# Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 10, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14659"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14659">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Lots of manufacturing delays

</strong>We’re told that Canon will be releasing a “flurry of new lenses in 2014″. There have been manufacturing delays as well as economic issues that have curtailed announcements of new higher end glass. There are “as many as 8 lenses” slated for release sometime in 2014.</p>
<p>We will see new lenses, as well as replacements to older lenses. What gets announced and when is unknown, as some lenses have been “delayed for more than a year”.</p>
<p>It’s vague, but at least it’s something. 2013 has been a very quiet year for Canon.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## dolina (Nov 10, 2013)

L primes please. No more cinema lenses.

Naturally excluding a 200/2 and 800/5.6 replacements.


----------



## LuCoOc (Nov 10, 2013)

scroll down for CR-user wish lists and wildest guessings...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2013)

35L II
135L II
800L II
200/4L Macro IS
TS-E 45/2.8L
TS-E 90/2.8L

50/1.8 IS

...and a couple of consumer-grade zooms with STM, can't have enough of those...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 10, 2013)

I suspect that the economic issues will determine exactly what gets released. The low end ones alwalys sell, and the high end ones sell consistently as well. Its the middle of the road stuff that is Canons bread and butter that gets hit by the poor economy.


----------



## tron (Nov 10, 2013)

OK, I might have to update my lenses but still allow me to ... order: 

a 400mm 5.6L IS with at least the same quality and AF speed
a 16-35mm 2.8L III (Please better corners and less coma)
a super quality 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS II
a 14-24 f/2.8L for people who need this and have the absurd idea that a 16-35 2.8 is not necessary
a 35mm 1.4L II (OK I will have to upgrade mine but I will accept one with NO coma)
a 135mm f/2L IS (same as before I will have to upgrade mine but IS in 135mm is so useful... )
a 600mm f/5.6 DO with L lens quality (I don't say that I will be able to afford it though and since it will be a 600mm/4L IS II ... almost killer it will most probably won't happer)

So I am ... fine with 7 lenses! See I left one more for spare ... ;D ;D ;D

On second thought: 24-105 f/4L IS II that will improve a very nice otherwise lens (so at to make it a 24-70 2.8 II killer - OK it won't happen most probably)


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 10, 2013)

8 lenses .. well let's see:

for EF-M
EF-M 40/2.8 IS Macro 
EF-M 50-150/3.5-5.6 [but not sold/serviced in USA]

for EF-S
EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS Mk. III
EF-S 18-200/3.5-5.6 IS Mk. II

for EF, Non-L
EF 58/1.4 IS @ USD/€ 1,190
EF 50/1.8 IS @ USD/€ 790

EF-L
EOS 1000/8.0 L IS @ USD/€ 44,990
EOS 70-200/4 L IS Mk. II @ USD/€ 1,790


----------



## ksagomonyants (Nov 10, 2013)

Any chance 85 1.2ii will be updated? :-\


----------



## lescrane (Nov 10, 2013)

fascinating timing. Tamron announces a 150-600 moderately priced but "high quality" lens on Thurs, 3 days later canon leaks that it has many new lenses coming.

Nothing like competition to get them moving. As far as the 100-400L, they've milked the current one for 15 years and have gotten away with it because the competition, eg Sigma, Tamron have uncut in price but haven't made a serious move in quality. Nikon has already redone the 80-400 w/big improvements. So here's hope canon can update this lens and keep it to a price that prosumers can afford...eg, under 2k


----------



## Etienne (Nov 10, 2013)

My wish list:

16-35 2.8L III ... sharper, and smaller, maybe even with IS for video
20 2.8 IS
50 1.4 IS
85 1.8 IS
200 2.8 IS ... 135 f/2L IS, compatible with teleconverters
100-400 4-5.6L IS
24-70 2.8 IS

and please don't gouge too much at release time.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 10, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> 8 lenses .. well let's see:
> 
> for EF-M
> EF-M 40/2.8 IS Macro
> ...



A 1000F8 would be an interesting beast....

I can not see an updated 70-200F4is... The current one is as sharp as the F2.8 version...


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 10, 2013)

Come on 400F5.6!!!!!


----------



## RVB (Nov 10, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> Any chance 85 1.2ii will be updated? :-\



+1 ,A lighter faster focusing version would be welcome..


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 10, 2013)

tron said:


> a 400mm 5.6L IS with at least the same quality and AF speed
> ....
> a super quality 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS II
> ....



+1 on these. But, anyone want to add the "affordability" criteria? Can only hope.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Nov 10, 2013)

give me a new 100-400mm and a 14-24mm with great optics and im happy.

an updated 17-40mm f4 would be nice.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 10, 2013)

One of the appeals of primes over zooms for me is great IQ in a small light package, which is why I went for the Canon 35 f/2 IS over the Sigma 35 1.4, and I love it.

Sure, I would love more ultra large aperture primes, but usually f/2 is shallow enough on FF, and they will never be able to make a good f/1.2 tele- or ultra-wide lens that is small and light. So I hope for moderate large aperture lenses that are exellent wide open and are small and light, with IS. Oh, and put an "L" on them too.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Nov 10, 2013)

Etienne said:


> One of the appeals of primes over zooms  for me is great IQ in a small light package, which is why I went  for the Canon 35 f/2 IS over the Sigma 35 1.4, and I love it.



?? ???

you went for it because it is lighter i guess. sounds a bit as if the sigma is a zoom.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 10, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > One of the appeals of primes over zooms  for me is great IQ in a small light package, which is why I went  for the Canon 35 f/2 IS over the Sigma 35 1.4, and I love it.
> ...



lol ... good catch, my sloppy writing 8) ... Y, i bought the Canon because it is smaller and lighter. The Sigma is about the same size and weight as my 16-35 2.8L II, so the Canon 35 f/2 IS gives me a small, light option, as well as brighter and sharper (at the expense of flexibility of course).


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 10, 2013)

Please Canon, do not forget the 50mm IS. But be realistic with prices not to scare buyers. A 50 F1.8 IS should not cost more than $ 400, and a 50mm F1.4 IS should not cost more than $ 600. I'm just warning you not to run aground on the shelves. 8)


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 10, 2013)

My wild guesses...

I think more EF-S lenses with STM (18-200mm, 15/17-200mm, 17-55mm, ...) is a safe bet. Maybe an 18-270mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM to compete with the Tamron.

The EF 35mm f/1.4 II - it's old, and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is gives it a very good fight.

The TS-E lenses are waiting for an upgrade, so TS-E 45mm mkII + either TS-E 90mm mkII or 135mm (near macro?)

A new ultra wide lens, e.g. 14-24mm or 16-35mm mkIII. Note that the 16-35mm mkII was released ~6 years after the mkI, so there's a precedent for such a quick upgrade.

A 50mm upgrades, maybe 50mm f/2 IS USM + 50mm f/1.4 with proper USM.

Maybe a 20mm with better IQ to give APS-C cameras a good 35mm equivalent?


----------



## distant.star (Nov 10, 2013)

.
Interesting. This does not bode well for holiday sales. I was contemplating an end-of-year purchase, but this makes me want to wait.

I might guess Canon has given up on this year and is trying to stunt sales of competitor lenses for the holiday shopping season.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 10, 2013)

I shall get the new 100-400 the day it becomes available. 8)


----------



## RC (Nov 10, 2013)

How about a 50mm that is actually worth buying? I'd love a 50L 1.4. No front/back focus issues, sharp wide open, and ring USM. I'd take it with or without IS.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Nov 10, 2013)

Hmmm... What would I like to see and would buy...

EF-M 15-85mm or EF-M 18-135mm (both with 4 stop IS)
EF 20-135mm f4.0 IS L < My ideal 6D walkabout &
EF 200-400mm f4.0-5.6 IS L (twist not pump) < My ideal 6D big white tele 

What could come and I'd think about

EF 14-24mm f2.8 L
EF 24-105mm f4.0 IS II L < Preferably with 82mm filter
EF 100-400mm IS II L < Also preferably with 82mm filter

What I expect to see and would be less willing to buy...

EF 35mm f1.4 II L
EF 50mm f1.8 IS
EF 85mm f2.0 IS
EF 135mm f2.0 IS > with the 200mm quietly dropped
EF 300mm f4.0 IS L
EF 400mm f5.6 IS L
45mm & 90mm tilt shifts replaced

Wild cards ?

How about a 600mm or 800mm with built in 1.4x extender or a 50mm f1.0/0.95 or an autofocus lensbaby style lens ?

Dream on ;-)


----------



## preppyak (Nov 10, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> for EF-S
> EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS Mk. III
> EF-S 18-200/3.5-5.6 IS Mk. II


The 18-55 already got updated with STM.



> for EF, Non-L
> EF 58/1.4 IS @ USD/€ 1,190
> EF 50/1.8 IS @ USD/€ 790


I could see the 50mm f/1.8 IS happening; not sure I see a 2nd 50mm update though. It does stand to reason that they may add IS to their 85mm or 135mm non-L lens.

They could also update the 70-300mm lens with STM.



> EF-L
> EOS 70-200/4 L IS Mk. II @ USD/€ 1,790


Why that lens? Seems to me it's already one of their sharpest and most affordable L lenses. If anything, I could see them dropping the non-IS f/4 lens, to try and push sales toward other lenses.

35L and 135L are my guesses for L updates


----------



## jthomson (Nov 10, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> I shall get the new 100-400 the day it becomes available. 8)



I'll wait six months till the price drops.


----------



## jthomson (Nov 10, 2013)

Haydn1971 said:


> What I expect to see and would be less willing to buy...
> 
> EF 35mm f1.4 II L
> EF 50mm f1.8 IS
> ...



I think you will see a 100-400mm replacement before a 400mm f5.6. Canon sells about 10x as many of zoom compared to the prime.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 35L II
> 135L II
> 800L II
> 200/4L Macro IS
> ...



I think this list reflects a good combination of consumer hope and Canon conservatism, I'd change a few about though.

The biggest difference I would guess would be no 135 MkII but instead a 14-24 f2.8 or at least an updated ultra wide f2.8 with possibly not the same focal lengths as the not widely respected 16-35.

I think the "new" 50 will be an f2 IS, but with a more modest launch price than the other newer non L IS prImes, I think Canon have learnt from the market the pricing of this series and an f2 will make them more money than an f1.8.

I also think the 180 macro update will be more esoteric than a simple 200 IS.

But time will tell......


----------



## Northstar (Nov 10, 2013)

put me down for a 135 f2ii

also think a 50mm 1.4ii will appear for about $699


----------



## rbr (Nov 10, 2013)

I'd like to see one high quality prime between 16 and 20mm that is razor sharp from corner to corner when stopped down a little bit and is small and relatively inexpensive. It doesn't have to be fast, but it has to be razor sharp in the extreme corners around f8. Something like a sharper version of the Zeiss 18mm f3.5 with AF would be perfect to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> The biggest difference I would guess would be no 135 MkII but instead a 14-24 f2.8 or at least an updated ultra wide f2.8 with possibly not the same focal lengths as the not widely respected 16-35.
> 
> I think the "new" 50 will be an f2 IS, but with a more modest launch price than the other newer non L IS prImes, I think Canon have learnt from the market the pricing of this series and an f2 will make them more money than an f1.8.
> 
> ...



Lots of people want a 14-24, I'm not sure we'll get it. 

50/2 IS makes sense. 

The 200/4 Macro would have Hybrid IS, of course. I suppose Canon could try a TS Macro, but at 200mm I don't think that makes sense (not that that would necessarily stop them).

I left off the 100-400 II and 400/5.6 IS on purpose. I think Canon wants people to continue buying the current one (they still are) or the 70-300L, while lusting after the 200-400+1.4x.


----------



## Vossie (Nov 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 35L II
> 135L II
> 800L II
> 200/4L Macro IS
> ...



6 L's? Sounds like a lot. I would rather expect more high volume consumer lenses (indeed with STM). Or was this your wish list?

A 400 f4 L IS (non DO) at a price around 5000 would be interesting (but would probably not make much business sense for Canon as it would eat into the same markets of the much more expensive 200-400/4, 400/2.8 and 500/4)


----------



## traveller (Nov 10, 2013)

As much as we want to see an updated 100-400mm and a 14-24 f/2.8 L-series lenses, it's the EF-S wide angle options that are really missing. How can Canon (and Nikon) convince their bread-and-butter market to stay with them rather than go mirrorless, when neither manufacturer produces a suitable (non-fisheye) prime wider than normal (and Canon doesn't even produce these)? What are Canon's wide angle options for the "serious enthusiast"? 


EF-S 10-22mm f/4-5.6 USM
EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

And that's it! Probably 85% plus of the customers who will purchase more than one lens are meant to be served by those three zooms for their wide angle needs. OK, there are the new 24 & 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses, but they aren't any faster than the 17-55mm zoom, so (given their price) don't really make sense in the APS-C sphere. Likewise, an APS-C user could use the 14mm f/2.8L and the 24mm f/1.4L to fill in the wide angle gap, but if you're willing to shell out on these lenses, you may as well go full frame. That's probably Canon's thinking too, but how many people are instead changing to a mirrorless system like m4/3rds or Fuji X-mount? For those that would argue that there isn't a market for fast, wide angle primes, this is how m4/3rds compares: 


Olympus M.ZUIKO ED 12mm f/2
Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 Lumix G
Olympus M.ZUIKO 17mm f/2.8 Pancake
Olympus M.ZUIKO 17mm f/1.8 
Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 Lumix G

And this is from a system that has been around for less time than Canon EF-S and has less market share. What about the still less than 18 month old X-mount? 


Fujifilm 14mm XF f/2.8 R
Fujifilm 18mm XF f/2 R
Fujifilm 23mm XF f/1.4 R
Fujifilm 27mm XF f2.8

If Canon is to meet the mirrorless competition, it needs to produce something like: 


EF-S 15mm f/2 STM
EF-S 22mm f/2 IS STM or EF-S 22mm f/1.4 STM
EF-S 30mm f/1.4 IS STM


----------



## zim (Nov 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 35L II
> 135L II
> 800L II
> 200/4L Macro IS
> ...



Nice list!
Why not 1.4 on the 50 though? 
I'd defo put that one my wish list
I'm of an age where I'd need is on the 135 though :-(


----------



## Eldar (Nov 10, 2013)

I suppose most of the candidates are listed by now. But nobody seem to be expecting any new DO lenses. If they could improve IQ just a little bit, the size and weight advantage is significant. My wife rented a 400 DO and loved it.

How about a 500mm or 600mm f5.6 IS DO or a 100-400mm f4-5.6 IS DO, preferably in L-packaging?


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 10, 2013)

jthomson said:


> DaveMiko said:
> 
> 
> > I shall get the new 100-400 the day it becomes available. 8)
> ...



Maybe I will.


----------



## LuCoOc (Nov 10, 2013)

I expect the following lenses:

100-400 II
An UWA Lens
More primes like the 24/28/35 IS: a 50mm maybe a new 85 1.8. 
35 1.4 II
Maybe new ts-e lenses


----------



## Hannes (Nov 10, 2013)

I wouldn't be surprised if there is such a thing as a 50mm f2 IS STM, would make a lot of sense for the video people. 135mm f2 IS would be high on the list of realistic things. I also wonder if they won't axe the 24-105 and the 28-135 and combine the two in a consumer grade lens. The 24-105 is already going so cheap it is only twice the price of the 28-135 and a replacement for example 24-135 IS USM would make a great kit with the 6D to differentiate the market and also push more of the far more expensive 24-70 f4. The 400 and the 100-400 have been ready for an update for ages but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't get updated this time either. An updated 17-55 f2.8 with weather sealing would make sense if there is a 7DII coming out soon. An updated non-stabilised 70-200 f2.8 would be nice. Maybe an updated 180mm macro so it matches the new sigma offerings of 150-180mm with f2.8 and IS

There's a lot of lenses that canon make I don't see much point in making any more, there's for example USM and a non USM version of the 75-300. A couple of the wide primes I wonder about and also the 200 2.8. If that got IS it would make more sense to keep it. I wonder if anyone has bought a 135 softfocus any time in the last few years? An updated 50mm macro would be interesting but then they may as well just axe the lens completely as the 100mm macro isn't much more expensive and the 60mm macro is more suited to aps-c anyway.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Nov 10, 2013)

Etienne said:


> My wish list:
> 
> 16-35 2.8L III ... sharper, and smaller, maybe even with IS for video
> 20 2.8 IS
> ...



Wow, that's some really shaky hands you got here...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2013)

Vossie said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 35L II
> ...



Not _mine_...  Well, I'd like a 35L II. 

I think the TS-E lenses are ready (designs locked, production tooling ready), and have been for a while, but Canon sat on them due to the economy. Possible the tele macro, as well. 



zim said:


> Why not 1.4 on the 50 though?



The new non-L IS primes have all been slower than one might expect, likely to keep costs low with the addition of IS. I expect the new 50 to follow suit.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 10, 2013)

Count me in for these:
1. 135 f2 IS
2. 85L f1.2, faster AF
3. 14-24 f2.8 or 16-35 f2.8 III - good as Nikon 14-24 or better


----------



## dash2k8 (Nov 10, 2013)

Canon needs to step up its game. Sigma has made a killing recently with its cheaper but better alternatives (35mm f1.4 and the 18-35mm f1.8, and perhaps the 24-105mm after tests come out). Canon cannot hope to maintain a higher price tag for lenses with equal or lesser quality. I can understand a Canon costing more than a Sigma, but at least the sharpness, distortion, etc etc have to be the same. The red ring along isn't going to fool customers into paying extra anymore.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 10, 2013)

dash2k8 said:


> Canon needs to step up its game. Sigma has made a killing recently with its cheaper but better alternatives (35mm f1.4 and the 18-35mm f1.8, and perhaps the 24-105mm after tests come out). Canon cannot hope to maintain a higher price tag for lenses with equal or lesser quality. I can understand a Canon costing more than a Sigma, but at least the sharpness, distortion, etc etc have to be the same. The red ring along isn't going to fool customers into paying extra anymore.



You can only speak for yourself. As far as myself is concerned, I think that the logo "Canon" means the foremost quality possible, and the red ring is almost the equivalent of the Holy Grail. You see, there's a reason why they say: You get what you pay for!!!!


----------



## pwp (Nov 10, 2013)

No official list yet of course, these are wish lists so far. 

I may have missed it, but no-one has put their hand up for an expanded pancake range. Lets start with a 22 f/2.8 pancake. When I don't feel like lugging gripped 5D3 or 1-Series bodies, my tiny SL-1 with a 22 pancake would be a very sweet travel companion. 

-pw


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 10, 2013)

More pancakes with stm please!!!


----------



## steliosk (Nov 10, 2013)

some new 1.4 glass primes PLEASE
screw the IS


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Nov 10, 2013)

Wishlist:

EF 28-300mm f2.8 - f4

That's pretty much it for me. The 28-300mm f3.5L is awesome. But it's serious bank and size. I don't need 'L' for lower paying events. I LOVE the EF-S 18-200. But I want to get away from crop cameras for simplicity's sake.


----------



## Q8-MC (Nov 10, 2013)

8 lenses maybe will be 

100-400 ll
17-40 ll or replacing to 17-55
35 mm f1.4 ll
800mm ll
135 mm
14-24 mm
8-15 ll
100 mm ll


----------



## Woody (Nov 10, 2013)

dilbert said:


> And with the 16-35, 17-40 and 24-105, Canon means crap corners at the wide end.



You forgot the wide primes 14 mm f/2.8L Mk II, TSE 17 mm f/4L, 24 mm f/2.8 IS, 28 mm f/2.8 IS all have great corners. The 24-70 f/2.8L Mk II and 24-70 f/4L IS all have good corners at the wide end. Even the 24-105 f/4L IS is decent at the wide end; it just has pronounced barrel distortion there.

I am waiting decent replacements for the 17-40 f/4L. A 16-50 f/4L IS replacement will be highly welcome.


----------



## Woody (Nov 10, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> 8 lenses .. well let's see:
> 
> EF-L
> EOS 70-200/4 L IS Mk. II @ USD/€ 1,790



That is a weird idea.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 11, 2013)

135mm F/1.8L IS USM


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 11, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> Wishlist:
> 
> EF 28-300mm f2.8 - f4
> 
> That's pretty much it for me. The 28-300mm f3.5L is awesome. But it's serious bank and size. I don't need 'L' for lower paying events. I LOVE the EF-S 18-200. But I want to get away from crop cameras for simplicity's sake.


A hypothetical EF 28-300 F2.8-4L IS, would have a lot of glass, and could weigh 2 kg and cost over $ 3000. I think it makes more sense an EF 28-200mm F4 IS, which could cost about $ 1000, and would be much more portable. There is market for lenses like the EF-S18-250mm, although I do not get excited about this type of lens.


----------



## Northstar (Nov 11, 2013)

14-800 f2 IS ....weight, 1lb...it's a simple request Canon, please get to work! :


----------



## Renaissance (Nov 11, 2013)

I can't wait for the new 50mm IS that is sharper and more consistent with AF. I think Canon should release it already, in time for the holiday season to help boost interest in the 70D. Since video is its strong point, it makes logical sense for them to offer both at the same time.

I agree with a 35mm 1.4L II to top the Sigma. 
I also want to see a new 50L soon that is sharper and better with AF.
A wide angle zoom L seems possible, as well as an 85mm 1.8 IS.
135L IS would rock.

And Yes to more pancakes! A 35-50 2.8 IS Pancake perhaps....?


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Nov 11, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> RGomezPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > Wishlist:
> ...



I could live with f4 if I got 300mm. 200mm isn't enough for a staged events. I'd get a 7D just so I could get really good IQ with the EF-S 18-200mm... One of Canon's best lens despite not being 'L'....


----------



## Tom W (Nov 11, 2013)

Lots of guesses here - mine are:

100-400 f/4-5.6 IS L II
50/1.4 II
85/1.8 II
28/1.8 II
35/1.4L II
The big macro will be 200 f/4 IS L
Maybe the two longer tilt/shift lenses.
24-105 IS L II STM
There almost has to be another EF-S zoom or two also.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 11, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > RGomezPhotos said:
> ...


Yes, that is why I advocate good APS-C cameras, and good EF-S lenses can be smaller, lighter, and cheaper. A 18-200mm lens on APS-C has a range equivalent to 320mm and is still very mild compared with existing 28-300L.


----------



## arbitrage (Nov 11, 2013)

Well my wild guess of 8 lenses would be:

100-400L IS II
35 1.4 II
14-24 2.8
800L IS II
135 2.0 II (IS?)
45 TSE II
90 TSE II
28-300 IS II (same redesign as 100-400 without push pull)


----------



## ksagomonyants (Nov 11, 2013)

I guess some of the lenses should be EF-S to address the release of 7dii in 2014.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 11, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Yes, that is why I advocate good APS-C cameras, and good EF-S lenses can be smaller, lighter, and cheaper. A 18-200mm lens on APS-C *has a range equivalent to 320mm* and is still very mild compared with existing 28-300L.



Yes, if you're shooting stars or other objects at or near infinity. The 18-200mm has significant focus breathing - with a subject ~30' away, the lens at 200mm gives approximately 155mm, meaning a 250mm FF-equivalent FoV. Also, the IQ of the 28-300mm on FF is substantially better than the 18-200mm on APS-C (and even so, I just sold my 28-300 because I prefer the 24-70 II + 70-300 L for even better IQ).


----------



## Zv (Nov 11, 2013)

I'm so hoping for the rumored 50mm 1.8 IS to appear, if it's like the 24/28/35 IS lenses I'll be happy. Also wouldn't mind an updated 85mm 1.8 (IS??). 

The 100-400 update was meant to be announced after the 200-400 started shipping, wasn't it? That's one that sounds like it was delayed. 

I reckon the 35mm 1.4 II was also delayed and is also on the horizon. Possibly those 45 and 90mm TS lenses and hopefully something at the wide end will also appear soon too!

Finally, something worth getting out of bed for!


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Everyone thus far has forgotten to include the 16-50/L IS that was meant for this year:
> 
> 2010: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16.0 EF 16-50 f/4L H-IS
> 2013: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15455.0 14-24 f/2.8L, EF 16-50 f/4L IS
> ...



I hope the above CR2 rumors (except for the 2010 reference) come true. Some awesome ultrawide FF zoom lenses are what Canonites need now: 14-24 f/2.8 and 16-50 f/4.


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 11, 2013)

I give somewhat more weight to a CR2 rumour than a CR1 (as should be!)

If there is a rumour of 'lots of new lenses coming in 2014' (from Canon) - that gets me mildly excited.

Looking forward to a Canon EF 50mm USM being one of them - hopefully with aperture between f/1.4 & f/2 and IS to boot! IQ to be very good, wide open.

Let's see. That would round out my lens arsenal nicely.

I appreciate that others might want the 14-24mm f/2.8 (I have the Sigma 8-16mm for my 7D, which is great, high quality IQ - sharp & plenty of contrast corner to corner), etc

Looking forward to a CR3 on this one end of 2013 / early 2014... hopefully! Please please please Canon provide us with a great 50mm fast prime... similar to the 35mm f/2 USM IS.....

Paul


----------



## wayno (Nov 11, 2013)

rbr said:


> I'd like to see one high quality prime between 16 and 20mm that is razor sharp from corner to corner when stopped down a little bit and is small and relatively inexpensive. It doesn't have to be fast, but it has to be razor sharp in the extreme corners around f8. Something like a sharper version of the Zeiss 18mm f3.5 with AF would be perfect to me.



Who wouldn't ?  I'd be happy with 18mm or 21mm f5.6 and be done with it!


----------



## sushyam (Nov 11, 2013)

I am waiting and hoping for the 400 mm/f5,6 mkII. with IS and the EF S 17-55 f2.8 IS


----------



## Grumbaki (Nov 11, 2013)

Bring out the 14-24 and be done with it.

That's reqasonnably the only one I'd be in the market for...except if some "Canon noctilux"was in the pipeline...but with that trend of "IS + reduced aperture" lenses...


----------



## dstppy (Nov 11, 2013)

Canon 300mm f/4L IS MkII . . . with sprinkles on top.


----------



## Zv (Nov 11, 2013)

wayno said:


> rbr said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see one high quality prime between 16 and 20mm that is razor sharp from corner to corner when stopped down a little bit and is small and relatively inexpensive. It doesn't have to be fast, but it has to be razor sharp in the extreme corners around f8. Something like a sharper version of the Zeiss 18mm f3.5 with AF would be perfect to me.
> ...



Wouldn't be very good at AF with that narrow an aperture. Remember the centre AF point on the pro camera bodies and some prosumer ones becomes a diagonally cross type point at f/2.8. Then there's viewfinder brightness and the fact the f/5.6 is a bit S___ on crop and you can see why most primes and most lenses in general (and excl superteles) aren't made with narrow apertures. 

I think f/2.8 is a decent compromise and you can see that trend with the 24 and 28mm IS primes. They have very good corner sharpness too.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Nov 11, 2013)

What should be released:

Canon 14-24 2.8 L
Canon 17-50 L
Canon 16-35 IS 4.0 L
Canon 35 1.2 L
Canon 50 1.4 II / IS
Canon 70-400 / 100-400 II L
Canon 135 1.8 / 2.0 IS L


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2013)

dilbert said:


> To summarise:
> 14-24L
> 16-50L
> 35/1.4
> ...



I like the list above. Makes a lot of sense.


----------



## RGF (Nov 11, 2013)

Woody said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > To summarise:
> ...



14-24 would interst np e a lot

Not mentioned is 100-400 replacement as well as long macro (180 replacement)

I would be surprised to L versions of both the 14-24 and 16-50. Latter seems like an odd focal length for an L lens.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2013)

RGF said:


> I would be surprised to L versions of both the 14-24 and 16-50. Latter seems like an odd focal length for an L lens.



Surprised by 16-50 f/4L (~3x zoom) too. But it's a CR2 rumor and sounds like a plausible replacement to 17-40 f/4L (~2.3x zoom). If it's true, I'm in lens heaven! That's all I need when I travel with my FF camera! As long as its price stays below US$2k, I'll be the first in line.


----------



## Grumbaki (Nov 11, 2013)

Woody said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > I would be surprised to L versions of both the 14-24 and 16-50. Latter seems like an odd focal length for an L lens.
> ...



This focal lenght makes much more sense than 16-35 and 17-40 lineup. 14-24 to complete the zoom holy trinity and 16-50 as the holy grail of photojournalism.


----------



## sanj (Nov 11, 2013)

I need the 800 II most. Then 16-35 replacement.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 11, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> You can only speak for yourself. As far as myself is concerned, I think that the logo "Canon" means the foremost quality possible, and the red ring is almost the equivalent of the Holy Grail. You see, there's a reason why they say: You get what you pay for!!!!



ROFLMAO 

As long as canon has enough customers like you, we won't get better lenses, reasonable prices or fully comprtitive sensors from them.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 11, 2013)

Still no comments or expectations for DO lenses?


----------



## Roo (Nov 11, 2013)

14-24L please


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 11, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Still no comments or expectations for DO lenses?



I hope we won't ever see another DO lens or Canon cameras with pellicle mirror or any other optical dead end. 

Thanks, but no thanks. 70-300DO ... one of the most grossly overpriced and underperforming Canon lenses ever. 



> The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens circular aperture makes out of focus points of light very round for a 6-blade aperture, but I don't care for the way the DO makes points of light into rifle target-like bokeh. Here is an example ...










> The bullseyes do not show up often in real use, but a DO-caused bright, blurry halo shows itself more frequently. It shows up in out of focus areas - especially when the 70-300 DO's aperture is opened up. Some like it and call it dreamy - I personally don't like it. Here is an example ...








http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4.5-5.6-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


And the 400DO is a poor performer as well. 



> Contrast is the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Lens' optical shortcoming - which also hurts the apparent sharpness performance. I found that most of my shots needed a healthy contrast boost in post-processing (or a positive in-camera contrast setting). I could easily tell which image was taken with the 400 DO when looking at comparative shots on a monitor. ...
> Even the Canon 100-400mm L has better contrast when the vignetting in the full frame corners at 400mm does not get in the way.


----------



## chromophore (Nov 11, 2013)

Here's what you're going to see:

1. Another EF-S 18-135/3.5-5.6 IS consumer-grade zoom.
2. And another EF-S 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS zoom.
3. Some sort of insanely expensive, slow aperture EF wide- to normal non-L prime with added IS, priced around $700-900, like an EF 50/2 IS STM for $800.
4. An incremental update to some already well-regarded L lens that nobody really needs to have updated and even fewer people can actually afford, like the EF 200/2L IS...at 150% of the price.
5. Maybe we'll get a new EF 135/2L II, no IS, for $1800.
6. EF 24-70/2.8L IS, weighing in around 3.5 pounds and costing $3500, just to p*ss off all the people who bought the 24-70/2.8L II.
7. A completely new but also completely redundant design, like a 35-135/4L IS zoom.
8. A 400/5.6L IS...for $3000.

Or any one of those could be replaced by a new 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS II that is priced at absurd levels, say $4200.

Yeah, I'm definitely exaggerating, and sort of joking...but to be honest, I do NOT see Canon moving toward meeting the demands of fast aperture prime users. They are ALL about the zooms, and they are all about slow aperture designs that have looser tolerances that they can slap IS units on, and mark up at 1.5-2x the cost. Their thinking is that photographers don't need fast apertures anymore--after all, aren't the sensors good enough? (And no, they aren't.) When was the last time you saw ANY f/1.8 or faster design announced for production?

You know what I want to see them do? I want to see them bring back the 50/1.0L. Remind the world why the EF mount was made to be what it is. I want to see them push the envelope and see what could be done with today's manufacturing techniques and materials. You know your stuff is outdated when even a company like Sigma can beat your 35/1.4L for bokeh quality, corner sharpness, and secondary spectrum control. Then design an affordable series of lenses with emphasis on durability, like a 50/1.4 II, or a simple 50/1.8 that isn't plastic.

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.


----------



## eninja (Nov 11, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> More pancakes with stm please!!!



28mm pancake. So slim I could die. haha.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2013)

chromophore said:


> Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.



The TSE 17 f/4L lens is rather recent, isn't it? I consider the 200-400 f/4 lens with in-built 1.4x TC and 24-70 f/4L HIS macro lenses to be pretty interesting too. If Canon releases a 16-50 f/4L IS lens with sharp corners, I'll be impressed.

But I agree Canon needs to keep up their innovative work on lenses.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 11, 2013)

chromophore said:


> You know what I want to see them do? I want to see them bring back the 50/1.0L. Remind the world why the EF mount was made to be what it is. I want to see them push the envelope and see what could be done with today's manufacturing techniques and materials. You know your stuff is outdated when even a company like Sigma can beat your 35/1.4L for bokeh quality, corner sharpness, and secondary spectrum control. Then design an affordable series of lenses with emphasis on durability, like a 50/1.4 II, or a simple 50/1.8 that isn't plastic.
> 
> Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.



While I agree with most of your sentiments, but many of those "golden years" lenses has some serious issues. The 50mm f1.0 L is horrendously soft wide open, The 200mm f1.8 was closer to f2 in reality...and was heavily front heavy...it easily nose dived on a pod becuase the tripod ring was put in completely the wrong place. The 400 DO is widely regarded as softer than the 400mm f2.8 or 400mm f5.6..or even a 300mm f2.8 with a 1.4 TC (which really questions the need for that particuar lens). 

While Sigma have a fine 35mm f1.4, my Canon 35mm f1.4 has performed faultlessly over the last 6 years...I have the Canon version and the Sigma version wasn't available and it produces fantasticly sellable pictures. To me, a lens is a lot more than chart results and sharp corners. 

A new 100-400 L would be a game changer. The mkI version is one of the most versatile long lenses available and it's very old and certainly needs a re-work. An IS system which didn't come of the ark (it was one of the very first IS systems ever put into a lens)...an AF system which faster than pedestrian....and a sharpness to equal or better the 400mm f5.6 would be very nice. I'd buy one in an instant....I could lose several lenses in my bag to combine into this one lens. 

At a guess, I'd say these are coming:
a new ultra wide, say a 14-24L (although a 12-24 would be sweeter)
100-400L replacement
A TS-e 45L and TS-e (longer than) 90L with improved macro capability
A 180mm L Macro replacement
A 300mm f4 L IS replacement
That's six, I'm sure there's more!

I'd like to see a 24-105L update and a 16-35IIL replacement.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 11, 2013)

Woody said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.
> ...


Photography is not something that was invented yesterday, so some good thinking has gone into what the producers offer today. I believe what we normally discuss in this forum can be split in two. The bodies, where the technology development still have a very steep curve, can be described as evolving, whereas the the lens market is a rather mature one. 

In my view Canon is struggling a bit on the body side, but not on lenses. Yes, there are a few we would like to see upgraded or developed, but in general they have pushed the performance on lots of key focal lengths, both primes and zooms. Hereunder the 17 and 24 TS-E, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 300/400/500/600 big whites etc. etc. They have also delivered a few additions we have not seen before. the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x being one and the 8-15 f4L fisheye zoom being another. I believe it is quite clear that Canon provides the widest range of quality glass in the business. 

Looking at my collection of Canon lenses, I can shoot any object from 8-1200mm, in most lighting situations, at any arena and in any climate condition. And my own lack of capabilities set aside, the quality provided by the Canon glass has improved a lot over the last 10 years. I believe that is called pushing the envelope


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 11, 2013)

Will Canon really produce a 135L IS ? It would be larger than the current one and undoubtably much more expensive, putting it in more conflict with the 70-200 2.8 II. Add 1.8 and both the fore mentioned problems grow. The current lens is the 'holy Grail' of L lenses because it is affordable to many. Put it out of reach and the only thing that will happen is the second hand value of the current one will go up ! 

It's also relevant that the likes of Sigma haven't (yet) produced a stabilised 135.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 11, 2013)

chromophore said:


> Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies.



Did Canon design AF versions of those lenses just for you? :


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 11, 2013)

chromophore said:


> Here's what you're going to see:
> 
> 1. Another EF-S 18-135/3.5-5.6 IS consumer-grade zoom.
> 2. And another EF-S 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS zoom.
> ...


Mikael, are you again? Do not give ideas to greedy executives Canon, they already have many. Let's contemplate what interests us, not what we hate.


----------



## Tom W (Nov 11, 2013)

I threw out my guesses a while earlier, but if Canon were to build lenses specifically for me....

14-24 f/2.8 L
A new 100-400 f/4-5.6 IS L with the latest/greatest IS and an improved optical formula.

I'm really not hurting in the middle range, and their long lenses are already awesome. A little too expensive though, which is why I have the previous versions of two of them (but hey, a strong used market frees up cash for people to buy in the new market so there). 

I'd love to have the 200-400 f/4 +1.4X but that's just out of my price range for now. Ditto on the 500/4 IS II, which is considerably lighter than my 400/2.8 IS. Either would be great for birding without the burden.


----------



## Northstar (Nov 11, 2013)

chromophore said:


> Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. *Nothing that pushes the envelope*, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.



I think the new 200-400 w/ built in extender is, in your words, a "novel" lens that "pushes the envelope ". 8)


----------



## ME (Nov 11, 2013)

It is going to be 8 lenses on a turret. The delays are because of size and weight issues. 4 primes & 4 zooms. And a new bag specially designed for the new 8-in-1 lens. ???


----------



## Skywise (Nov 11, 2013)

Bllarrrggg!!

I'm just about to make the jump to full frame to the 6D from my T4i for a trip this Christmas and am going to drop some serious coin. (Christmas lights, fireworks, low-light videos... I need a 6D, Santa! Really! ;D) I'm looking to get the FF equivalents to replace my 10-22 and 17-55 EF-S lenses...

To save money I'm going body only and plan on getting the 16-35 f2.8 II to start which will handle my shooting needs short term.

Now there might be a better wide-angle coming soon?? (I need a head banging smiley...)

On the plus side I was looking at the 24-70 f2.8 to replace my 17-55 sometime next year so there might be a better lens for that... But if I knew there was a 10-22 f2.8 with IS coming I might hold off...)


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 11, 2013)

Skywise said:


> Now there might be a better wide-angle coming soon?? (I need a head banging smiley...)



Just as a friendly reminder, these rumored lenses are still vaporware 

Almost certain to be months out, if not longer.

Buy what you need or want now, and enjoy it.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 11, 2013)

Skywise said:


> Bllarrrggg!!
> 
> I'm just about to make the jump to full frame to the 6D from my T4i for a trip this Christmas and am going to drop some serious coin. (Christmas lights, fireworks, low-light videos... I need a 6D, Santa! Really! ;D) I'm looking to get the FF equivalents to replace my 10-22 and 17-55 EF-S lenses...
> 
> ...



The 16-35 is $1499 at B&H right now. If they update it will be well over $2000 likely. I have the 16-35 II and, in spite of it's faults, it is my most used lens. It delivers.

You could take this approach: get the 24 2.8 IS and the 35 f/2 IS ... these are very good lenses for the money right now. Both are at $550. Alternatively ... get the 24 1.4 ... some wide angle shooters use only this lens and nothing else.

It could be a long wait just to see that the lens you want is not in the update list. The 35 1.4 II has been rumored for many years. You could have bought it when the rumors started and have 5 or 6 years of shots by now.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 11, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what you're going to see:
> ...



No too eloquent and the grammar and punctuation are well above the Swede's levels.

Anybody that wants to bring back the 50 f1.0 never used one, it was a technological tour de force and a photographic POS, the TS-E 17 is the modern 50 f1.0, but it actually takes good images too.

But most of his listed lenses are anything like new and the only one that shows interesting technology is the 400 with its DO and IS, but again, after having used DO lenses and seen their out of focus rendering issues I don't see that technology going more mainstream until they sort that major issue out. The TS-E 17 is an optical masterpiece, whatever design team and R&D manager pushed that should be promoted to a director level to enthuse the lens range.

The 85 1.2 is a very old design, as is the 135 f2, both comfortably pre date the EF mount, the 200 f1.8 was made in FD mount too and is nothing more than a tricked 300 f2.8 design. As for the MP-E 65, well Canon have long pushed their macro efforts, I'd like to know the true differences between the MP-E 65 and the old Macrophoto 35mm f2.8 you use on a bellows, obviously there is the electronic component but from an optics point of view I would guess they are pretty similar. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdmacro/2035macro.htm I actually own one too but it is in the UK in storage. EDIT: Having looked up the diagrams for both the 35mm is a very simple design the MP-E 65 is much more complex.

But make no mistake, Canon are still a leader in 135 format lens design, and they have many designs that will never make it to market for various reasons. It's just on top of designing them, they have to make and sell them for a profit to continue.

Look at the 8-15 zoom, the 17 and the IQ popping 24 TS-E's, the constantly improving IS, Hybrid IS, the new generation coatings that have genuine IQ advantages, the 200 f2 was a good step up from the 200 f1.8 and it included an optical redesign along with the IS, the 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8's are widely regarded as prime beaters (at the very least prime equalizers) and it wasn't that long ago that zooms were considered convenient jokes that would never be prime time, they are so good now you can use TC's with them and still get great images. All the MkII IS teles are class leaders as is the 200-400.

There are glaring failings in the Canon EF lineup though. A class matching ultrawide zoom must have huge pent up demand for it, the 45 and 90 TS-E's are crying out for the modern designs but are comparatively low volume sellers, the 400 f5.6 should have been given IS years ago, all the non sealed L's would get a sales boost from just a comparatively simple sealing update etc.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 11, 2013)

Here are my predictions! 

2014 Non-L Lenses
--
EF 50mm f/1.8 IS
EF 85mm f/2.0 IS
EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS II
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS II

2014 L Lenses
--
EF 14-24mm F/2.8L
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II 
EF 35mm f/1.4L II (IS?)
EF 135mm f/2L (IS?)


----------



## lw (Nov 11, 2013)

Sorry to disappoint, but these new lenses are just white versions of existing models to match the new white SL1 /100D shortly to be released in Japan and Korea.

Of course, to complement the new white SL1 they will also be re-releasing some of the L lenses such as the 70-200mm F2.8 L in black.


----------



## tron (Nov 11, 2013)

lw said:


> Sorry to disappoint, but these new lenses are just white versions of existing models to match the new white SL1 /100D shortly to be released in Japan and Korea.
> 
> Of course, to complement the new white SL1 they will also be re-releasing some of the L lenses such as *the 70-200mm F2.8 L in black*.


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 11, 2013)

tron said:


> OK, I might have to update my lenses but still allow me to ... order:
> 
> a 400mm 5.6L IS with at least the same quality and AF speed
> a super quality 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS II



I see very little point in having both. If the 100-400L II is as good or better than the current 400/5.6L, and it's stabilized, why bother with a 400/5.6L? Is it the hope for a lower cost (good luck with that)? The relatively small weight savings? I just don't see the point.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 11, 2013)

I only read a few posts but it seems like people have missed the obvious, that one will be a new 16-50 f/4 IS.

(and yes you can point to this post and mock, year after year, even twenty years later when the 16-50 f/4 IS is still 'just around the corner' ;D)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 11, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> both comfortably pre date the EF mount, the 200 f1.8 was made in FD mount too and is nothing more than a tricked 300 f2.8 design.



Are you sure? Maybe compared to some very old 300 f/2.8 design then? Because all of the EF ones uses fluorite and quite different designs than the 200 1.8 (although it depends what the definition of "tricked" is) if I recall correctly.



> Look at the 8-15 zoom, the 17 and the IQ popping 24 TS-E's, the constantly improving IS, Hybrid IS, the new generation coatings that have genuine IQ advantages, the 200 f2 was a good step up from the 200 f1.8 and it included an optical redesign along with the IS, the 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8's are widely regarded as prime beaters (at the very least prime equalizers) and it wasn't that long ago that zooms were considered convenient jokes that would never be prime time, they are so good now you can use TC's with them and still get great images. All the MkII IS teles are class leaders as is the 200-400.



Yup and some early talk has the Canon T&S and 24-70 II sharp to edges on A7R while the Nikon 24-70 is somewhat soft near 24mm on a D800.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 11, 2013)

chromophore said:


> Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, ........., among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.



The 17 is a recent lens though and the 200-400 is something new with the built-in TC and 400mm performance like the old 400 2.8 version and the 70-300L is the best such small tele-zoom with that range out there, and the 24-70 II takes on the 24 1.4 II at 24mm when all the older ones were mush city at 24mm on FF edges and this one is just about APO. The 24-70 f/4 IS is the smallest little standard zoom with some macro ability that delivers pretty decent 24mm FF edges. 100L has hybrid macro IS.

The 55-250 STM is said to be pretty amazing for the size, weight, price.


----------



## Vern (Nov 11, 2013)

no predictions, just wishes:

135 1.8 IS (if they just add the IS, I'll probably keep my current 135 2.0, but for 1/2 stop, I'd pay...indoor sport enthusiast, the IS would be nice for other applications though).

600 f4 with built-in 1.4TC (if optically equivalent to the 600II, I would sell mine and trade for the built-in TC b/c I am so frequently fighting to quickly and quietly adapt to different size wildlife photo ops - bluebird drops by my deer blind etc....).

800 f4.5 w built-in 1.4TC (just making this up, I guess no patent has been cited) - w the lighter construction in the version II superteles, maybe this would be under 15 lbs?

That leaves 5 lenses for everyone else's wishes.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 11, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > both comfortably pre date the EF mount, the 200 f1.8 was made in FD mount too and is nothing more than a tricked 300 f2.8 design.
> ...


I think you will find, the 200 f1.8 is, effectively, a 300 f2.8 with a built in reverse converter, due to this they used three UD elements rather than one fluorite one, ever wonder why the 200 f1.8 is so long? Technically, it isn't a telephoto lens either, telephoto means the lens is shorter than its focal length, the 200 f1.8 is 208mm long.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 11, 2013)

Vern said:


> no predictions, just wishes:
> 
> 135 1.8 IS (if they just add the IS, I'll probably keep my current 135 2.0, *but for 1/2 stop, I'd pay*...indoor sport enthusiast, the IS would be nice for other applications though).
> 
> ...



f1.8 is one third stop aster than f2, f1.7 is half a stop faster.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 11, 2013)

Hmmm.....I'd say the lenses a lot of us want:

EF-M 15 mm f/2.8 pancake
EF-M 50 mm f/2 IS pancake
EF-M 55-200 f/4-5.6

14-24 f/2.8 L
35 f/1.4 L IS 
135 f/1.8 L IS 
400 f/5.6 L IS 
100-400 L II

50-150 mm f/2.8 L (ok, that may just be me)

What we are likely to get:

Something like the:
USA announcement of the "new" EF-M 11-22 f/4-5.6 IS STM

EF-S 10-20 f/3.5-5.6 IS

50 f/2 IS
85 f/2 IS

35 f/1.4 L II
135 f/2 L II 
TS-E 45 f/2.8 L
TS-E 90 f/2.8 L

Unfortunate, but probably not a single lens I would actually buy. But I can see each of those having their place.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 11, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The 17 is a recent lens though and the 200-400 is something new with the built-in TC and 400mm performance like the old 400 2.8 version and the 70-300L is the best such small tele-zoom with that range out there, and the 24-70 II takes on the 24 1.4 II at 24mm when all the older ones were mush city at 24mm on FF edges and this one is just about APO. The 24-70 f/4 IS is the smallest little standard zoom with some macro ability that delivers pretty decent 24mm FF edges. 100L has hybrid macro IS.
> 
> The 55-250 STM is said to be pretty amazing for the size, weight, price.



I would personally like to see a cheaper & lower build quality version of the 70-300L with similar optics. A proper update of the non-L 70-300 IS USM, in other words... Reason being that there are virtually no EF-mount telephoto zooms that are both short, light, and sharp. You either have to go long with the 70-200 f/4L, heavy with the 70-300 f/4-5.6L, or long&heavy with the 70-200 f/2.8. It would be nice to see short & light like the 70-300 non-L, but with the optics of the L. It is pretty evident from the 70-300L's design that a lot of the size and weight is from the high quality build; while the build is good, I'd like to see a lighter less obtrusive design as well.

The 55-250 STM is a good example of light build + great optics, but it will not mount on full frame. I don't like the plastic mount though, that is a bit TOO cheap


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 11, 2013)

Ruined said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > The 17 is a recent lens though and the 200-400 is something new with the built-in TC and 400mm performance like the old 400 2.8 version and the 70-300L is the best such small tele-zoom with that range out there, and the 24-70 II takes on the 24 1.4 II at 24mm when all the older ones were mush city at 24mm on FF edges and this one is just about APO. The 24-70 f/4 IS is the smallest little standard zoom with some macro ability that delivers pretty decent 24mm FF edges. 100L has hybrid macro IS.
> ...



Canon says, "If you can afford a FF body, you can afford an L-series telezoom." Not saying that I agree, but everyone who fills out the online registration for a lens gives them data on lenses and bodies owned, and income level.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 11, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


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



hmm good points about the length, I didn't realize it was so long. You may be correct about it all, interesting, I will have to go look at the diagrams again.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Nov 11, 2013)

I hope canon releases the rumored 50mm 1.8 IS USM before 2014. That's all.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 11, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> I hope canon releases the rumored 50mm 1.8 IS USM before 2014. That's all.


Make it a 1.4, built like the 35 f/2


----------



## cellomaster27 (Nov 11, 2013)

Etienne said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > I hope canon releases the rumored 50mm 1.8 IS USM before 2014. That's all.
> ...



I hope my family won't mind me filling my own stocking then!


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 12, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > cellomaster27 said:
> ...



This (ie a Canon 50mm IS) is similar to my #1 wish… (as I’d written earlier in this thread).

But I also have had a few other ideas since, in this order:

2)	EF-S 7-18mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS (this would be an awesome lens if Canon could pull develop and produce this!) I don’t need a fast ultrawide. Having said that, I’m very happy with my awesome Sigma 8-16mm 
3)	EF-S 50-150mm f/2.8 L USM IS (if it could be significantly smaller & cheaper than Canon’s EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM IS). Sigma have a lens of this version, and many reports show it has great IQ (sharp, contrast, low CA, decent bokeh) – but it’s not that much smaller than the FF 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses out there. (It’s about AUD $900 online – great value for what it is, but too large, and I prefer Canon’s AF over Sigma’s for such lenses and critical DOF applications).
4)	EF 50-100mm f/2 USM IS (maybe with a built in 1.4x)
5)	EF-S 50-100mm f/2 USM IS (seeing as Sigma made the 18-35mm f/1.8 for APS-C, maybe there can be size / other benefits realised)

I think that none of the above lenses are totally unrealistic.... sure, they are very 'brave' and 'adventurous' - but surely possible! 8)

Let's see what 2014 (& beyond) brings... would be a lovely match to a 7DmkII. 

Paul


----------



## Ruined (Nov 12, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Perhaps, it does not have to be ultra cheap, I am thinking MSRP $1099, with a build quality similar to the EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro but the optics of the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L. Another option would be an update of the 70-300mm DO IS with better image quality. I think there is a market for such a lens, but then again I can simply use my 55-250 STM on my crop body when I want to be less obtrusive.


----------



## RC (Nov 12, 2013)

Etienne said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > I hope canon releases the rumored 50mm 1.8 IS USM before 2014. That's all.
> ...



No, Make it a 1.4, built like the 35 f/2" L build with WS.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 12, 2013)

RC said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > cellomaster27 said:
> ...



I could live with that


----------



## TheJock (Nov 12, 2013)

I was about to get the 24-105 f4L for Christmas, but everything’s on hold as I would hate to miss out on something “new”. 
My wish list of “new” models is as follows

EF 17-135mm f4 L USM IS (preferred option as this would suit almost all my needs and would be a permanent fixture on my camera)
EF 24-150mm f/4 L USM IS (dreaming now! )

Lets push the boundaries further, what would be your ULTIMATE dream lens??


----------



## messus (Nov 12, 2013)

Lot's of wish-lishes here.

But if Canon are to be serious they need to remedy where they (we) are hurting most, and it is not primarily in the long end.

Although in my opinion, every EF lens from 50mm and down should have been upgraded a long time ago, it is in no doubt that 
Canon has for a long time been neglecting the wide angle department, and the current line up has been beaten by competition for a long time..

Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)

Canon EF 14 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma in the corners, beaten well by the Zoom lens 14-24 2.8 Nikon, as well as the Samyang 14mm.
Canon EF 16-35 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ,, lot's of CA/coma and soft in the corners. It has it's strengths in weight and portability but need an IQ upgrade.
Canon EF 24 1.4 L II (2008) has REALLY BAD IQ!! CA and so much coma in the corners that it basically useless in low lit sutations wide open. Beaten well by Samyang 24 1.4! Wake up Canon!!
Canon EF 35 1.4 L II (1998) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma/soft in the corners. An old lens well beaten by Samyang 35 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.4, needs an upgrade, but IMO 24 1.4 is more important to prioritize!
Canon EF 50 1.8 II, (1990), the oldest 50mm is the best 50mm Canon has. Corner sharpness is bad, but still beets all other 50mm from Canon, still this lens suffers from CA and is beaten well by the Nikon 50 1.8 and Sigma 50 1.4.
Canon EF 50 1.4 (1993) is suffering from severe CA wide open, well beaten by the Nikon 50 1.8 / Sigma 50 1.4.

Canon need to pull their finger out of wherever they are currently (the Cinema division) and respect and prioritize the DSLR customers which have put Canon where they are.

My top 3 wishes are:

1. I would like to hope that Canon are capable of producing an optical competitive UWA zoom lens to match/beat the Nikon 14-24 2.8 / Zeiss Distagon 15mm 2.8. Both these mentioned lenses are both better and cheaper than the Canon 14mm 2.8 II.
2. I would love to see an upgrade of the 16-35 2.8 with acceptable corner IQ.
3. I think Canon really need to replace the really bad 24 1.4 II !! The price/IQ here is out of proportions!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 12, 2013)

messus said:


> Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)
> 
> Canon EF 14 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma in the corners, beaten well by the Zoom lens 14-24 2.8 Nikon, as well as the Samyang 14mm.
> Canon EF 16-35 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ,, lot's of CA/coma and soft in the corners. It has it's strengths in weight and portability but need an IQ upgrade.
> ...



Have you even tried these lenses or are you chart watching? Your comments are extream and very irritating to those of us who actually use these items in a professional guise....which the L lenses were created. They weren't designed for web trolls who claim knowledge, but their experiance seems to come from looking at web reviews. I use a 35mm f1.4 L, 24mm f1.4 II L and 16-35IIL day in day out professionally and have for many years. If you think those lenses are junk because of a few minor aberations...then you really need to get a grip. No lens is perfect, end of subject. All of the lenses above, I use wide open and I have produced great photos which sell and sell. A fast prime shot a f1.2 or f1.4 is a remarkable thing and a lens which is delivered to the customer with pro build, AF and great optics for around £1200 is quite remarkable. These lenses are astonishing and can produce amazing photographs in the right hands. If you pass over these gems because of some crazy elitest attitude...it really is your loss....but please don't come on here and spout your views as verbatim...as you will be challenged! 
Consider this, most of the best photographs ever taken were taken on quite lowly kit...Steve McCurry, Cartier Bresson...to name a few. Perhapse we should be more critical of our photographs than our lenses? I suspaect that 99% of modern lenses and cameras out perform their users.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 12, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> messus said:
> 
> 
> > Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)
> ...


+1 You beat me to it


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 12, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I only read a few posts but it seems like people have missed the obvious, that one will be a new 16-50 f/4 IS.
> 
> (and yes you can point to this post and mock, year after year, even twenty years later when the 16-50 f/4 IS is still 'just around the corner' ;D)


I'd mock the post, but it is probably going to be released at the same time as a 400F5.6II. Right now it looks like a horse race between the two lenses..... A horse race where everyone else has finished and gone home


----------



## tron (Nov 12, 2013)

Eldar said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > messus said:
> ...



As I have some of the mentioned lenses and have seen photos from some other allow me to comment:

Canon EF14mm f2.8L II I do have it. It has good IQ and NOT so much Coma! It does have some but it is not a buy stopper.
Canon EF16-35mm f2.8 L (Sorry it's the version I that I have and can comment upon): Bad IQ at the corners (and only in the corners)
and a lot of coma. Judging from that I believe that the version II will not be a huge upgrade (at least regarding coma)

Canon 35mm 1.4L I do have it and It does have coma.

Canon 24mm 1.4L II. This I do not have but i have NO reason to doubt the following 2 reviews:

http://www.extremeinstability.com/lens24mm.html
http://www.lenstip.com/245.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.html
According to the screenshots shown in these reviews it is a joke lens regarding coma.
If you add the fact that my Zeiss 21mm 2.8 ZE has very good corners and almost NO coma I believe that there is indeed room for improvement for Canon lenses.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 12, 2013)

I cannot speak from own experience to the performance of the lenses mentioned. Most likely all of them are "more than good enough", including "professional use". But I have also seen many of the comparison tests and come to mostly the same conclusions as messus, as far as relative performance of the Canon L's he specifically mentioned compared to other manufacturers lenses is concerned. Considering the pprices of these Canon L lenses, they ought to be not only have goood build quality and good AF but also 100% competitive IQ. 

And compared to the Nikon 14-24 which even today still beats almost any prime lens in its range, the Canon 16-35 II is simply "sub-par". I consider it a shame for Canon and a pity for its customers, that they are not able to come up with fully competitive or better (!) L lenses. No Canon L lens should not be beaten in the IQ department by a "lowly" Samyang . Not ever.



GMCPhotographics said:


> Consider this, most of the best photographs ever taken were taken on quite lowly kit...Steve McCurry, Cartier Bresson...to name a few.



Quite to the contrary. Their gear was NOT lowly. It was the most advanced, very best and definitely not cheap COMPACT + LIGHT, ROBUST and FAST-OPERABLE camera gear available of their times. 

http://www.odedwagen.com/2013/01/masters-of-photography-interview-with-steve-mccurry
1984, Afghanistan: McCurry used a Nikon FM2 (launched only in 1982) + Nikkor 105/2.5 (presumably the AI-S version launched in 1981) http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105f25.htm 

HCB used Leica M from the 30ies onward. 

Both chose the smallest, IQ-wise fully competent gear available at their time. Not lowly, inexpensive, marketing-crippled gear. 

In November 2013 the equivalent would be Sony's A7R with matching Zeiss ZE 55/2.8 and 35/2.8 prime lenses. While far less expensive than a Canon 1D X or D4 plus clunky f/2.8 zooms, the A7R is a very compact system, delivering better IQ than any of these DSLR behemoths.  

Unless one needs to or wants to shoot long tele lenses. But then please, don't quote HCB (50mm lens) or McCurry (of whom I do not know a single image taken at more than 135mm focal length).


----------



## Vasiliskk (Nov 12, 2013)

85/1.4
85/1.2L III
35/1.4L II
135/1.8L IS 
14-24L
16-35L III


----------



## tron (Nov 12, 2013)

Vasiliskk said:


> 85/1.4
> 85/1.2L III


This is not realistic. 1.4 would compete with 1.2. You may wish it but it will simply not happen.


Vasiliskk said:


> 35/1.4L II
> 14-24L
> 16-35L III


I would these too. Plus they seem a logical next step (Canon please ...)



Vasiliskk said:


> 135/1.8L IS


Doable but maybe not practical. It would be MUCH more expensive and heavier. It would not be low profile any more. An f/2.0L IS version would be more smaller/lighter/cheaper than this.


----------



## Vasiliskk (Nov 12, 2013)

tron said:


> This is not realistic. 1.4 would compete with 1.2. You may wish it but it will simply not happen.
> Doable but maybe not practical. It would be MUCH more expensive and heavier. It would not be low profile any more. An f/2.0L IS version would be more smaller/lighter/cheaper than this.


Ok,
85/1.8II
135/1.8L non IS (sony zeiss 135/1.8, sigma rumored)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2013)

Ruined said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



A lens with the build quality of an L-series lens, and the optical quality of the 70-300L...is it me, or does that sound like...the 70-300L. Replace the white-painted metal with black engineering plastic, omit the red ring, and launch it at $300 less than the current price of the L lens? Ummmmm....no, sorry, not gonna happen. Well, it might happen...after FF bodies drop under $1K.


----------



## Vasiliskk (Nov 12, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> A lens with the build quality of an L-series lens, and the optical quality of the 70-300L...is it me, or does that sound like...the 70-300L. Replace the white-painted metal with black engineering plastic, omit the red ring, and launch it at $300 less than the current price of the L lens? Ummmmm....no, sorry, not gonna happen. Well, it might happen...after FF bodies drop under $1K.


I think the price is not made ​​up of white paint and red ring.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 12, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon says, "If you can afford a FF body, you can afford an L-series telezoom." Not saying that I agree, but everyone who fills out the online registration for a lens gives them data on lenses and bodies owned, and income level.



And what percentage of photographers do that?

I didn't even now I could register a lens online.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 12, 2013)

tron said:


> Vasiliskk said:
> 
> 
> > 85/1.4
> ...



Sigma already has an 85mm f/1.4, which competes with the 85mm f/1.8, if not the 85mm f/1.2. As noted before, reviews show the Sigma to have inferior IQ.


----------



## tron (Nov 12, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Vasiliskk said:
> ...


True, but Sigma MUST try to compete with Canon. Canon will not compete with themselves!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 12, 2013)

tron said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



But Canon ignore Sigma?


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 12, 2013)

BTW, why hasn't anyone considered some of those 8 lenses might be for cinema?


----------



## jrista (Nov 12, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Come on 400F5.6!!!!!



+ IS


----------



## mine1 (Nov 12, 2013)

I am going to guess.

EF 24-70 2.8L IS ($2799, with a $200 price drop on the 24-70 II)
EF 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS II ($2499)
EF 35 1.4 L ($1799)
EF-s 10-22 3.5-4.5 (either stm or usm) I am guessing STM. ($899)
EF-s 17-55 2.8 IS II USM ($1299)
EF-s (or maybe even EF) 70-300 USM ($699), or if they decide that the 55-250 is enough for crop shooters until they can afford the 100-400 II then I would make it 3 EF-m lenses.
2 new EF-m lenses


----------



## mine1 (Nov 12, 2013)

I think that with the huge pricedrops on the 10-22 and 17-55 that those are the only 2 that I am sure of.


----------



## cayenne (Nov 12, 2013)

RC said:


> How about a 50mm that is actually worth buying? I'd love a 50L 1.4. No front/back focus issues, sharp wide open, and ring USM. I'd take it with or without IS.



I thought I'd heard/read that the current, newer releases of the 50L f/1.2 pretty much did away with the backfocus issues that the early models had...?

I rented one a couple months ago....but was using it primarily for video, but with the few shots I had time for for stills, I didn't see any backfocus problems with it.

I'd rather have a f/1.2 than a f/1.4.....is bigger/faster not always better?



cayenne


----------



## tron (Nov 13, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Ellen Schmidtee said:
> ...


They have a very good value for money 85mm 1.8 and a superb 85 1.2L II that most probably focus much better than Sigma...


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 13, 2013)

tron said:


> They have a very good value for money 85mm 1.8 and a superb 85 1.2L II that most probably focus much better than Sigma...



I keep hearing the 85mm f/1.2L II focuses so slowly... ;-)


----------



## Eldar (Nov 13, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > They have a very good value for money 85mm 1.8 and a superb 85 1.2L II that most probably focus much better than Sigma...
> ...


The 85 1.2L II focusing keeps coming back as a problem. It is clearly a love or hate lens. I am in the love category. I can only say that when you learn how to use it and you don't shoot F-1 cars coming right at you, it is a phenomenal lens. But if they updated it with same IQ, added IS and a faster (regular USM) focusing mechanism, I'd probably buy it.


----------



## Angmar (Nov 13, 2013)

My guess:

EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
EF 16-50mm f/4L USM
EF 135mm f/2L IS USM
EF-M 55-200mm f/4-5.6 STM


----------



## Vasiliskk (Nov 13, 2013)

TheJock said:


> I'm waiting for the 50-500/f1.4L IS USM


Why to hesitate, let's 14-400/f1.2L IS USM 1000$ 0,8kg


----------



## TrabimanUK (Nov 13, 2013)

I predict a 1400mm f5.6 IS to replace the legendary 1200mm. Of course, a realistic price would be circa $200K, but it would be so cool and a definite drool over lens. And if you can afford that, you can afford the staff to carry it for you


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 13, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> BTW, why hasn't anyone considered some of those 8 lenses might be for cinema?



+1

And also EF-S and EF-M...


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 13, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Well, if I had the money & guts to work as a photographer, I would buy it to shoot portraits, and use a tripod.

My point was Canon might have benefit from upgrading one or both lenses, e.g. to sell you an improved f/1.2.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 13, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, why hasn't anyone considered some of those 8 lenses might be for cinema?
> ...



I've listed EF-S lenses, e.g. EF-S 18-200mm IS STM.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 13, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > They have a very good value for money 85mm 1.8 and a superb 85 1.2L II that most probably focus much better than Sigma...
> ...



It's slow to move from MFD to infinity...so if it hunts it's pretty laborious. But minor AF adjustments are quite quick and repsonsive. It acn certainly handle AI Servo movement. It's slower than most L lenses, although not much slower than the 50mm f1.2 L which never seems to get critised for it's slow AF. What it looses in speed it gains in accuracy. It's certainly more accurate than the Sigma. I would prize AF accuracy over AF speed any day. 
I tend to find the 35mm f1.4 L less accurate but fast AF in low light.


----------



## Woody (Nov 13, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, why hasn't anyone considered some of those 8 lenses might be for cinema?
> ...



In an interview with CEO Imaging of Canon, he says:

"The concept of the EOS M is to make an interchangeable lens camera as small as possible while retaining the quality we would expect from an EOS product. It must be able to support a wide range of lenses - without that support, there's no point making it. Looking at the data, we're not seeing the EOS-M users making use of a variety of lenses. So one of the challenges is to roll-out a lineup of attractive lenses - that is our response to encourage people to use them"

- http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0336328811/cp-2013-interview-with-canons-masaya-maeda?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_1

Will be rather sad if Canon does not roll out more EF lenses....


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 13, 2013)

What I meant is to sober up people who assumed they would all be L lenses


----------



## Hannes (Nov 13, 2013)

Would there be a market for a 135/1.4 IS? Basically a shorter 200/2 with similar dimensions and price. I think there could be for indoor sports and for the densest bokeh ever seen


----------



## NWPhil (Nov 13, 2013)

everyone has a wish list :, so has Canon...
taking clues from what has received rebates,due to an update, rumours,showing in wish lists, etc...

- TSE 45mm
- TSE 90mm
- 35mm 1.4
- 50mm with IS (maybe 1.4)
- 100-400mm
- 14-24mm (one can only wish)
... cine lens, EF-s lens, M or/and pancake lens, and a long telephoto

darn, I am already above 8


----------



## Eldar (Nov 13, 2013)

Even though my hopes are for some new L-series lenses, I haven´t seen many expectations for an upgrade to the 18-200. That gives a focal length no phone or simple p&s can compete with. But the current Canon lens is pretty rotten. My wife likes this lens a lot, despite its deficiencies, but would be very happy to see an improved version.


----------



## chromophore (Nov 13, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Also consider that AF speed is also a function of the body the lens is mounted to. If you're using an 85L on a 5D or 5DII, these older AF systems won't be as fast to acquire focus, and the USM won't be driven as quickly as on a 1DX or even a 1DsIII. So, when different people report different experiences with the 85L, it may be partly due to the body they're using.


----------



## messus (Nov 15, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> messus said:
> 
> 
> > Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)
> ...



Can you read?? I wrote that I have or have had all the mentioned lenses.

Frankly I find your comment quite rude!

I have spent the last 10 years as a professional nature/landscape/astro-photographer, and I have countless hours out in the dark in the cold, waiting for the right moment light and moment. I produce HQ quality photos for print/sale and 4K+ timelapse and film footage for professional productions. I spent thousands-of-thousand-of-thousands of dollars on Canon. Currently I have the 1DX, the 5D3 and 2 x 5D2, 4 x T3. - And I find it totally unacceptable to come home after a long and tiresome trip out in the cold, to find out that the corners of those photos are soft and suffering from CA/Coma, or that the stars in a dark nightsky looks like bananas, which are impossible to recover! - TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!

It is disrespectful of Canon to their DSLR customers, to produce the 1DX and the 5D3 and not provide any decent wide angle lens to go along with it! Currently I shoot with the Nikon 14-24 (with adapter) and the Samyang 14, since they are WAY WAY better than anything Canon has to offer. Not to mention that I can get almost 2 x Nikon 14-24 for the price of 1 x Canon EF 14mm 2.8 L II. Canon are sucking the blood out of you!

I am sorry if I hurt your Canon-feelings, but what I say is true! And Canon knows it! (If not Canon need to start check out the pictures online, user experiences, reviews, and the growing number of people using the Nikon 14-24 on their Canon bodies)

And yes I read reviews, and yes I do pixel-peep. I am a CPS platinum memeber, and after having committed the way I have to Canon, I expect nothing but respect and top- notch quality back in return. The least Canon could do is to MATCH the competition.

You should never, NEVER, let brand loyalty blind you, or prevent you from critizizing. I mostly love my Canon bodies, and my Canon Tele-lenses are superb (EF 600 2.8 L IS, EF 300 2.8 L IS USM II, EF 70-200 2.8 L IS USM II), but Canon are seriously lagging behind the competition in the wide angle department!

If you have been payin attention you know that Canon have prioritized the Cinema production line, with lenses, neglecting us DSLR users who have been buying their new full frame bodies (wide angle lenses).


----------



## Eldar (Nov 15, 2013)

messus said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > messus said:
> ...


It seems you really need to find a different supplier, at least for wide angel!


----------



## J.R. (Nov 15, 2013)

Eldar said:


> messus said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Exactly ... why not take up the D800 and the 14-24 from Nikon for your WA work? Why suffer if you feel so strongly about it?


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 15, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > messus said:
> ...



Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?


----------



## Woody (Nov 15, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?



A lying troll?


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 15, 2013)

Pancakes please!!!!


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 15, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?



you have not read, what he wrote. He is using multiple Canon bodies for stills and video. Out in the wild. 
The last thing I'd want out there is a body from another manufaturer, with different user interface, different sensor characteristics, different batteries, etc. ... how about you?


----------



## J.R. (Nov 15, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?
> ...



If my livelihood depended on it, I would. 

I might still do that in part (even though I do this for a hobby). I did not like the WA lenses of Canon so I might just pick up a used D800 (sell quite cheap these days) and the 14-24.


----------



## tron (Nov 15, 2013)

J.R. said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


There is some truth in the WA part (I am thinking mainly FF corner IQ and coma)

But for landscapes and architecture my TS-E 17mm and for landscapes and astrophotography my Zeiss 21mm 2.8 cover these limitations.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 15, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?
> ...



I would.


----------



## ksagomonyants (Nov 15, 2013)

For those who expect a new 200 f2 ii, what new features do you think will be implemented in it? Does anyone know how much more expensive the new 300 2.8 ii was as compared to the 300 f2.8 i when the former was released?


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 15, 2013)

messus said:


> Currently I have the 1DX, the 5D3 and 2 x 5D2, 4 x T3.



Four T3 bodies? Was this model chosen just because of price or is there something specific about the camera that makes it more appealing?
After owning one for more than a year now, and after buying a 5D2 earlier this year, I'm still quite satisfied with the performance of the T3. One example is that If I'm doing HDR I prefer the T3 because it gives a cleaner image with long exposures. I'm guessing those cameras spend a lot of time looking at the sky?





dilbert said:


> TheJock said:
> 
> 
> > I was about to get the 24-105 f4L for Christmas, but everything’s on hold as I would hate to miss out on something “new”.
> ...



Are you sure you want a lens with a 357mm front element?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> For those who expect a new 200 f2 ii, what new features do you think will be implemented in it?



The new 'white' paint color.


----------



## bigmag13 (Nov 15, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> messus said:
> 
> 
> > Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)
> ...



Well said!


----------



## Northstar (Nov 16, 2013)

Just watched the imax 3d space movie that included some pretty good info on the Hubble space telescope...awesome tech. 

I'm hoping a smaller version of the Hubble is coming from canon in 2014...ef mount "L" of course....red ring optional.


----------



## Grumbaki (Nov 16, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I would too with the situation you describe.
That's another scale but I'm in office I have to deal with qwerty windows 7 pc and at home a azerty imac.
If your diner relies on it, you adapt. Charles said it.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ksagomonyants said:
> 
> 
> > For those who expect a new 200 f2 ii, what new features do you think will be implemented in it?
> ...



I'm afraid I tend to agree, here, New White Paint same as the Series II Lenses, 20% less weight ?? (Not sure how much, but some weight saving).

I say "afraid" to agree only because I would love to see the 200f/2 get the series II Lens treatment, but it's my view that the current 200f/2 is so good I just don't see why Canon would do anything to it.

Plus the new Lens should it get the series II treatment, will get the Series II price increase, I had the 300f/2.8 series I and the 400 series I before upgrading both Lenses (have sold the 400 since though), in general the price increase for the series II over the series I has been in the order +/- 30% increase, that would likely see a series II 200f/2 move to above 8K, not sure that would be a smart move for Canon.

Why mess with perfection ??


----------



## TW (Nov 16, 2013)

I'd say 8 per year for the next 3 years... 

EF prime:
20 2.8 IS
50 1.8 IS
90 2.0 IS (replacing 85 & 100)

EF L prime:
14 2.8
35 1.4
50 1.2
85 1.2
135 1.8 IS
200 1.8 IS
300 4.0 IS
400 5.6 IS
800 5.6 IS

EF L zoom:
12-28 2.8 (replacing 16-35)
17-50 4.0 IS (replacing 17-40)
24-70 2.8 IS
70-200 4.0 IS
100-400 4.0-5.6 IS

EF L specialty:
45 2.8 TS
105 2.8 TS Macro (replacing 90 & old 100 macro) 
200 4.0 IS Macro (replacing 185 & 200)

EF-S:
12-18 3.5
16-55 2.8
30-150 4.0


----------



## ksagomonyants (Nov 16, 2013)

TW said:


> I'd say 8 per year for the next 3 years...
> 
> EF prime:
> 20 2.8 IS
> ...



How many of them are you planning to add to your lens collection?


----------



## TW (Nov 17, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> TW said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say 8 per year for the next 3 years...
> ...



None of the EF-S, all the specialty and non-L primes, probably a couple of the zooms depending on price and performance, plus the 135, 300 and 400.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 17, 2013)

TW said:


> 105 2.8 TS Macro (replacing 90 & old 100 macro)



How large do you expect the front element of this Tilt-shift to be?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 17, 2013)

TW said:


> I'd say 8 per year for the next 3 years...
> 
> EF prime:
> 20 2.8 IS
> ...


I like your list. I could buy:
EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 (my favorite)
EF 200mm F4 IS Macro (could even be F5.6 because for macro I'd only use narrow openings anyway)
EF 90mm F2 IS (great for portrait)
EF 50mm F1.8 IS (if quality and price are fair)

Hopefully Canon listen to your ideas.


----------



## jrista (Nov 18, 2013)

StudentOfLight said:


> TW said:
> 
> 
> > 105 2.8 TS Macro (replacing 90 & old 100 macro)
> ...



Agreed. Aren't most of the current TS lenses f/3.5 max aperture?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 18, 2013)

jrista said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > TW said:
> ...



Sorry, I don't get the point. How big do you think it would need to be? The 45mm and 90mm are f/2.8. The TS-E 90mm takes 58mm filters, and the front element is recessed and noticeably smaller than the filter threads. There's clearly room to add 10-15mm to the focal length, increase the image circle to match the 17/24, and still have a pretty small front element.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 18, 2013)

J.R. said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



It's such a common perception that pros NEED the best cameras. In most cases they don't, infact they get by using quite humble equipment. The things which amatures prize, are not the same things which pros need or desire. MP count is typically very low on our lists. Reliability and build generally are they highest factors. A client usually doesn't care if a quality image is 18mp or 36mp, as long as it's the image they want, it's sharp and clean.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



I was merely asking an honest question and it was misinterpreted. 

I guess if I had to ask my question again, it would be stated like this... Do you think it would have an significant enlargement of front element (to improve IQ when shifting) and an appropriate increase in filter size (e.g. 72mm) or do you think it will retain 58mm filter size of the current 90mm?

Another website (http://camyx.com/rumors/2013/10/canon-ts-e-135mm-f2-8l-lens/) states that the upgrade will be TS-E 135mm f/2.8 L, but I haven't seen any other source with these specifications. I would imagine that such a design would be quite large and heavy vs the old lens, although if included a tripod collar that might be useful. 

Does anyone have links to a patent?


----------



## tron (Nov 18, 2013)

I guess some things do not apply to TS-E world. I do not mean of course the diameter (opening) of the front element but the total size.

See:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/818360-REG/Schneider_06_1064382_PC_TS_Super_Angulon.html

The above 90mm TS lens is bigger (length and diameter) and much heavier than Canon! Yet it is f/4.5!!!

The above is just a thought as I am not an expert. But I deducted so from the above example....


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 18, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


funny you should say this......

It's the results that count, not the process... the bride wants to see beautiful pictures of herself and her family/friends.... who cares what the camera and lens are as long as the pictures are good...

And as to what kind of lunatic would buy gear they hate.... Me. In my day job I have test equipment that has user interfaces that are unusable without a manual and notes... I HATE!!! the gear, but it is the best at what it does so that's what we get...


----------



## J.R. (Nov 18, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



I don't think you read the posts carefully enough. The question here was not if a PRO needs the best camera. AvTvM's question was that why would you buy into a different system? My view is, why not? Learning a new system is by far a better option than buying gear you hate and rant about in internet forums. 

Coming to your post, it all depends on what you shoot. Maybe a wedding shooter can get by with the previous generation equipment but wildlife / bird shooters do usually buy the best and the latest equipment to come out with standout photos, or do you mean to suggest that a 1DX with a 600mm f/4 offers no improvement at all?

BTW, isn't it funny how some Pros come out citing humble equipment when they themselves - 



GMCPhotographics said:


> use a 35mm f1.4 L, 24mm f1.4 II L and 16-35IIL day in day out professionally and have for many years.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 18, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I don't think you read the posts carefully enough. The question here was not if a PRO needs the best camera. AvTvM's question was that why would you buy into a different system? My view is, why not? Learning a new system is by far a better option than buying gear you hate and rant about in internet forums.



Again, I doubt the wisdom of that. 2 different systems does not only mean 2 different user interfaces to learn. But 2 different sets of batteries and chargers [remember, messus was talking about shooting wildlife stills and videos @ all sorts of locations, including rather remote areas] and a whole lot more effort and difficulties in post production - especially for video. 

It may well be the better approach to stick with gear from one manufacturer, even when some of it is less than optimal for certain aspects of the task. And everbody is entitled to (some) ranting if expensive gear is not as good as it should be. Including Canon gear.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 18, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you read the posts carefully enough. The question here was not if a PRO needs the best camera. AvTvM's question was that why would you buy into a different system? My view is, why not? Learning a new system is by far a better option than buying gear you hate and rant about in internet forums.
> ...


There are a couple of fairly OK Canon mount Zeiss alternatives to choose from, if Canon lenses are too bad.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 18, 2013)

tron said:


> The above 90mm TS lens is bigger (length and diameter) and much heavier than Canon! Yet it is f/4.5!!!
> 
> The above is just a thought as I am not an expert. But I deducted so from the above example....



The only reason I did not buy the TS-E 90mm is that it loses quite a bit of sharpness when shifting. When shifting you are using more of the periphery of the front element which would be the weak points optically. I believe that having a larger font element can help alleviate problems of soft corners and vignetting when shooting wide open. 

By elevating the TS-E 90mm's successor into the L-series one would expect that the image quality would not suffer when the lens is shifted. I would expect it to perform optically as well as the TS-E 24-II does through it's tilt-shift range. I've already pre-ordered this lens in my mind ;D


----------



## jrista (Nov 19, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Hmm. I thought that most of the lenses had an f/3.5 aperture. If the current 45 and 90 have an f/2.8 aperture, then my post was indeed pointless.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 19, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you read the posts carefully enough. The question here was not if a PRO needs the best camera. AvTvM's question was that why would you buy into a different system? My view is, why not? Learning a new system is by far a better option than buying gear you hate and rant about in internet forums.
> ...



We can debate this to death but because it is a personal decision, each to his own


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 21, 2013)

J.R. said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



I shouldn't have to read posts carefully if they are written out clearly enough....tricky posts are the mandate of trolls...

Yes I have a lot of high end kit. But I also serve a lot of different genres in my professional guise. I shoot a lot of weddings, landscapes and a bit of wildlife (although the latter is more for fun). All three genres generally need a different approach to kit requirements. For weddings, I generally use fast primes. Of which my 35L and 85L are my main lenses. My landscape work needs xoom versatility, so my 16-35IIL, 24-70L and 70-200L are mostly used in that context. My wildlife protfolio sports a 70-200L, converters and a 400L. So 2-3 lenses per genre. 
Camera wise, I use the same 5DIII for all three and they are working well for me. On my last trip to the Saltee Islands, were a number of photographers with the new 500mm f4 L IS II mated to 1Dx cameras. A very capable and light combo. I look my heavy 400L and looked quite tired for most of the time. There were a few guys there with the new 300mm f2.8 LIS II and 60D/ 70D combos...fairly modest gear for this genre but I have to say the imagery from these cameras and lens combo was nearly as good as my 400L...so one has to wonder. It was quite a low spend (from nothing), light and very capable. The 70D with a 300mm f2.8 had a nice reach and with a 1.4x or 2x tc easily matched my 400L on a 5DIII for framing (with converters). He eyed the slight quality and DOF difference beween my kit and his enviously, I looked over his kit with an envious eye for the weight and size considerations!
So choosing humble gear is relative and very genre specific. Ultimately it's the photos which matter and where a photorgapher is prepared to draw the line and put their compromise.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 21, 2013)

I for one will be very bored by a Canon 100-400 replacement that costs $2700 like the Nikon 80-400. Especially given that the upcoming Tamron 150-600 just might cost less, and just might be as good...and will go to 600mm, rather than 400mm.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 21, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I shouldn't have to read posts carefully if they are written out clearly enough....tricky posts are the mandate of trolls...



Absolutely right ... I stopped reading your post right after this sentence.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 21, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I for one will be very bored by a Canon 100-400 replacement that costs $2700 like the Nikon 80-400. Especially given that the upcoming Tamron 150-600 just might cost less, and just might be as good...and will go to 600mm, rather than 400mm.



I won't be surprised if it came out at 2500-3000. I wouldn't be surprised that the Tamron will cost less, but it won't be as good. I'm hoping the new 100-400 will trounce the existing offering, but I'll wait for the reviews before considering getting one and wait for the lower prices at the end of the year. The 24-70 II came out at 2300 but is now being sold for 1700 (net rebates), and it's only been about a year. Early adopters pay a premium.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 21, 2013)

J.R. said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I shouldn't have to read posts carefully if they are written out clearly enough....tricky posts are the mandate of trolls...
> ...



Yep, I thought I was wasting my time with you....now I know I was


----------



## J.R. (Nov 21, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Funny... I feel the same way about you... So we do agree on something. 

BTW, not everyone who posts here has English as their first language. So basically calling a less than perfectly worded post "a mandate of trolls" is myopic.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 21, 2013)

J.R. said:


> BTW, not everyone who posts here has English as their first language. So basically calling a less than perfectly worded post "a mandate of trolls" is myopic.


Et godt poeng! Jeg har med undring lest hva som skrives her, ikke minst av de som åpenbart har engelsk som morsmål. Noen ville vært nær strykkarakter på en vanlig norsk/svensk/dansk ungdomsskole  
Jeg tror jeg selv forstår engelsk rimelig godt, men uttrykket "et mandat av troll" er definitivt ukjent og høres passe meningsløst ut. Ha en strålende dag 
PS! I checked what google translate made of it and it is pretty close


----------



## J.R. (Nov 21, 2013)

Eldar said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, not everyone who posts here has English as their first language. So basically calling a less than perfectly worded post "a mandate of trolls" is myopic.
> ...



Thanks Eldar, you got that right. 

By the way, as for most things in life, close is usually close enough!

Cheers ... J.R.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 22, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > I for one will be very bored by a Canon 100-400 replacement that costs $2700 like the Nikon 80-400. Especially given that the upcoming Tamron 150-600 just might cost less, and just might be as good...and will go to 600mm, rather than 400mm.
> ...



Agreed that early adopters pay a premium, but I disagree with your assumption that the Tamron won't be "as good". It depends on what you value. If you want a nice lens that only goes to 400mm at f/5.6, and you want to pay $3000 for it, I suspect there aren't as many other people like you in the marketplace as you think. If you want a lens that is 97% as sharp that goes to 600mm for even less money, I suspect there are a lot more people who want one of those. I'm one, at least. A 400mm f/5.6 for $3000 is a waste of money, even if it's a 4x zoom. If you're going to trot out your hope that it would fully resolve 40+ megapixels with sharpness to spare, I would say don't get your hopes up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> If you want a lens that is *97% as sharp* that goes to 600mm for even less money...



I applaud your optimism, but I think it's rather unfounded.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > If you want a lens that is *97% as sharp* that goes to 600mm for even less money...
> ...



Based on what? Isn't the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 almost as sharp as the beloved Canon version? At a cost savings of approximately 25%? Maybe it's not 97% as sharp...depends on how you define sharpness in percent...not that people do it very often I guess. In any case, the lens I'm talking about goes to 600mm. If it only went to 500mm, then I would say it's not as big of a deal. But it goes to 600mm. Sure there's a chance it's going to not be any sharper than their current 200-500, but that's an old design. Let's wait and see where the chips fall. Again, based on the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, I'm quite optimistic. Certainly the new lens has to be an all new design, because if it kept the same objective element size as the old lens (which is f/6.3 at 500mm rather than 600mm), then it wouldn't be f/6.3 at 600mm. It would be f/7.1 or f/8 instead.

I don't see why you would "applaud" my optimism anyway, since you would never buy a large telephoto lens that wasn't a Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Isn't the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 almost as sharp as the beloved Canon version?



Not from what I've seen. The new 24-70 VC comes somewhat close to the Canon 24-70 II, but there's a bigger IQ gap between the 70-200/2.8 lenses. I'd bet that the new Tamron at 600mm won't be as sharp as the current 100-400 at 400mm, and since you mention a $3K lens you must be referring to the pink unicorn 100-400 II, which if it becomes reality, I'd bet that lens at 400mm cropped would beat the Tamron at 600mm easily. Then there's the issue of AF speed, something Tamron lenses aren't known for...

Many people buy the 70-300 non-L over the 70-200/4L because the former is 100mm longer, has IS, and is a bit cheaper. If they cared about IQ, they'd be better off cropping images from the shorter lens with much better IQ. 

I think the Tamron 150-600mm will be reasonably popular, because it'll be a cheap 600mm lens. But there's no free lunch, and the price of this one will be IQ.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 22, 2013)

J.R. said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Actually I wrote "tricky" it was you who implied poor spelling...maybe you should read the post more carefully too? Or stop twisting my words and making a bigger issue out of them?


----------



## J.R. (Nov 23, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



OK. In that case I misunderstood, but still do not understand what you meant.


----------



## KyleSTL (Nov 25, 2013)

Observation:

There is only one EF lens with STM (the 40mm f/2.8 STM along side the 3 EF-S and 3 EF-M STM lenses). When they release a full frame camera that utilizes DPAF (IMO less than 18 months from now) they will be in desperate need of a whole range of EF lenses to go along with the advanced movie AF. I say 2 or 3 lenses next year will be FF and have STM motors. If they want to make their cinema customers euphoric they will make said lenses parfocal and with very little focus breathing (unlikely, as I'm sure they want to protect their Cinema line of cameras and lenses). I know one of the big drawbacks of the 40mm f/2.8 STM for movie making is the fact that it has so much focus breathing (a function of its pancake design).


----------



## Ruined (Nov 26, 2013)

Couple of things with STM.

First, there are two types of STM (much like there were two types of USM). One type of STM is a simple motor, which is what the 40mm pancake has. Another type is the faster and quieter screw-type, which the 18-135mm STM has. The latter is far better than the former.

Second, more recent Ring USM lenses (once attached to an enabled body) are capable of the same precision & speed of screw-type STM, so while older USM lenses may need to be upgraded newer ones should work fine with DPAF.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 26, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Second, more recent Ring USM lenses (once attached to an enabled body) are capable of the same precision & speed of screw-type STM, so while older USM lenses may need to be upgraded newer ones should work fine with DPAF.



I think the question is whether they can be as graceful at starting and stopping their refocus as the STMs. For video, speed of focus is secondary to smoothness.


----------



## KyleSTL (Nov 26, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Second, more recent Ring USM lenses (once attached to an enabled body) are capable of the same precision & speed of screw-type STM, so while older USM lenses may need to be upgraded newer ones should work fine with DPAF.
> ...


And noise as well. From everything I've heard, STM is quieter than USM (even the newest USM lenses like 24, 28 and 35mm IS primes). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 almost as sharp as the beloved Canon version?
> ...



Time will tell. But no matter how "sharp" the new 100-400 is, you won't get more resolution from cropping an image shot at 400mm, as shot with the Tamron at 600mm. There's no way the Tamron would be that bad. If it were, nobody would buy it, and I doubt Tamron would build it. This isn't the 1990's anymore. And from what I've seen, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 definitely is sharper than the difference in the price, compared to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. 75% as sharp? More like 90%. 90% of the sharpness for 75% (or less) of the price. As for the autofocus speed, I can't say. No doubt nothing can touch the Canon there. But I've yet to try either for myself. And also, if you are presuming to state that a cropped image from the 70-200 f/4, at 200mm, is as much resolution as the 70-300L is at 300mm (shot with the same camera obviously)...that's not just absurd, that's heresy! But I don't think that is what you meant to say...surely not! The 70-300L is extremely sharp throughout its range. Maybe not quite as sharp as the 70-200 f/2.8 ii, but then that lens doesn't go to 300mm, even with a 1.4x TC. And with the 1.4x attached, some of that magical sharpness goes away too...along with some of the AF speed...not to mention you suddenly can't go as wide as 70mm at the wide end.


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



That isn't true at all. Depending on how good the quality of the Tamron is, it could very likely perform poorly enough that its 600mm end that the Canon at 400mm is as good or better. The lens' resolving power is ultimately determined by aberrations and aperture. At the very least, the wider f/5.6 aperture of the EF 400mm lens would give it a diffraction limited resolution (~123lp/mm MTF50) edge over the f/6.3 aperture (~104lp/mm MTF50) of the Tamron 600mm. At the very least, your losing about 15-16% due to diffraction with the 600mm lens. There are also going to be compromises in order to support the zoom range. For this lens to fit into it's cost bracket (i.e. reasonably cheaper than the Canon), you have to figure Tamron is cutting even more corners, so the optical performance of the lens is not going to be absolute top notch, which means your going to have some optical aberrations on top of the diffraction, too (i.e. it's best performing aperture, it's actual DLA, is likely going to be a stop beyond maximum, f/9.)

So, I wouldn't be quite so certain that a top notch L-series 100-400mm replacement that uses the latest Canon optical tech like antireflection nanocoating on internal elements, maybe a fluorite element or two, and Canon's new high grade manufacturing process couldn't hold it's own against a mid-range 150-600mm superzoom from Tamron. It is still certainly possible the Tamron at 600mm outperforms the Canon 100-400 at 400mm, and it might even be able to edge out a 100-400 II if/when it comes out...but I wouldn't suspect the margin to be more than very slim...not with a 150-600mm zoom lens...too many necessary compromises. 



CarlTN said:


> There's no way the Tamron would be that bad. If it were, nobody would buy it, and I doubt Tamron would build it. This isn't the 1990's anymore. And from what I've seen, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 definitely is sharper than the difference in the price, compared to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. 75% as sharp? More like 90%. 90% of the sharpness for 75% (or less) of the price.



What are you basing those numbers on? Gut feeling? It would be nice to have some actual numbers or comparable MTF charts to back up those claims... I know the Tamron 70-200/2.8 is a good lens, but saying there is only a 10% margin in difference between a $1400 off-brand lens and a $2200 brand-optimized lens just needs more than a gut feeling for basis.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Time will tell. But no matter how "sharp" the new 100-400 is, you won't get more resolution from cropping an image shot at 400mm, as shot with the Tamron at 600mm. There's no way the Tamron would be that bad. If it were, nobody would buy it, and I doubt Tamron would build it.



Time will tell, indeed. It's true for the current 100-400 vs. the Sigma/Tamron lenses that go to 500mm. I bet it's also true for the 70-300L vs. the Bigma 150-500 OS, and 300mm vs. 500mm is a bigger difference than 400mm vs. 600mm. 

But even if so, Tamron would still build it and people would still buy it. People buy the Bigma, too. A zoom that goes to 600mm...Canon doesn't have one, Sigma doesn't have one (natively), there's a niche there. The new 24-70 VC is sharp, true...and it's likely that Tamron could design and build a 150-600mm lens with great IQ...but I suspect they will choose not to, because if they did, it would have to be priced too high, and that (not relatively poor IQ) would result in poor sales. 



CarlTN said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Many people buy the 70-300 *non-L* over the 70-200/4L because the former is 100mm longer, has IS, and is a bit cheaper. If they cared about IQ, they'd be better off cropping images from the shorter lens with much better IQ.
> ...



Read again, please. I've highlighted the important bit that you seem to have missed (along with the part about it being cheaper than the 70-200/4, which the 70-300L clearly isn't).


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 26, 2013)

we should see comparison shots of the new Tamron vs. Canon EF 200-400/1.4x any time soon, I guess.

If this http://blog.naver.com/sp_marketing/70179201020 is any indication of what the Tammy can do @ 600mm, I expect it to have no chance against the 200-400 with 1.4x engaged = 560mm and then cropped to match the Tamron's image. I would also think, the Tamron will not reach the 200-400 @ 400mm cropped (without using built-in extender)

And depending on how close the Tamron can get (same camera, same scene/shot, on solid tripod) to the 200-400 IQ, we can then *speculate on a higher plane* how the Tammy might compare to an improved 100-400 II - with IQ that we only know that it should be better than the current 100-400 and lower than the 200-400/1.4x @400mm. ;D


----------



## M.ST (Nov 26, 2013)

An inexpensive lens up to 600 mm sounds like a dream. But it only sounds so.

If you want quality, you have to pay the price for it.

The 200-400 Extender lens plays from the price and IQ in an other league. Even with the internal Extender on and an additional Extender the lens beats the upcoming Tam... 200-400 Extender lens performs very well. At 200 it´s nearly the same as 200 mm with the 70-200 2.8 II IS lens. At 300 mm compared to the the 300 mm 2.8 II IS lens the 300 mm 2.8 II IS wins (AF speed and IQ).

First tests with the upcoming 100-400 IS replacement shows, that there is a big gap between the replacement lens and the 200-400 Extender lens. But if you look from the 100-400 IS lens it is a big step over the old lens.


----------



## TrabimanUK (Nov 26, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> we should see comparison shots of the new Tamron vs. Canon EF 200-400/1.4x any time soon, I guess.
> 
> If this http://blog.naver.com/sp_marketing/70179201020 is any indication of what the Tammy can do @ 600mm, I expect it to have no chance against the 200-400 with 1.4x engaged = 560mm and then cropped to match the Tamron's image. I would also think, the Tamron will not reach the 200-400 @ 400mm cropped (without using built-in extender)
> 
> And depending on how close the Tamron can get (same camera, same scene/shot, on solid tripod) to the 200-400 IQ, we can then *speculate on a higher plane* how the Tammy might compare to an improved 100-400 II - with IQ that we only know that it should be better than the current 100-400 and lower than the 200-400/1.4x @400mm. ;D



Agreed, but at an estimated sub £1,500 for the Tamron, vs the £11,500 (yes, £sterling, not $US) for the 200-400 and an estimated £2,500 for the TBA 100-400ii, the Tamron (potentially) offers a hell of a lot of bang for buck for the amatuer and the less well off enthusiast, and the 600mm (ish) throw is VERY appealing. If the Tamron is anything close to the current 100-400 then it will shift a lot of units. 

Yes, it will more than likely get walked over up to 400mm by the new 100-400, but for the price/reach/IQ combination that it potentially offers, then I would be very tempted to get one for the extra reach.

Looks like Tamron might have out-Sigmad Signma!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2013)

TrabimanUK said:


> Yes, it will more than likely get walked over up to 400mm by the new 100-400, but for the price/reach/IQ



My point is that it may very well get walked over up to 400mm by the _current_ 100-400, and a new 100-400 @ 400mm will likely beat the Tamron at 600mm (i.e., you'll get better IQ by cropping). If that's true, the reach benefit is reduced, the IQ benefit is gone, and you have a slower, bigger, heavier lens for which the only _real_advantage will be price. Of course, that is a significant advantage. People will see the 600mm and the price tag, and jump. After all, there are people who buy that 650-1300mm f/8-16 lens (and some of them might even have a tripod that can support that 6 pound chunk of metal and cheap glass).


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Time will tell. But no matter how "sharp" the new 100-400 is, you won't get more resolution from cropping an image shot at 400mm, as shot with the Tamron at 600mm. There's no way the Tamron would be that bad. If it were, nobody would buy it, and I doubt Tamron would build it.
> ...



Oh? Where's your proof that it's true?


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 26, 2013)

jrista said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You're just full of conjecture today, aren't you? Nothing you've said disputes anything I've said, it's just your opinion, period. Talk about gut feelings!


----------



## Slyham (Dec 31, 2013)

One lens I would like to see in 2014 is a EF-S 135-400 4-5.6 IS STM. I am an enthusiasts on a budget and would love to see a complementary tele zoom for my 18-135. I know this lens would not be of interest to a lot of you, but I cannot afford the 100-400L. I would like it to have better build quality than the 55-250 (metal mount, etc) and lighter and cheaper than the 100-400L. Here's for hoping. ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 31, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...


But I can state with absolute certainty that a 70-200F4 will out resolve a Sigma 120-400. That's a case of a zoom lens half as long picking out more detail, so I can certainly see a lens 2/3 as long doing the same.....

Granted, the new tamron will most definitely be sharper than a Sigma 120-400, but so will a new 100-400.... My gut feeling is that they will be close in resolving power, but who knows..... Either one could surprise us.... I would not want to make a prediction one way or another....

The rumored 400F5.6 is a different story..... It is already significantly sharper than the 100-400, particularly in the corners, and if it takes the same quality jump that any of the other long lenses took going from series 1 to series 2, it should have no problems outresolving the canon 100-400 II or the Tamron 150-600.


----------

