> 
> 
> > c.d.embrey said:
> ...



I guess all things are relative but yes it's also as light as I have.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 12, 2015)

Looking at the EBay prices for EF 50mm f1.8 MK 1 metal mount lenses Canon should slot in a 50mm f1.8 between the MK II and the 50mm f1.4 where there is a big gap on price giving the lens a metal mount clearly there is a market.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 17, 2015)

So I guess the 35 L II Is no where still.. I was kind of hoping for it in early 2015, but the again, I was hoping for early 2006 (when it already was old), 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 also...


----------



## Maximilian59 (Jan 26, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > The rumors need to start materialising as lenses. The newer cameras (before we even get to 45 or 85MP as been rumored here) such as the 6d show up the problems of the EF-17-40mm f4L, EF24-105mm f4L both of which have pronouced chromatic abberations at 17mm and 24mm respectively. As sensors improve the faults of lenses masked at 8, 10, 12 or 18MP now show up and this undermines the system ability to produce great results. Sigma have shown improvement are possible (so has Zeiss at a price) and still remain competitive to Canon pricing.
> ...



+1000
What will be the kit lens for the coming high megapixel body, if not an updated 24-105/4?


----------



## Viggo (Jan 26, 2015)

Maximilian59 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



24-70 f2.8 L IS ? ;D


----------



## reso285 (Jan 30, 2015)

merci beaucoup pour ce list coque nexus 6 coque google nexus 6


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Jan 30, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Maximilian59 said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Probably the 24-70 f/4L IS.

I am hopeful though that a 24-70 f/2.8L IS is around the corner. Not as a kit lens though.


----------



## Pixelzoomer (Feb 10, 2015)

Thanks for that list!

BTW, there were mentions of replacements for the 45mm and 90mm tilt-shifts too. As I understood it, a 135mm tilt-shift macro (according to the patent info) could be the replacement for the 90mm. Don't know if they made it to any CR #.


----------



## Maximilian59 (Feb 15, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian59 said:
> ...



So there was nothing about a kit lens for the new 5Ds. I am still hoping there will be for the 5DIV. What I would like is a 24-105/2.8L with a 77mm filter thread and IS. This would perfectly fill up my gap between the 16-35/4 and 70-200/2.8. I can't see any reason, why it might be technically a problem to make such a lens. We have the 24-70/2.8L II without IS and the 70-200/2.8L II with IS. 
This would be an outstanding zoom in comparison to Nikon, Sony and third party manufacturers. It could be priced to about 1.500-2.000 (Euro or dollars). That is about the price for the existing 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. And if the image and built quality is on the level of the existing 2.8 zooms, I wouldn't hesitate a moment to buy one.


----------



## daleg (Feb 21, 2015)

Joey said:


> Arty said:
> 
> 
> > Efka76 said:
> ...



http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=canon+50mm+1.0&_from=R40|R40&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.TRS0&_nkw=canon+50mm+1.0&_sacat=0

here's all you need:

the above linked 50mm f1.0L = an 80mm f1.0 portrait lens on a crop body. Add a 1.4x TC and you have a 70mm f1.4 on a full frame body, or a 91mm portrait lens on 1D (non-X or S) body of your choice.

 kinda makes an Otus look rather reasonable.


----------



## time123 (Feb 22, 2015)

I certainly do hope Canon makes a 24-70L 2.8 IS and gives it a reasonable price. I am having a difficult time with the idea of leaving crop bodies because I really do not want to give up my 17-55 IS 2.8. I already own a 70-200L 2.8 IS II and instead of looking at getting the 5D Mark III or upcoming IV I am actually looking at upgrading to a 7D Mark II so I can keep my almost complete range of 17-200 mm 2.8 image stabilized. IS is not always necessary at the wider end but it can really come in handy. I really would like to go full frame one of these days but 27.2-88mm (17-55mm on my crop) is one of my most common shooting ranges and with as expensive as the 24-70L 2.8 II is without IS it makes the upgrade that much harder to justify especially considering the additional cost taken on by the new camera body.

Along with many others, I would also like to see an updated 50mm 1.4, and preferably with IS because I'm a huge fan of Canon's IS system. With an original release date of June 1993 it has had a pretty incredible run but they have released some excellent new lens technologies since then. Heck, the original 100-400L was released in September of 1998 and even that lens was able to get an update.

Anyways, rumor-mill - wish-list - whatever - thanks for listening Canon, I know you read these boards too


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 22, 2015)

time123 said:


> I certainly do hope Canon makes a 24-70L 2.8 IS and gives it a reasonable price. I am having a difficult time with the idea of leaving crop bodies because I really do not want to give up my 17-55 IS 2.8. I already own a 70-200L 2.8 IS II and instead of looking at getting the 5D Mark III or upcoming IV I am actually looking at upgrading to a 7D Mark II so I can keep my almost complete range of 17-200 mm 2.8 image stabilized. IS is not always necessary at the wider end but it can really come in handy. I really would like to go full frame one of these days but 27.2-88mm (17-55mm on my crop) is one of my most common shooting ranges and with as expensive as the 24-70L 2.8 II is without IS it makes the upgrade that much harder to justify especially considering the additional cost taken on by the new camera body.
> 
> Along with many others, I would also like to see an updated 50mm 1.4, and preferably with IS because I'm a huge fan of Canon's IS system. With an original release date of June 1993 it has had a pretty incredible run but they have released some excellent new lens technologies since then. Heck, the original 100-400L was released in September of 1998 and even that lens was able to get an update.
> 
> Anyways, rumor-mill - wish-list - whatever - thanks for listening Canon, I know you read these boards too



To all intents and purposes the 17-55 f2.8 IS is a 24-105 f4 IS on a FF camera (technically its ff equivalent is 27mm-88mm f4.48), the difference is that f4 on a ff camera has narrower dof, a greater zoom range and is cheaper. And before anybody says _"but I need the light gathering power of f2.8 for shutter speeds"_, well if you use 400iso @ f2.8 for 1/500 sec on your crop camera you can use 800iso @ f4 for 1/500 sec, you actually get less noise, narrower dof, the same shutter speed and, believe it or not, less motion blur! How is that? Well you are enlarging the same motion blur less with the ff enlargement.

All in all the 24-105 f4 IS out performs the 17-55 f2.8IS in every metric, this is a perfect example of why, when people move to ff, they say there is a difference but they just don't know why, there are small but noticeable improvements in everything even with, on the face of it, more modest lenses.

*Addendum:* Joey, read this link, http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/


----------



## e_honda (Feb 27, 2015)

time123 said:


> I certainly do hope Canon makes a 24-70L 2.8 IS and gives it a reasonable price.



You'll probably have to wait awhile and the price (using the 24-70 ii and 100-400 II as examples) will most likely be anything but reasonable. No doubt they had prototypes of this thing when designing the 24-70 II, but probably decided to go with a non IS version due to the fact that they couldn't get an IS version with the same IQ and/or it would've been to big/heavy.

I think they were set on going with something that had IS (seeing as they put IS in the 24-70 f4 and 16-35 f4), but along the way they seemed to find the magical optical formula with something that didn't have IS. Remember, adding IS isn't as simple as just dropping in the mechanism. It changes the optical formula.


----------



## Finn M (Mar 3, 2015)

Maximilian59 said:


> What will be the kit lens for the coming high megapixel body, if not an updated 24-105/4?



Canon now have five very sharp "kit" lenses which can justify a 50Mpix sensor (three of them are in my camera bag):

- EF 24-70/2,8L II
- EF 16-35/4L IS
- EF 70-200/2,8L IS II
- EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS II
And the new EF 11-24/4L

Canon also have lots of sharp L tele lenses plus the 14/2,8L and 24/1,4L II.

What they need to do is to update their L primes: 50/1,2L and 35/1,4L.
And maybe also add a 18/2L.

In the coming years I think we also will see some new and more compact telephoto lenses based on the improved DO technology which can reduce the size/weight with up to 50%:

- EF 300/4L DO IS to replace the EF 300/4L IS which was introduced in back in 1997 (Nikon just launched a lens like this)
- EF 200/2L DO IS (the ultimate lens for portraits)
- EF 600/5,6 DO IS (perfect for bird photographers)


----------



## time123 (Mar 7, 2015)

e_honda said:


> time123 said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly do hope Canon makes a 24-70L 2.8 IS and gives it a reasonable price.
> ...



Yep, it probably will be a while since it was about 10 years from v1 to v2 but this was also a wishlist! During this upgrade in which Canon also decided to jump the MSRP from $1349 to $2099 (a whopping 55% increase) so at this rate it seems likely that it will be expensive as well. Although Canon somehow managed to add a more reasonable 15% increase of $300 to the MSRP of the 70-200 IS 2.8 from v1 to v2 and has been able to pull IS off with that lens since 2001. I must say I do find it kind of odd that Canon doesn't have any other f/2.8 zoom lenses with IS other than the 70-200 and the 17-55. 

I have a hard time buying the weight/size problem because using a premium zoom and shooting with an already weighty upper-end DSLR (likely the kind that a photographer would use with a 24-70 f/2.8 ) in the first place probably isn't the best plan to go with if weight/size is a concern unless you want to use a tripod in which case size/weight shouldn't matter too much. I see sports/action photographers running around with their 70-200 II IS, myself included, which weighs almost twice as much as the 24-70 II at 3.28 lb vs 1.77 lb. And just for a point of note v1 of the 24-70 was 5 ounces heavier than v2.

Of course everything in this thread and our discussion is speculation, but many companies operate as follows, so my guess is that their marketing or whatever department simply ran the numbers and determined that v2 would still sell quite well even with the 10 year separation, 55% price increase, and not adding in IS. Nikon didn't include IS when they released their 24-70 f/2.8 in 2007 at a considerably higher price than the Canon v1 that was out at the time so why would Canon feel the need to have IS or a reasonable price especially since people are already generally heavily invested in their systems when they are looking at lenses in this range.

I am just really challenged to believe that Canon could not come up with something considering all of the other technical feats they have pulled off over the years with imaging - cross industry, not just photography. I know adding IS isn't just tacking on an extra chip but I am certainly not going to be imagining up defensive hypotheses or repeating unfounded rumors as to why a company worth billions and billions of dollars with massive amounts of resources couldn't possibly come up with a reasonable solution for IS on a 24-70 f/2.8 especially at its' current price and even more so in the price comparison to v1. Don't get me wrong as I do like my Canon gear but what can I say, I guess I'm a bit of a skeptic.


----------



## time123 (Mar 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> ...
> 
> *Addendum:* Joey, read this link, http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/



Fascinating link. Super comprehensive and all that technical data that was put together is incredible. Just an FYI but my name is not Joey, although I suppose it never hurts to guess (I know you weren't talking to me but I couldn't find any sarcasm tags).


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 7, 2015)

time123 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I was talking to Joey, but he removed his comment. Here it is copied from my email notification.

Glad you liked the link though


----------



## Joey (Mar 12, 2015)

Hmm, interesting...

I'm the Joey to which the comment was addressed - and I did read the article with interest. 

I posted the comment copied above and then immediately withdrew it - didn't expect anyone to see it at all (didn't realise CR would e-mail PrivatebyDesign to alert him that I'd replied to his comment). I'd decided my comment was overly snarky, and a bit contentious too, and I didn't want to get into that discussion. I'm rather sorry it got out despite my efforts at withdrawing it.

Having read the article, it is my view that the statement that an f/2.8 lens on a crop body is 'the equivalent' of an f/4.48 lens on a full frame cannot stand on its own without explanatory support. When I read 'f/2.8' or any other maximum aperture as part of the description of a lens, I'm thinking of the brightness of the image it throws on the sensor (or film) - and therefore the exposure settings I'll be using. Those things don't change with sensor size. Yes, I know that depth of field and some other things change but the image brightness, defined by the aperture of the lens relative to its focal length, does not change. Therefore I'd rather make the statement that a 50mm f/2 lens on a crop body 'is equivalent to' an 80mm f/2 lens on a full frame, though the depth of field (and perspective) will be different if the lens is used in such a way as to give the same field of view. I've since commented on the subject in another thread.

I shudder to think how discussions like this may confuse a newbie, which is why I will not be contributing further on this matter. My apologies to anyone who has suffered at my hands...


----------



## Rocky (Mar 12, 2015)

Joey said:


> Hmm, interesting...
> 
> I'm the Joey to which the comment was addressed - and I did read with article with interest.
> 
> ...


Well said. A f2.8 lens is a f 2.8 lens in ANY format and size of sensor. "an f/2.8 lens on a crop body is 'the equivalent' of an f/4.48 lens on a full frame" should only be refer to the DOF only. for whatever reason, a lot of poster do not mention about DOF equivalent and just use the term equivalent". One poster in the other tread insist that the EF-M 22mm f2.0 IS NOT a 22mm f2.0 but a 35mm f3.5 even used on the EOS-M. That is B.S.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 12, 2015)

Rocky said:


> Joey said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, interesting...
> ...



It interesting that a crop sensor, generally, is one stop less efficient at handling higher ISO noise than a full frame sensor of the same generation. The crop sensor, generally, looses a stop of DOF to the full frame sensor too. So take a 70-200 f2.8 on a full frame sensor, it does effectively become a 100-300 f4 on the crop sensor camera if all the rest of the variables are held constant. It does make one wonder. 
My 400mm f2.8 LIS becomes (effectively) a 640mm f4 LIS on a 7DII, sure it's still and f2.8 lens and it's still a 400mm lens, but effectively it is.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 12, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It interesting that a crop sensor, generally, is one stop less efficient at handling higher ISO noise than a full frame sensor of the same generation. The crop sensor, generally, looses a stop of DOF to the full frame sensor too. So take a 70-200 f2.8 on a full frame sensor, it does effectively become a 100-300 f4 on the crop sensor camera if all the rest of the variables are held constant. It does make one wonder.
> My 400mm f2.8 LIS becomes (effectively) a 640mm f4 LIS on a 7DII, sure it's still and f2.8 lens and it's still a 400mm lens, but effectively it is.


May be you should re-phrase to be "My 400mm f2.8 LIS becomes (effectively) a 640mm with DOF of f4 LIS on a 7DII, sure it's still and f2.8 lens and it's still a 400mm lens in focal length with light gathering power of f2.8"


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 13, 2015)

Joey said:


> Hmm, interesting...
> 
> I'm the Joey to which the comment was addressed - and I did read the article with interest.
> 
> ...



Look, my original comment was in reply to time123 who decried the lack of a FF version of the 17-55 f2.8 IS. Well my reply was the 24-105 f4 IS is that lens, it is the FF equivalent, and it is.

If two people stand next to each other, one with a 7D MkII and a 17-55 f2.8 IS and they take a shot at f2.8, 17mm, iso 100 and 1/30 sec, the other with a 5D MkIII and 24-105 f4 IS, takes the same framed shot at f4, 27mm, iso 200 and 1/30 sec they both have, essentially, the same image. They have the same framing, the same dof and the same noise, in actual fact the ff camera still has a slight noise advantage and a subject movement advantage but they are technicalities. 

The two lenses are equivalents, that is what equivalent means, well the 24-105 has a longer zoom range but that is moot. Anybody that uses a 17-55 on a crop camera and wants exactly the same images and functionality on a ff camera can do so by using a 24-105 f4 IS.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 13, 2015)

Rocky said:


> Joey said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, interesting...
> ...



I agree, an f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens. A 400mm lens is a 400mm lens. But if you start throwing the word equivalent about, which is what is being done, then you can't say a 300mm f2.8 is 'a 480mm f2.8 on a 7D MkII', it isn't, it is a 300mm f2.8 that gives the *equivalent* fov and dof as a 480mm f4 on a ff camera.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I agree, an f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens. A 400mm lens is a 400mm lens. But if you start throwing the word equivalent about, which is what is being done, then you can't say a 300mm f2.8 is 'a 480mm f2.8 on a 7D MkII', it isn't, it is a 300mm f2.8 that gives the *equivalent* fov and dof as a 480mm f4 on a ff camera.


I agree to that also. You said it in a very clear and precise way.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Apr 22, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Probably the 24-70 f/4L IS.
> 
> I am hopeful though that a 24-70 f/2.8L IS is around the corner. Not as a kit lens though.



Or the 24-105 STM. I'm sure they'd love to make people go buy the red ring at retail.


----------



## falcnr (May 3, 2015)

*Re: Canon 800mm F5.6 MKII*

Sorry if this has been raised before but I could not find anything in search engine. Does anyone know if Canon is bringing our a Mark II of their 800mm F5.6 lens? With so many other L series telephoto lens's having changed materials, IS mechanism and other features it makes sense they would ..but when ? Trying to decide to sell one of my kids and buy a version 1 or wait for version 2.


----------



## jhpeterson (May 13, 2015)

*Re: Canon 800mm F5.6 MKII*



falcnr said:


> Sorry if this has been raised before but I could not find anything in search engine. Does anyone know if Canon is bringing our a Mark II of their 800mm F5.6 lens? With so many other L series telephoto lens's having changed materials, IS mechanism and other features it makes sense they would ..but when ? Trying to decide to sell one of my kids and buy a version 1 or wait for version 2.


I suppose it all depends on how quickly you want to sell one of your kids.


----------



## anthonyd (May 13, 2015)

*Re: Canon 800mm F5.6 MKII*



falcnr said:


> ... Trying to decide to sell one of my kids and buy a version 1 or wait for version 2.



Are you waiting for version 2 of the kid or the lens, I'm confused.


----------



## tron (May 13, 2015)

Maybe the waiting is for the version 1 lens to get a version 2 (lens) kid ;D


----------



## aceflibble (Jun 25, 2015)

Don't know if it's been mentioned before, but Canon are discontinuing the 24-105 f/4L which has long been the 'kit' lens for 5D bodies. With the 5D4, 6D2 and 1DX2 on the way, I would think that points to a new 24-105 being made? A 24-105 f/4L IIS II on the way? Or could the 24-70 f/2.8L IS be the new kit lens?


----------



## tron (Jun 25, 2015)

aceflibble said:


> Don't know if it's been mentioned before, but *Canon are discontinuing the 24-105 f/4L *  which has long been the 'kit' lens for 5D bodies. With the 5D4, 6D2 and 1DX2 on the way, I would think that points to a new 24-105 being made? A 24-105 f/4L IIS II on the way? Or could the 24-70 f/2.8L IS be the new kit lens?


Where exactly did you hear that?

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000AZ57M6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435243001&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+24-105mm+f+4l+is+usm+af+lens

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=canon+ef+24-105mm+f%2F4l+is+usm+lens&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps


----------



## aceflibble (Jun 25, 2015)

Responded to that in the other thread!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 1, 2015)

Wow...now that the two mythical unicorns have been released into the wild (100-400 LIS and 35L replacements)...I wonder what else Canon will turn their hand to? 
16-35mm f2.8 III L?
24-105 f4 II LIS?
180mm f3.5 Macro L?
50mm f1.2 L?
135mm f2 L?

There's not a lot left to re-vamp!


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Sep 4, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Wow...now that the two mythical unicorns have been released into the wild (100-400 LIS and 35L replacements)...I wonder what else Canon will turn their hand to?
> 16-35mm f2.8 III L?
> 24-105 f4 II LIS?
> 180mm f3.5 Macro L?
> ...



Don't forget!
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8


----------



## dolina (Sep 5, 2015)

Film-era L lenses. Year cut off is 2004

Primes
1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM

Zooms
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

We are now in the era where in old lenses will show their design flaws on high pixel density cameras like the 5DS & 5DS R

I am keen on the 135 replacement.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 8, 2015)

*Re: Canon 800mm F5.6 MKII*



falcnr said:


> Sorry if this has been raised before but I could not find anything in search engine. Does anyone know if Canon is bringing our a Mark II of their 800mm F5.6 lens? With so many other L series telephoto lens's having changed materials, IS mechanism and other features it makes sense they would ..but when ? Trying to decide to sell one of my kids and buy a version 1 or wait for version 2.



http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-800mm-f5-6-do-is-in-development-cr2/

falcnr, this what you're looking for?


----------



## xtreme777 (Sep 8, 2015)

Hello there, 

I am looking for some help here and would appreciate your input.

I have been debating between two lenses that are made by Canon. Both are good lenses: however, i need to make my choice tomorrow. I mainly photograph kids and families, i have canon 5d mk3, 70-200 F2.8 L II, 135 f2 L, and now i am in the process of debating between canon 24-70 F2.8 and canon 24-70 F4 IS L. 
They seem interesting, however since i haven't used either one of them, i'd like to get some advice whether IS on F4 lens is a lot more important than F2.8 non-IS? I need a lens mainly for 60% indoor 40% outdoor shots.

P.S. How about sigma 35 1.4 art, sigma 50 1.4 art? 

Thank you in advance!


----------



## rs (Sep 8, 2015)

xtreme777 said:


> Hello there,
> 
> I am looking for some help here and would appreciate your input.
> 
> ...


Wrong thread, but I'll answer anyway.

What are you photographing? Moving subjects or stationary subject? Moving - get the 2.8. Stationary, the slower IS lens could be better. If, however, you don't mind potential AF issues or the time taken to change lenses, the Sigma primes could be worth getting.


----------



## xtreme777 (Sep 8, 2015)

I am a new member and the forum doesn't allow to make a new post. Since this post was about lenses, I thought it wouldn't be too much of a harm to post here. :-[

I photograph kids mainly. Most of the time I have good light, sometimes I don't. I just don't know if $1000 can be justified for the extra f-stop, or I am OK with the F4+IS.

Thank you.

P.S. And if it's sigma - what's the preference? 35 or 50? I find 35 is sharper, but 50 has a nicer focal length.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 9, 2015)

xtreme777 said:


> I am a new member and the forum doesn't allow to make a new post. Since this post was about lenses, I thought it wouldn't be too much of a harm to post here. :-[
> 
> I photograph kids mainly. Most of the time I have good light, sometimes I don't. I just don't know if $1000 can be justified for the extra f-stop, or I am OK with the F4+IS.
> 
> ...



That is one of the better reasons to be off topic, lol.

If you're dealing with more than one person as the subject, then you'll need a flash to compensate for stopping down the lens. For a single person, you can opt for a larger aperture. I'd opt for the f/2.8 rather than the f/4 IS if you can afford it. For people shots, IS is not very useful and can be a detriment because you need to let it stabilize before taking the shot. The 24-70 f/2.8 II focuses quickly and I've used it in servo for indoor volleyball and indoor basketball.

There seem to be more anecdotal evidence that the 35A has fewer AF issues than the 50A, but it really comes down which focal length you prefer. In either case, the AF won't be as responsive as the Canons especially in servo.

My 24-70 f/2.8 II gets more use than either my 35 or 50mm primes, so I'd suggest putting the money in something that you'd use more. With the 35 f/1.4 II coming out soon, that might put more downward pressure on the 35A. You might be able to find a better deal (used) once the 35L II comes out.


----------



## xtreme777 (Sep 9, 2015)

Thanks for all your responces, and I apologize for the off-topic! Hope others find this useful as well.

I went to the camera store last night and spent over an hour trying to get a feel for 24-70 F2.8, F4, Sigma 50 art 1.4 and sigma 35 art 1.4.

What I felt was that 24-70 F2.8 is by far superrior than 24-70 F4. That extra F stop did make a difference and IS on F4 wasn't of a much of a benefit. I also compared sigmas 35 and 50 and I put 50 away immediately, as at 1.4 it is not as sharp as 35mm. So, I'm down to 2 lenses now: 24-70 F2.8 and sigma 35. I love bukeh of sigma, however... considering many factors of a canon lens on a canon body...something is pushing me towards 24-70 f2.8. The only thing that bothers me about Sigma is that is has no weather sealing. I am paranoid about my gear and keep it all clean. I wouldn't want to start cleaning the sensor because sigma lets the dust in.

Some say, 24-70 covers 35mm anyway, but it's not about that. 35mm has a different style and it's 1.4.
Was looking at Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR, but I am not seeing good reviews on that lens. Tamron 35 and 45mm (coming soon) is supposed to be great, but again, I am not sure how good tamron is.

I have to make a decision by Friday to get the lens.


----------



## tron (Sep 9, 2015)

xtreme777 said:


> Thanks for all your responces, and I apologize for the off-topic! Hope others find this useful as well.
> 
> I went to the camera store last night and spent over an hour trying to get a feel for 24-70 F2.8, F4, Sigma 50 art 1.4 and sigma 35 art 1.4.
> 
> ...


Friday is an excellent day to get one of Canon's best zooms ever  (24-70 2.8 II)


----------



## xtreme777 (Sep 9, 2015)

Ha ha! And you are not biased, right?


----------



## tron (Sep 9, 2015)

xtreme777 said:


> Ha ha! And you are not biased, right?


I do have it


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 9, 2015)

tron said:


> xtreme777 said:
> 
> 
> > Ha ha! And you are not biased, right?
> ...



+1.


----------



## xtreme777 (Sep 10, 2015)

Thank you all for making me spend an extra $1000 
I'm going with 24-70 F2.8. Later, I may still get Sigma 35 Art. I like what it can do, but I think I need flexibility of a zoom lens at low light to work indoor with kids.

Thank you all again!


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 10, 2015)

xtreme777 said:


> Thank you all for making me spend an extra $1000
> I'm going with 24-70 F2.8. Later, I may still get Sigma 35 Art. I like what it can do, but I think I need flexibility of a zoom lens at low light to work indoor with kids.
> 
> Thank you all again!


You won't be disappointed, that's one the best Canon lenses overal. I sold it in an urgent need for cash and now I regret it.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 21, 2016)

xtreme777 said:


> Thanks for all your responces, and I apologize for the off-topic! Hope others find this useful as well.
> 
> I went to the camera store last night and spent over an hour trying to get a feel for 24-70 F2.8, F4, Sigma 50 art 1.4 and sigma 35 art 1.4.
> 
> ...



I would wager that you will never see the difference in sharpness between the f2.8 and f4 versions of the 24-70L in real world use. I use a stellar copy of the mkI 24-70L and it's less sharp than both the newer mkII and the f4...but I get great images out of it. In some ways I prefer the look I get from my current lens than I did with he rental mkII and f4 versions I tried. I liked them all, but the old version had a few features I really like. 
But it's your money and your wants....so please buy what you really like. They are both great optics and will give you many years of hard use.
Which brings me nearly on to the Sigma and Tamron lenes. They look great in spec sheets and generally offer great features and optics...many times rivaling Canon. But be under no illusion....they are NOT the same in terms of reliability, build, AF speed, AF accuracy, coatings and finally resale price. With a well looked after L lens, you always get back most of what you paid for it (some times a bit more). I can't say that for Sigma or Tamron. Each time I've sold one of those lenses I seem to take a hefty hit. 
My oldest EF lens is an original 50mm f1.8 from 1987, the first year of the EOS mount. It's no L....but it's still going strong.


----------



## tron (May 22, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> xtreme777 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for all your responces, and I apologize for the off-topic! Hope others find this useful as well.
> ...


+1 for both your opinion on 3rd party lenses and 50 1.8. It is my second oldest lens, first being EF35-105 f/3.5-4.5 I have kept it for sentimental reasons. Actually it was thanks to a Sigma zoom lens that I switched to Canon. OK nothing wrong about Sigma. The story is sigma 70-200 was the first addition to my first SLR a Konica Autoreflex TC with a 40mm 1.8 lens. I didn't have a camera bag by then. I had put the Sigma in its hard case in a hand bag (the supermarket type). I had the camera on my shoulder. I was harrying to get to a bus and someone told me that I had dropped a bag and an old lady had taken it (without knowing the content) and running away! Then a colleague at work suggested to switch to Canon. So I got the fresh new EOS 620 with 35-105 3.5-4.5 100-300 5.6 and 420EZ. I still have all but the 100-300 which I have sold it.


----------



## danielohana (Jul 8, 2016)

I want to buy canon 1.2L.
Yet I don't know if I should wait for the new 1.2 or 1.4?
What do you think? Will we get a new 50mm lens anytime soon?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 8, 2016)

danielohana said:


> I want to buy canon 1.2L.
> Yet I don't know if I should wait for the new 1.2 or 1.4?
> What do you think? Will we get a new 50mm lens anytime soon?


The fact that there is now a serious competition Sigma 50 Art, and Tamron 45 Vibration Compensation, will force Canon to update its 50mm at some point.

So far there is no reliable rumors, but the market logic says that the 50mm F1.4 is more urgent update, and it may be that this will come with Image Stabilizer.


----------



## danielohana (Jul 8, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> danielohana said:
> 
> 
> > I want to buy canon 1.2L.
> ...


I really hope.
I can buy 1.2L but I dont feel it worth the price.
Sigma 50mm Art Focus probs... Im not sure I want to exprience it.
What should I do? I also had bad luck with 50mm 1.4 =\


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 8, 2016)

danielohana said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > danielohana said:
> ...


I've had a Canon 50mm F1.4 and never liked the quality when more open than F2. Currently I have the Sigma 50 Art, and I love the sharpness and contrast even when wide open.

Yes, there is the fear of inconsistent AF, which can happen in some Canon bodies. Moreover, Sigma Art marvelously work with Dual Pixel AF.

If you do not care about the poor sharpness, Canon 50L may be the right lens for you.


----------



## danielohana (Jul 9, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> danielohana said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...


I have canon 6d. how will it work in your opinion?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 9, 2016)

danielohana said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > danielohana said:
> ...


I do not have a 6D, but the issue is more complex than that ...

A camera model (6D for example) can work very well with Sigma lenses, and over the years new units this camera with latest firmware may have malfunction. This explains the cases of problems with some cameras "equal" with a different behavior.

In mitigation, Sigma Art can receive firmware update, to monitor the "evolution" of Canon bodies.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sigma-usb-dock


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 19, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> danielohana said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



Yes, the whole 50mm prime is still a problem. The 50L's issues are well documented. In every other aspect other than sharpness...it's an impressive lens. But the sharpness wide open is as disappointing as it's AF accuracy issues. The Sigma 50mm f1.4 art has a history of sharp optics, poor flare, poor QA and unreliable AF. So that's no good either. The Canon 50mm f1.4 USM is really weird wide open, low contrast and not that great. Plus the fact that it's a gold line lens...so it's cheap and plasticky...and doesn't last long in a professional's use before falling a part. So in my opinion the best 50mm lens is either the TSe-45mm (that surprised you didn't it) or the 24-70 f2.8 II L. Either that or track down a good 50mm f1.8 metal mount. Wide open...it's really quite good.


----------



## e5z8652 (Aug 29, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> So far there is no reliable rumors, but the market logic says that the 50mm F1.4 is more urgent update, and it may be that this will come with Image Stabilizer.



Ugh. As long as they stick to the 1.4. I hope they're not going to take the $125 50mm 1.8, add IS to it, and then sell it for $425 dollars.

I shoot primes for my 35mm photography, which until recently has been mainly Pentax mechanical bodies. I recently picked up a new-to-me EOS 1v, and I've been looking for prime lenses for it. But the wide lenses available are both IS, and priced accordingly. I guess zooms are so popular now that it doesn't make sense to make an IS and non-IS model, but the IS really adds to the cost. Ebay it is, where I can look for that "P" date code...


----------



## haakmann (Sep 10, 2016)

Any news about the new compact & light Canon 400mm F:5.6 IS L?


----------



## cookmon (Sep 11, 2016)

Do yo think about new EF-S 17-55 f2.8 or replacement for APS-C ?
When is it coming?


----------



## turtle (Oct 10, 2016)

At least with my copy, wide open sharpness with the 50mm L is excellent and more than good enough for demanding use in fashion, lifestyle, weddings etc.

There is some variation there, for sure, but I was quite surprised how sharp my lens is wide open. I was expecting worse. Likewise, my 85 1.2 L II is razor sharp but with slight spherical aberration (of which the 50mm has more).

Both mine are very sharp at least centrally wide open. I think some of the extremely negative comments are, once again, people not use to AFMA or those who do not understand how dramatic an impact getting AFMA perfect makes with such fast lenses. Then there is technique. Sure, there are bad copies out there, but the designs are plenty sharp in both cases.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 10, 2016)

cookmon said:


> Do yo think about new EF-S 17-55 f2.8 or replacement for APS-C ?
> When is it coming?


I am one of those who want a replacement for 17-55mm, with better mechanical and not sucks dust inside. I also hope more consistent price to quality.

Canon demonstrates a certain unwillingness to zoom EF-S high end, but at some point will do it.
Canon published some patents of similar optical formulas in the past. Something like 15-45mm if I remember correctly.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 22, 2016)

turtle said:


> At least with my copy, wide open sharpness with the 50mm L is excellent and more than good enough for demanding use in fashion, lifestyle, weddings etc.
> 
> There is some variation there, for sure, but I was quite surprised how sharp my lens is wide open. I was expecting worse. Likewise, my 85 1.2 L II is razor sharp but with slight spherical aberration (of which the 50mm has more).
> 
> Both mine are very sharp at least centrally wide open. I think some of the extremely negative comments are, once again, people not use to AFMA or those who do not understand how dramatic an impact getting AFMA perfect makes with such fast lenses. Then there is technique. Sure, there are bad copies out there, but the designs are plenty sharp in both cases.



Certainly not in my experience. I've had two copies and both of mine were very similar. My 2nd photographer's copy is a tad sharper than both of mine but the issue with it is that the AF is also inconsistent in low light. In terms of technique...I've had no AF or softness issues with my 24IIL, 35L, 85IIL, 100L macro or 135L...it's a weak and soft design and you are singular in your opinion of it. I've met plenty of working pros who have found the same issues as I have. I've not tried it on a 5DSR yet...but I bet that level of sensor resolution really shows it's inherent softness.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Dec 6, 2016)

e5z8652 said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > So far there is no reliable rumors, but the market logic says that the 50mm F1.4 is more urgent update, and it may be that this will come with Image Stabilizer.
> ...



if this would have been easy way, they would have done


----------



## picturefan (Dec 13, 2016)

Rumored non-Canon-lens :

Anyone knows about Sigma 24-70 2.8 OS?
Will they wait for Canon to release their IS-version first?

Maybe would be a good time for Sigma now, as many hobbyists say that they won´t buy the new 24-105II. If you are out for a multifunctional, high-quality standard-zoom, it is the same market.


----------



## Act444 (Dec 13, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> turtle said:
> 
> 
> > At least with my copy, wide open sharpness with the 50mm L is excellent and more than good enough for demanding use in fashion, lifestyle, weddings etc.
> ...



I'll try to shed a little more light on this. For an upcoming excursion (low light work) I was weighing the 50 1.2 vs the 24-70 2.8 II on my 5D4, and decided to test both lenses in similar lighting conditions at my place. To summarize - I tried the 50 1.2 first - I really wanted to take that one because there just isn't anything quite like being able to shoot at 1.2. But, for the life of me I just could not get reliable AF going at 1.2 which surprised me - several shots dead on, then another series immediately after, complete misses. Very unreliable and gave me fits...can't afford any missed shots! Not only that, but stopping down to 2.8-4 introduced that back-focus common with this lens. Eventually I was able to come up with an AFMA setting that reduced that tendency, but the inconsistent focusing at 1.2 remained. Ultimately came to the conclusion that I don't have enough confidence in the AF to trust it (on the 5D4) and switched to the 24-70. Immediately I noticed the images were crisper and more contrasty, and this is compared to the 50 stopped down to 2.8! AF problems went away almost immediately. Didn't take long for me to settle on the 24-70, even with its considerably larger size and weight over the 50. Low-light shooting was more reliable, although having to use ISO 10,000 is far from ideal, and the look at 1.2 cannot be duplicated by many. But better an ISO 10,000 shot in focus than a missed ISO 1600 one...

Additionally, I did try the 50 on the 5DSR when I got the latter and while I found the lens to resolve a bit more than on the 5D3 at the normally soft 1.2 setting (cancelled filter works wonders), the focus issues were magnified that much more due to the high resolution. I eventually concluded that this lens is a poor fit for the 5DS cameras. 

I don't know anything except a new Canon 50L can't come soon enough! And glad I'm not the only one experiencing this as I was thinking of posting something about it but thought perhaps it was just me or the camera...


----------



## MikleK (Feb 3, 2017)

Act444 said:


> I'll try to shed a little more light on this. For an upcoming excursion (low light work) I was weighing the 50 1.2 vs the 24-70 2.8 II on my 5D4, and decided to test both lenses in similar lighting conditions at my place. To summarize - I tried the 50 1.2 first - I really wanted to take that one because there just isn't anything quite like being able to shoot at 1.2. But, for the life of me I just could not get reliable AF going at 1.2 which surprised me - several shots dead on, then another series immediately after, complete misses. Very unreliable and gave me fits...can't afford any missed shots! Not only that, but stopping down to 2.8-4 introduced that back-focus common with this lens. Eventually I was able to come up with an AFMA setting that reduced that tendency, but the inconsistent focusing at 1.2 remained. Ultimately came to the conclusion that I don't have enough confidence in the AF to trust it (on the 5D4) and switched to the 24-70. Immediately I noticed the images were crisper and more contrasty, and this is compared to the 50 stopped down to 2.8! AF problems went away almost immediately. Didn't take long for me to settle on the 24-70, even with its considerably larger size and weight over the 50. Low-light shooting was more reliable, although having to use ISO 10,000 is far from ideal, and the look at 1.2 cannot be duplicated by many. But better an ISO 10,000 shot in focus than a missed ISO 1600 one...
> 
> Additionally, I did try the 50 on the 5DSR when I got the latter and while I found the lens to resolve a bit more than on the 5D3 at the normally soft 1.2 setting (cancelled filter works wonders), the focus issues were magnified that much more due to the high resolution. I eventually concluded that this lens is a poor fit for the 5DS cameras.
> 
> I don't know anything except a new Canon 50L can't come soon enough! And glad I'm not the only one experiencing this as I was thinking of posting something about it but thought perhaps it was just me or the camera...


Well, in an amicable way, it's preferrably to adjust each lens you use with your particular camera, otherwise there's no guarantee that the autofocus will work properly.
I had the same issue with EF 50 f/1.4 on my old 7D mark I, but Canon service center solved the problem and it worked like a charm after the calibration. 
However, after I switched to 5Dm4, I feel I'll need to do the same thing to make the new camera and the old lens friends


----------



## Tom W (Apr 26, 2017)

Any recent rumors of a Canon 150-500 or 200-600 or something of that nature to compete with the Sigma/Tamron/Nikon offerings? This is a range where Canon doesn't seem to want to directly compete.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 26, 2017)

Tom W said:


> Any recent rumors of a Canon 150-500 or 200-600 or something of that nature to compete with the Sigma/Tamron/Nikon offerings? This is a range where Canon doesn't seem to want to directly compete.



No, and the reason has been discussed many times. Canon have had an f5.6 limit on lens speed since the EF mount started, even the 1200mm was an f5.6. Third parties get around this limitation with their f6.3 lenses by faking their actual aperture, Canon don't, so don't expect to see a budget long anything from Canon, ever.

A 20 year old Canon 150-600 f5.6 sells for over $5,000, a new one would be considerably more than that. The 100-400 is the best you are going to get, mind you that performs very well cropped or with a 1.4TC when compared to the third party lenses so I doubt Canon see any need to waste resources making a lens contrary to their own fundamental conditions.


----------



## Tom W (Apr 27, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> No, and the reason has been discussed many times. Canon have had an f5.6 limit on lens speed since the EF mount started, even the 1200mm was an f5.6. Third parties get around this limitation with their f6.3 lenses by faking their actual aperture, Canon don't, so don't expect to see a budget long anything from Canon, ever.
> 
> A 20 year old Canon 150-600 f5.6 sells for over $5,000, a new one would be considerably more than that. The 100-400 is the best you are going to get, mind you that performs very well cropped or with a 1.4TC when compared to the third party lenses so I doubt Canon see any need to waste resources making a lens contrary to their own fundamental conditions.



It doesn't seem to have presented a problem for Nikon, who is selling a 200-500 f/5.6 VR zoom for a competitive price. The one downside to the otherwise excellent 100-400 Mk II lens is that with a teleconverter, it's an f/8 lens. While my bodies will AF with f/8, you give up a stop (2/3 versus the Siggy and Tammy) of valuable light meaning that in deep shadows or wooded areas, you're pushing the ISO quite a bit. On the other hand, it remains a very portable lens, very suitable for walking around for long periods of time.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Apr 27, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> turtle said:
> 
> 
> > At least with my copy, wide open sharpness with the 50mm L is excellent and more than good enough for demanding use in fashion, lifestyle, weddings etc.
> ...



Mine is bitingly sharp in the center at 1.2 on a 5D Mk IV. It was a recent purchase, so it could be Canon has worked out the quality control or made some small tweaks to the way these are assembled. I would say it's partially due to the great autofocus on the Mk IV, but it's razor sharp on my original 5D as well.


----------



## seawitch185 (Sep 13, 2017)

Hi,
Apology if my query is not on the right place, as this is my first time on this forum, Just want a big help to any body about my broken CANON 300MM F4 IS, the front element is broken, could you please let me know where i can buy the replacement for the front element of my lens?
Thank you very much.

Cesar


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 15, 2017)

seawitch185 said:


> Hi,
> Apology if my query is not on the right place, as this is my first time on this forum, Just want a big help to any body about my broken CANON 300MM F4 IS, the front element is broken, could you please let me know where i can buy the replacement for the front element of my lens?
> Thank you very much.
> 
> Cesar



Call Canon and order one. I hope you know what you are doing, and have the right tools. Some front elements are just glass, but some must be adjusted to eliminate decentering.


----------



## denstore (May 4, 2018)

Haven't there been any rumors of new versions of the EF 200/2.8L (preferably with IS) or 300/4L IS? In my opinion they are the lenses I would find most interesting. New supertele lenses are fun to read about, and maybe interesting for the professional users, but I really can't afford that kind of luxury.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 16, 2018)

able said:


> The zoom range of the 24-70 sucks. I hope to see it replaced with a f2.8 version of the 24-105mm f4 to allow some focal length overlap in the f/2.8 series of zooms.



No, this is a bad idea. The 24-105 is a compromise optically and a poor performer compared to either of the 24-70 lenses.

What I'd like to see is a portrait zoom lens. Right now for portrait work the 24-70 and the 70-200 don't quite cover the sensible working distances on their own. Something like a 45-105 f/2.8 would be a super useful lens for those too lazy to swap lenses! 

Of course, the 24-70 2.8 on a crop sensor isn't far off this!


----------



## Ian_of_glos (May 16, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> able said:
> 
> 
> > The zoom range of the 24-70 sucks. I hope to see it replaced with a f2.8 version of the 24-105mm f4 to allow some focal length overlap in the f/2.8 series of zooms.
> ...


The 24-105 F4 is a great all rounder, and I have been using this lens for many years (first the mk1 and more recently the mk2). The 24-70 F2.8 ii is a better lens optically, but even so I find that I use the 24-105 more frequently because its zoom range is better and this makes it a great walkabout lens. Also it has image stabilisation which is useful in certain situations.
When I am looking for the optimum image quality I usually know what I am going to be photographing in advance so I tend to use prime lenses for this type of work. The 24-70 F2.8 ii is a great lens but it was very expensive and I am starting to ask myself whether I really need it.


----------



## Buck (May 16, 2018)

I am somewhat surprised that the thought of a 24-105 2.8 is never discussed. I 'm no technical expert but I think this would sell plenty of units, especially with video shooters. Keep the 4.0 as part of kits.
If 24 is too short and optically a challenge, even 35-105 would work.


----------



## tron (May 17, 2018)

Buck said:


> I am somewhat surprised that the thought of a 24-105 2.8 is never discussed. I 'm no technical expert but I think this would sell plenty of units, especially with video shooters. Keep the 4.0 as part of kits.
> If 24 is too short and optically a challenge, even 35-105 would work.


Tamron has a 28-105 2.8 lens since the film days. By the way it still works (at least a friend's 28-105 2.8 Tamron works with his 6D)


----------



## nchoh (Jul 16, 2018)

rejames1 said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > Not a chance of replacing the 28 - 300mm IS L, it was only released in 2004 replacing the 35 - 350mm version, and is a good performer. How on earth do you think they could improve it realistically?
> ...



The EF-S 55-250 STM is phenomenal; cheap and really good.


----------



## nchoh (Jul 17, 2018)

blufox said:


> I am an amateur photographer and recently got very interested in Bird photography.
> Right now I have very constrained gear in a 550D, 70-200 F4L IS.
> 
> I do not like the 18MP sensor 550D has as it is too noisy above 800 ISO along with horrible noise in shadows.
> ...



Have you considered buying a used 400 F5.6? It's very uncommon to fill the frame with birds, so it's generally extra money that you pay for the 100-400.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jul 19, 2018)

I'm still waiting for a canon response to the 150-600 lenses from Sigma and Tamron. Rumors were strong last fall, but even those seem to have disappeared. Perhaps at photokina we'll see some hope? Don't need L quality or price and those other two are looking pretty good.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Jul 6, 2020)

not sure whether this was already posted. Here are some photos of some of the new lenses including the 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11:
https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...s-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/#more-122963


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 6, 2020)

Photorex said:


> not sure whether this was already posted. Here are some photos of some of the new lenses including the 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11:
> https://photorumors.com/2020/07/05/...s-85mm-f-2-600mm-f-11-800mm-f-11/#more-122963



Linking to the source, Nokishita, might be a bit more helpful since it has even more pictures and info.


----------



## Thrashard (Jul 30, 2020)

*EF 200 f/4L IS Macro* seems like a pipe dream. That's real funny, rumor from 10 years ago


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 30, 2020)

Thrashard said:


> *EF 200 f/4L IS Macro* seems like a pipe dream. That's real funny, rumor from 10 years ago


The EF 180 Macro was close.


----------



## Rohan Gillett (Aug 10, 2020)

With this range of lenses I'm often tempted to jump ship ... err jump brands!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Aug 10, 2020)

Rohan Gillett said:


> With this range of lenses I'm often tempted to jump ship ... err jump brands!



Easier to have a couple bodies and just buy the lenses you like from each. I would never buy the RF 50mm f/1.2 nor the 85mm f/1.2, and the RF 85mm f/2 isn't pro built. So for these I have a Z6 and the S line 50 and 85 which are both top performers, lightweight and cost less than the RF 85mm f/1.2 all in. Does not mean I am leaving Canon, It means I have my sub 100mm covered by a light camera.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 8, 2022)

Eagerly awaiting 1.4 primes. Oh, throw in a pancake too. (RF40)


----------

