# What next?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 11, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/02/what-next/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/02/what-next/"></a></div>
<p><strong>What Now?</strong>

I took a day off to clear the head. It was much needed.</p>
<p>After nothing showed up Wednesday, we look to the future of the Canon lineup. I’ll rank what I have as far as information on the next bodies and lenses.</p>
<p><!--more--><strong>DSLRs</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>5D Mark III orÃ‚Â SimilarÃ‚Â - The hype machine is building every day. Everyone is ready for their next full frame body. We’ve had Q3/Q4 2011 for a long while for the camera. 28mp and 7D af were the latest specs. We always hear “raw video” as well.</li>
<li>1Ds Mark IV orÃ‚Â SimilarÃ‚Â - Everyone is wondering where it is, and there is next to zero information about it. All I’ve been told from very good people is late 2011 or even into 2012 for any type of announcement.</li>
<li>1D Mark V – It’s been suggested a couple of times we’d see this camera before a 1Ds Mark IV.</li>
<li>New Body i.e. 3D – We had a r<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/01/land-of-crazy-not-so-crazy-cr1-5/">ecent full frame rumor</a>, it has yet to come to fruition.</li>
</ol>
<p>There’s going to be some significant changes in the Canon DSLR lineup over the next year I think. I know the mention of a 5D Mark III makes some people hyperventilate.</p>
<p><strong>Lenses</strong></p>
<ol>
<li><strong>24-70 f/2.8 II </strong>- It’s coming, <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/10/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-patent/">the patent exists</a>. When? Makes sense to arrive with a 5D Mark III. All the signs point to no IS in the lens.</li>
<li><strong>35 f/1.4L II</strong> – It seems to be wanted, although I love the current one. I haven’t heard anything about it in a while.</li>
<li><strong>50 f/1.2L II</strong> – More talk about this lens than you’d think. Not sure what to make of the chatter. It has a bit of bad PR with its focus shift.</li>
<li><strong>24-105 f/4L II</strong> – Upgraded IS and the new kit lens for the 5D3.</li>
<li><strong>135 f/1.8L</strong> – Speed up and replace an absolute classic lens in the 135 f/2L? It’s constantly talked about.</li>
<li><strong>200 f/3.5L IS Macro</strong> – The big macro is getting replaced, it’s a nice niche lens they don’t need large scale manufacturing for.</li>
<li><strong>90 f/2.8L Tilt-Shift</strong> – Another lens they’d be smart to upgrade. There’s a lot of tilt-shift portrait work going on.</li>
<li><strong>17-40 f/4L IS </strong>- An ultra wide angle lens with IS is missing from the EF lineup, Nikon has one.</li>
</ol>
<p>I’ve said 2011 would be a big lens year for Canon. I still stand behind that. Although, lenses are always harder to get information on than camera bodies.</p>
<p>Bear in mind this list is anÃ‚Â accumulationÃ‚Â of things I’ve been sent.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## LukeS (Feb 11, 2011)

Any news on if the 100-400 will be upgraded anytime soon?


----------



## KWSW (Feb 11, 2011)

still waiting to see if the 3D will come... really looking forward to a new FF that does well in low light for events...


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 11, 2011)

LukeS said:


> Any news on if the 100-400 will be upgraded anytime soon?



I'm still behind the thought process that the 70-300 is the new 100-400. They'll see how that goes and go from there. I was told that by a person that would be about as knowledgable as they come.

I have posted that the 100-400 would be upgraded in 2011, but that could be the 200-400.

It's a confusing area of the lens lineup.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 11, 2011)

The only thing on the list I'd be interested in buying is the 90 f2.8 TS-E II. BUT NOT if it is an OVERPRICED "L" LENS.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 11, 2011)

I happen to believe the rumor about the "3D" coming at the end of February. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. At the very least I'm waiting until 1 March before deciding anything. For one thing, there is the rumor on the Nikon side about the D800, whatever that will be.


----------



## davidonformosa (Feb 11, 2011)

I'm interested to see if Canon release a cheaper 30mm-ish prime lens. Either an update of the existing 35mm f/2 or a new lens such as a 30mm f/1.8. 

I thought something like this could have been released with the two new Rebels, however it seems the two new Speedlites were the goodies there.


----------



## RyanCrierie (Feb 11, 2011)

Talked to a Washington Post photographer who was sporting a 5D Mk 2 at a recent publicity event for SpaceX/Tesla on K Street.

She did mention a rough timeframe -- nine months -- for the 5D Mk 3.

As an aside, she also loved her 5D Mk 2, as it could produce good shots up to ISO 2500. Just sayin'.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 11, 2011)

RyanCrierie said:


> Talked to a Washington Post photographer who was sporting a 5D Mk 2 at a recent publicity event for SpaceX/Tesla on K Street.
> 
> She did mention a rough timeframe -- nine months -- for the 5D Mk 3.
> 
> As an aside, she also loved her 5D Mk 2, as it could produce good shots up to ISO 2500. Just sayin'.



she probably got her info from a colleague who reads Canon Rumors ;D


----------



## ronderick (Feb 11, 2011)

I think we're most likely to hear the shot fired by Nikon via either the D4 or Baby D4 announcement first ... why should Canon use extra fuel when it has the lead in the affordable FF field?


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Feb 11, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> I'm still behind the thought process that the 70-300 is the new 100-400. They'll see how that goes and go from there.



While the announcement of the 200-400, which is of course an entirely different beast than the 100-400, seems to validate that line of thought, I won't accept this lens as such. I might be a nice lens and all, but the thing is totally overpriced and 300mm is not 400mm (and any talk about crop sensor advantage is total bull, what about FF users, what about crop users that need every mm of FL?). 
If they eliminate or rather no longer evolve reasonably affordable means to get to 400mm (or maybe even 500mm, how about a 500 f5.6 IS?) and continue completely dropping the middle ground in their lens line up, which they seem to be doing at the moment, they will ultimately loose me as a customer. Just look at what lens announcements have been made over the recent years: A bunch of more or less el-cheapo kit or superzoom lenses (the 15-85 shines a bit here, but it is still just a slow standard zoom) and at the other end of the spectrum only overpriced niche (TS-E) or "pro-only" (the new super teles) lenses. The only exception is the 100L Macro, which is (barely) within the "reasonable" price range (although the almost 100% price increase of the non-L non-IS predecessor is really steep), but non-macro guys will shrug that one of as a niche lens as well.

So if they go on like this, and if I have to look to Sigma/Tamron/Tokina to find reasonably priced "enthusiast" lenses, I will definitely switch the camp -- after all, its not the recent smattering of great bodies that keeps me with Canon (how much longer will they play catch up with Nikon? After 2 years the finally answered the D300(s) with the 7D, but there is still no answer to the D700, and the 60D can't hold a candle to the D7000). Now add in that there is a lot less moaning about AF problems with third party lenses in the yellow camp, why should I bother with inferior Canon bodies any longer?
What still _does_ keep me with Canon are a few gems in their lens line up (most of which I have) -- and a lot of these gems are actually overdue for some polishing. The problem is that even if they _did_ the polishing, the main part they seem to be doing is polishing Canon's EBIT by adding at least 25 to 50% of the price over that of the predecessor, or even more if they slap a red ring on it in the process, just consider the doubling of the price for the TS-E 24 II, 100L or the near tripling for the 70-300L. So with that strategy they move formerly mid-range lenses firmly into high-end (or at least high-price) territory.

I will hold back with any investments in my hobby for now ( I admit that I _am_ lusting for the 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I will manage to keep that urge under control) and wait what this year brings. If the D800 becomes what people expect from Nikon and if the 5DMk.III ends up being the luke-warm lets-not-canibalize-our-valuable-1D(s)-line "upgrade" that people have started to expect from Canon, I am gone.


----------



## CJRodgers (Feb 11, 2011)

Surely Canon would miss a massive opportunity if they didn't continue with 5d series name. It must be one of the most anticipated cameras in a long long time. It's gota b coming whenever they feel the time is right.


----------



## Woody (Feb 11, 2011)

I really want a Canon mirrorless camera.


----------



## jrahadi (Feb 11, 2011)

*135 f/1.8L and 35 f/1.4 L II*

If the 135 f/1.8 L is priced similar to Sony Zeiss 135 f/1.8, I'll snap it.
If the 35 f/1.4 L II IQ is similar to the Nikon 35 f/1.4G AF-S and priced below it, I'll snap it too.


----------



## Catastrophile (Feb 11, 2011)

the latest 3D rumors were saying that it's coming in CP+, unlikely to materialize now (another wave of announcements???). so 3D in the moment is back to its usual status of a phantom rather than rumored camera. our best hope is a 5D Mk 3D (a very advanced 5D Mk III that satisfies most of those who were waiting for a 3D).


----------



## fman (Feb 11, 2011)

Grummbeerbauer said:


> I will hold back with any investments in my hobby for now ( I admit that I _am_ lusting for the 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I will manage to keep that urge under control) and wait what this year brings. If the D800 becomes what people expect from Nikon and if the 5DMk.III ends up being the luke-warm lets-not-canibalize-our-valuable-1D(s)-line "upgrade" that people have started to expect from Canon, I am gone.



I couldn't have said it any better myself.
This will be a decisive year for both Canon and for Canon users.
It's just not possible to endlessly introduce premium price new lens variants while offering inferior bodies in order not cannibalize the flagship product.


----------



## grauniad (Feb 11, 2011)

All this talk of new L lenses is well and good, but amateurs with smaller budgets wish some other lenses would be improved or provided, e.g, a new version of the 50mm f/1.4 , a new EF-S 35mm f/1.8 (comparable to Nikon's model), and a new version of any (or all) of 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 28mm f/1.8, or 35mm f/2, all very old models.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 11, 2011)

As Canon makes its announcements leading up to major events, what are the up coming events?


----------



## fman (Feb 11, 2011)

Peerke said:


> LOL. You both, as hobbyists, have high demands when you claim that Canon produces inferior products. I bet you want 10.000,- $$$ IQ but only want to pay 100,- $$$. You're not even making (much?) money since you are not professional. If you are complaining about IQ, I would invest in a workshop to learn and take better pictures. Strange that top photographers never complain about equipment and just take amazing pictures.



As owning couple of L lens + a few others not particularly cheap (like EF-S 15-85) I've already spent a lot more on Canon stuff than you think (I'm nevertheless happy to report that people who actually have seen my pictures did not see the need to enroll me some photography course).

Please note that I was not complaining on IQ (in particular not those new lenses that I have like EF 100 2.8L IS which is in my view outstanding) but no matter how I look the recently introduced 60D is clearly inferior compared to D7000. Both IQ wise and from handling point of view. Not to mention features like dual SD slot that allows separating RAW or JPG or pictures from video.
Have you ever checked how WB, flash exposure correction or middle AF point setting can be done using 60D?

So having good but maybe a bit overpriced lenses is just one side of the story.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Feb 11, 2011)

I still have hopes for a Canon equivalent of a 14-24 zoom!


----------



## stark-arts (Feb 11, 2011)

I would join the chorus of voices calling to update the non-l primes. The 5D is an expensive camera line for the average person but it's the least expensive full frame so many people buy it wanting full frame (if they need it or not is a whole other argument) and then they need glass. The can go with the inferior 24-70 (some people love it but mine was soft) or they can pick A single prime (as the L line up consists of lenses that cost as much as the zooms for the most part and often times more). I shoot with the 35 1.4 and the 135/f2 ninety percent of the time because I like those looks but I'd love to have a solid fast focusing 20 or 24 that doesn't break the bank...I think i'm one of many.

I'd really like to see a line up of 300 dollar lenses with the build quality of the nikon 35 1.8 but built for FF - I say again there is NO REASON to have EFS primes other than greed. FF primes actually generally look better on EFS cameras so why cut out all the potential ff buyers?

18, 20, 24, 35, 50, 85, 100, all at f2 or better (except the 18 and 24 i guess - that would make them really expensive) with that nice but no L quality...and you'd sell tons. Add the much wanted 400 and 500 5.6's with IS and 1000-1500 prices and you'd own nikon again...


----------



## Justin (Feb 11, 2011)

So we're hoping for an ultrawide with IS but are resigned to the standard zoom being without?

If the 24-70 remake is without IS I don't see myself buying it.


----------



## Justin (Feb 11, 2011)

Haha. I bet.



kubelik said:


> RyanCrierie said:
> 
> 
> > Talked to a Washington Post photographer who was sporting a 5D Mk 2 at a recent publicity event for SpaceX/Tesla on K Street.
> ...


----------



## Kuscali (Feb 11, 2011)

I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 11, 2011)

Kuscali said:


> I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.


It would probably cost and weigh the same as the present 16-35 2.8 II. The 16-35 would still be the better deal, with an extra stop. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge when the light is very low.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 11, 2011)

Etienne said:


> Kuscali said:
> 
> 
> > I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.
> ...



I'd vote either the 16-35 2.8 L II or the 17-55 2.8 IS on a 7D body.

what is it exactly you need the IS for? if you are using the lens for landscapes, you need to be purchasing and using a tripod. if you are using the lens for a walkaround/general purpose shooting lens, the f/2.8 max aperture and the current ISO ceilings of even crop body cameras means you can get excellent shot in a massive variety of situations.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 11, 2011)

kubelik said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Kuscali said:
> ...



Definitely the 17-55 2.8 IS if it's for a crop body. I owned this lens before I moved to the 5DII. The 17-55 is very sharp, very fast focus, and the IS is superb. I'd buy it again for a crop body.

However if you are heading to Full frame, the 16-35 2.8 is a very good ultra-wide, and the 24-105 f4 is a great normal zoom. F4 on FF is roughly the same as f2.8 on crop: FF has about a 1 stop advantage in high iso noise (so you can compensate by increasing the ISO a bit), and a 1.3 stop advantage in creating shallow DOF.


----------



## Kuscali (Feb 11, 2011)

kubelik said:



> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Kuscali said:
> ...



How about the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 (this lens would be used for Landscape I know I need a tripod, and also be my normal zoom, I have seen some impressive results from this lens).


----------



## dsa1979 (Feb 11, 2011)

All L lenses.... Sic! 

ItÂ´s sad that Canon want update the old standard EF-lenses. :'(


----------



## Etienne (Feb 11, 2011)

Kuscali said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



" I'd pay the extra for the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II because it takes filters, and is much smaller and lighter than this Tokina." - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/16-28mm.htm

Also on that site Ken claims that they are optically similar. But the the Canon you get an extra 7mm reach, which comes in very handy.

Tokina makes some nice lenses (I still own the 50-135 2.8, and I would buy the 11-16 2.8 for crop), but the Canon L's are built like a dream and are a pleasure to use, with full-time manual focus over-ride as well. The zoom and focus rings on Canon L's are smooth as cream.


----------



## remy.brooks (Feb 12, 2011)

im sick of waiting for a 5d mark iii, a 3d or a 7d mark ii. im also waiting for the IS!!! VERSION of the 24-70. it would be stupid of canon not to include the is. i want a camera with 16-21 megapixels. 6-7 frames per second with a boost with a battery grip( maybe 8-9). between 29 and 56 af points and make it full frame. ( no built in flash, nice iso capabilities and hd video. They could easily do something like this for about $3000.


----------



## djjohnr (Feb 12, 2011)

> What still _does_ keep me with Canon are a few gems in their lens line up (most of which I have) -- and a lot of these gems are actually overdue for some polishing. The problem is that even if they _did_ the polishing, the main part they seem to be doing is polishing Canon's EBIT by adding at least 25 to 50% of the price over that of the predecessor, or even more if they slap a red ring on it in the process, just consider the doubling of the price for the TS-E 24 II, 100L or the near tripling for the 70-300L. So with that strategy they move formerly mid-range lenses firmly into high-end (or at least high-price) territory.



I just switched from Nikon to Canon for the TS-E line due to cost of body and lenses as well as the quality of the 24mm. If you want FF with Nikon you're looking at $3k for 12 mpix or $2k min used for a D700 versus $3k for 21 mpix new for a 5d Mark 2 or $900 for a used Mark 1. On top of that the Nikon PC-Es go for $2k+ new versus $1300 for non-L TS-Es, and you can get the 24mm L Mark 1 as well as the 45mm and 90mm for around $800 used. Additionally Nikon's 24mm PC-E has a major CA problem (worse then the 24mm L Mark 1) that's not easily fixable in post. 

I really miss the ergonomics and build quality of my D200 though.


----------



## tzalmagor (Feb 12, 2011)

I might upgrade one of the ultra-wide zooms, if the price doesn't rise too sharply.

Higher on my buying list is the Sigma 12-24mm II, Sigma 85mm f/1.4, and I wish a good Sigma 135mm


----------

