# A Big Lens Announcement in September? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 29, 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=14271"></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=14271">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Something in an L?

</strong>We’re told that there are tentative plans for a lens announcement sometime in late September and it would be a “big deal”.</p>
<p>No mention of what lens, and Canon doesn’t hold press events just for lenses.</p>
<p>We’re trying to find out more, as this came from a first time source. I expect the usual suspects will be talked about.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 29, 2013)

T6i?

Jim


----------



## pwp (Aug 29, 2013)

A "_big_" lens announcement?
Could it be a "big" lens announcement or perhaps the announcement of a new "big" lens.
I'm just aching with anticipation...

-PW


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2013)

12-24mm f/2.8L IS. 

Ok, I jest...I'm a geek, after all.


----------



## tiger82 (Aug 29, 2013)

Jim Saunders said:


> T6i?
> 
> Jim



Lens, not body


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 12-24mm f/2.8L IS.
> 
> Ok, I jest...I'm a geek, after all.


 
I want to hit 10000 posts so I can be one too


----------



## crasher8 (Aug 29, 2013)

I'll take big apertures.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Aug 29, 2013)

Canon is getting better at teasing us... ;D

I think it's going to be a super-duper telephoto lens. I'd like to think it's going to be a high resolution lens. But not until it's closer to their big MP camera release...


----------



## tiger82 (Aug 29, 2013)

If Canon is going to announce large MP bodies, it's time to start setting them up with lenses. The 14-24mm f/2.8L would be such a lens. Maybe a larger aperture 28-300? A wide angle larger aperture prime like a 14mm f/2, f/1.8, or f/1.4 would fit the bill as well.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 29, 2013)

Come on, 10mm rectilinear EF prime. 

At f/1.0.


----------



## dave (Aug 29, 2013)

The 200-400 f/4 L IS already sold are too good and need to be recalled for crippling.


----------



## Twostones (Aug 29, 2013)

A 400mm 5.6 with IS would be nice.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Aug 29, 2013)

pwp said:


> A "_big_" lens announcement?
> Could it be a "big" lens announcement or perhaps the announcement of a new "big" lens.
> I'm just aching with anticipation...
> 
> -PW




Yes, is it a big lens, or a big announcement about a lens?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 29, 2013)

A big lens announcement would be a 1200F5.6 lens...... But I'll settle for an updated 400F5.6, it would be a lot easier to carry.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 29, 2013)

Seriously, though- I'm really hoping it's a 14-24 2.8L. I would buy that in a heartbeat.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 29, 2013)

135mm f/1.8L IS USM


----------



## sevvo (Aug 29, 2013)

A new-and-improved 100-400?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

16-50 f/4 IS???     

probably 14-24 though?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

300mm f/2 IS


----------



## Zv (Aug 29, 2013)

A new type of IS perhaps? It has to be something different and not just an update to an existing lens like the 100-400L. An update in itself isn't big news. There's gotta be something but we have been down this road before and it only led to dissapointment ...


----------



## brad-man (Aug 29, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 135mm f/1.8L IS USM



No. The upcoming announcement is from _Canon_, not _Sigma_


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Aug 29, 2013)

brad-man said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 135mm f/1.8L IS USM
> ...



lol. +1

Ya, it's Canon - they'll be releasing a135mm *f/4* IS.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Aug 29, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



lolz. +2


----------



## distant.star (Aug 29, 2013)

.
At CR1 level, you can say or think anything!

Whatever it is, I predict they'll call it the Isaac Newton Super Chief Interstellar Sky Assembler.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 12-24mm f/2.8L IS.
> 
> Ok, I jest...I'm a geek, after all.



YEAP...*12*-24mm f2.8 IS + 85L f1.2 IS III(AF speed as fast as 70-200) ;D

Count me in for both


----------



## infared (Aug 29, 2013)

It has to be a lens to compete with the 12-24mm Nikkor....it's tme.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 29, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> At CR1 level, you can say or think anything!
> 
> Whatever it is, I predict they'll call it the Isaac Newton Super Chief Interstellar Sky Assembler.



I was thinking Luxury _Art_ Dynamic Image Digital Aperture


----------



## siegsAR (Aug 29, 2013)

17-40mm II... What do you know, big and wide... ;D


----------



## sanj (Aug 29, 2013)

Updated 800 pls


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 29, 2013)

I'm ready for a great new lens. I hope I don't have to sell the house to get it though.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 29, 2013)

brad-man said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



This place should be called Wiseguys Anonymous. ;D

Jim


----------



## MrFotoFool (Aug 29, 2013)

sevvo said:


> A new-and-improved 100-400?



This lens is loooong overdue and would likely sell like hotcakes, as did the current version. I was recently looking at Nikon and they have a new improved version of their 80-400 and the reviews are off-the-charts positive. The improved Canon would need zoom ring instead of push pull and preferably start at 80mm instead of 100mm to match Sigma and Nikon.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Aug 29, 2013)

14-24 f/2.8, 16-50 f/4 IS, 400 f/5.6 IS or 100-400 replacement....

Any (or all) of those would be welcome in my eyes.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 29, 2013)

A new wide, please; After that there'll be lots of 16-35s for sale and I can get one without breaking the bank.

...Who am I kidding, I'm no good at not buying the latest-and-greatest. 

Jim


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 29, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> A big lens announcement would be a 1200F5.6 lens...... But I'll settle for an updated 400F5.6, it would be a lot easier to carry.



For such a 'big 'ens' I'd expect the announcement to be 'small', aimed mostly at professionals that might actually use this niche product.

If it is a significant lens, I'd think it is something coveted by many photographers, such as the 100-400 shown at the start of this thread, or maybe a new 50L. Somehow I think a 35L is not significant enough. 

So based on the original info I'd say if anything is anounced, it's an 'L' telezoom, normal prime or quite possibly a WA zoom with a new range.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 29, 2013)

12-24mm f2.8L would be the important add-on to their lineup. Updates for the 35 f1.4L, 50 f1.2L and 85 f1.2L would be most welcome and within their zoom portfolio, I would love to see a new version of the 100-400.


----------



## Woody (Aug 29, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> 16-50 f/4 IS???



I'll buy this in a heartbeat. Already set aside funds for it... just waiting...


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Aug 29, 2013)

Whatever does come out.... It's gonna be expensive.


----------



## azphotographe (Aug 29, 2013)

May be a new version of the canon 35 or 135L. They are of the oldest lens.


----------



## e-d0uble (Aug 29, 2013)

50mm f/.95!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

brad-man said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Maybe the "Canon EF 14-24mm f/2.8 *P*ro *O*ptical *S*ystem"


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2013)

e-d0uble said:


> 50mm f/.95!




51mm f/0.94

Their 50mm 1.4 needs an AF update so badly is isn't even funny so maybe a 50 f/1.4 Mark II with true USM.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 29, 2013)

Is this Canon US ? EF-M 11-22mm maybe ;-)

In all seriousness, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a EF-M 11-22mm and another EF-M - perhaps 55-200mm compact tele zoom or an EF-M 18-135mm

A repkacement 100-400 or even 200-400mm f5.6 IS would be a nice cheapie L ! I'm seriously reluctant to grab a 100-400 at the moment given I'm managing with the 70-300 non L


----------



## Terry Rogers (Aug 29, 2013)

Twostones said:


> A 400mm 5.6 with IS would be nice.



+1 if they could keep it to under $1400


----------



## bitm2007 (Aug 29, 2013)

WEX Photographic (the online retailer of the year since 2002 here in the UK) are offering 10% discount to existing customer on top of the £170 cashback (rebate) offered by Canon on the 16-35mm f2.8 L MkII USM. Is this a sign that the announcement is for the previously rumored 16-50mm L ?. It's the only lens with the double discount !.


----------



## pedro (Aug 29, 2013)

Without reading the whole thread: If this is a new source let's see what "regular" sources will come up with in the next days. As it is stated, that Canon doesn't hold press events just for lenses, either there won't materialize anything, or we will see a big surprise... what if Canon changed plans and announces a yet to be released high MP body? Maybe early 2014, as similar to the 1Dx back then?


----------



## vlim (Aug 29, 2013)

A new 100-400 finally ? why not...

Wow 2014 could be a great year for wildlife and sport shooters if it's true with a possible 7D mark II and the rumors of Sigma working on its new generation of big lens

;D


----------



## AUGS (Aug 29, 2013)

This would be my bet....


adhocphotographer said:


> 14-24 f/2.8, 16-50 f/4 IS, 400 f/5.6 IS or 100-400 replacement....
> 
> Any (or all) of those would be welcome in my eyes.


I'd definitely be in the market for the 14-24, with a 400/5.6IS and/or 100-400.

My "left-field guess" is a TS-E 100 f4L Macro, give or take a few millimetres focal length and a bit on aperture. This was rumored a while ago.

And while I'm speculating I'll add an "outside the box" rank outside option - a medium format lens development announcement with a MF-EF adapter. This would fit the unusual announcement for a lens only, but I'll expect a body announcement instead.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 29, 2013)

The four most-needed lenses are, IMHO:

100-400L II which could also replace the 300/4 and 400/5.6.
17-55/2.8 IS updated to 15-60/2.8L IS (EF-S).
24-70/2.8 needs IS.
16-35/2.8L II needs an update of some sort to be sharp in the corners. Personally I think a 12-24/4 makes more sense than a 14-24/2.8. This would be consistent with the 8-15/4 replacing the f/2.8 fisheye prime.


----------



## vlim (Aug 29, 2013)

What i really would like is a 400 f/5.6 L with IS and weather sealing. I already have the 70-200 and 300 both f/4 IS and i only need that one...

Or a 500 f/5.6 L IS but it will never happen, it would be a foolish decision in terms of marketing !


----------



## ecka (Aug 29, 2013)

EF 35/1.2L
:


----------



## candyman (Aug 29, 2013)

I would say that a 'big' lens announcement would be about a lens many people wish for and that is currently not yet part of the lens family. That could be 14-24 f/2.8 fitting the 24-70 f/2.8 II
But it is only an announcement. Availability could be september 2014 ......


----------



## GuyF (Aug 29, 2013)

500-800mm f5.6 zoom no inbuilt TC.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 29, 2013)

vlim said:


> A new 100-400 finally ? why not...



After releasing the 24-70ii and the 200-400 Canon wouldn't want to deprive rumor sites of the longest running non-existent lens!

But on the other hand side, the rumor was that they'd tackle the 100-400L after their super-extra-mega-tele is in production, and as that's really the case now it could actually happen...


----------



## GuyF (Aug 29, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> vlim said:
> 
> 
> > A new 100-400 finally ? why not...
> ...



Would a replacement 100-400 be a "big" announcement? Replacing a lens with a tweaked version doesn't strike me as being a big deal.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 29, 2013)

GuyF said:


> Would a replacement 100-400 be a "big" announcement?



It will be for Canon after they calculated the price and the revenue they expect :-> ... and I understand this lens is still extremely popular. The only other "big" missing lens seems to be a 14-24-like pro uwa.


----------



## LuCoOc (Aug 29, 2013)

My guess is a 50mm 1.8 or 2.0 with IS and maybe a new 85 also with IS.


----------



## Harry Muff (Aug 29, 2013)

I doubt they would have a big even just to announce one lens. More like one lens with some new, or new to the L series technology such as STM or a new IS system.




Of course, someone could just have their wires crossed and the event is for something else too which makes it bigger.


----------



## symmar22 (Aug 29, 2013)

azphotographe said:


> May be a new version of the canon 35 or 135L. They are of the oldest lens.



A lot of lenses are even older : the 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro and 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus (1987), 50 f1.8 II (1990), 100 f2, 45mm and 90mm TS-E (1991), 20mm f2.8 and 85 f1.8 (1992), 50mm f1.4 and 400mm f5.6 (1993) and 28mm f1.8 (1995).

The 35mm f1.4 would nevertheless need a refresh (improved IQ and weather sealing), the 135mm f2 could use weather sealing and IS, as well as the 400mm f5.6.

I am more thinking of 45mm and 90mm TS-E (100mm f3.5 L Macro TS-E) and wide zooms (14-24mm and 16-50mm IS). 

I would love to see a 180mm Macro II, sealed and stabilised, but I doubt it will happen.


----------



## luoto (Aug 29, 2013)

Nah, the real new lens is the 1200mm full frame f4 with IS, and a EF-S/EF-M option.

Plus a change away from "white" to "black" lens...


----------



## Harry Muff (Aug 29, 2013)

Did the 200-400 have its own event, or was it part of something else?


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 29, 2013)

LuCoOc said:


> My guess is a 50mm 1.8 or 2.0 with IS and maybe a new 85 also with IS.



Nooooo, Canon is able to bore us own their own, [CR1] threads should be reserved to the juicy stuff!



luoto said:


> Plus a change away from "white" to "black" lens...



They wouldn't give up one of their best marketing advantages (as lenses like the 70-300L don't profit from the white color. However, Canon might introduce a new top lens line with *silver, gold or platinum coating* to make lesser brand photos to be stunned in awe and the crowd in front divide as by magic one the owner arrives


----------



## kenny (Aug 29, 2013)

I'd probably enjoy seeing the 100-400 most. Though, I think Canon would be smart to compete in the 12/14-24 f/2.8 range.


----------



## luoto (Aug 29, 2013)

Knowing how "mad" they have been with their share to facebook type thingy on the Powershot, perhaps the "superteles" will have a separate function to automatically share to Facebook, mangle pictures with shitty filters on Instagram and the like (perhaps a small wifi/3g module) in line with the camera. 

Just hope they don't get inveigled into Apple's "rounded corners" patent gun  

Whatever it is, hopefully time will tell.


----------



## endiendo (Aug 29, 2013)

I vote for a replacement - for a new genious - of the 100-400 L !!!!!!! this would be wonderful


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 29, 2013)

ecka said:


> EF 35/1.2L
> :



YES I would like that (but a Sigma f/1.4 is more likely to become part of my kit).


----------



## adhocphotographer (Aug 29, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> Did the 200-400 have its own event, or was it part of something else?



Good point!


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 29, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



Don't forget the built in macro mode. X_X


----------



## PhotographiesND (Aug 29, 2013)

A new 100-400 is what I am expecting for...

with aperture F/4 constant...


----------



## RGF (Aug 29, 2013)

kenny said:


> I'd probably enjoy seeing the 100-400 most. Though, I think Canon would be smart to compete in the 12/14-24 f/2.8 range.



Perhaps both? Won't be 100-400 F4 since that is basically the 200-400.Needs to be 5.6 or variable aperature


----------



## RGF (Aug 29, 2013)

replacement for the version II of the 300, 400, 500, and 600 with built-in 1.4 convertors (like the 200-400). Of course the price would jump by $2,000 per lens (ouch!)


----------



## Eimajm (Aug 29, 2013)

Maybe some bright spark at Canon found out that they could make a 400mm F4 out of the 200-400mm parts laying around, and have decide to replace the DO?


----------



## KyleSTL (Aug 29, 2013)

RGF said:


> replacement for the version II of the 300, 400, 500, and 600 with built-in 1.4 convertors (like the 200-400). Of course the price would jump by $2,000 per lens (ouch!)


Man, you are optimistic on price. Anyway, as the 200mm f/2L IS and 800mm f/5.6L IS look like bargains now in the supertele line, I'd bet on both of those being replaced with all the modern improvements of the other version II lenses, a matching paint color (those last-generation lenses look so outdated with different paint color /sarcasm) and an 'updated' MSRP. 

Also good possibilities (only in the 'big' news realm):
45mm TS-E L and 90mm TS-E L
300mm f/4L IS replacement and 400mm f/5.6L IS

Then again, who predicted that Canon would replace the 15mm Fisheye with an 8-15mm zoom? Maybe we are all thinking a bit too much inside the box.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 29, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



LOL.... ;D ;D ;D


----------



## JonS (Aug 29, 2013)

200mm macro to replace the elderly 180?


----------



## Ruined (Aug 29, 2013)

Here is my guess:

EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 IS $1499 - similar to the EF version in quality but smaller in size w/o weather sealing.

...to compliment an imminent 7D MKII announcement!

Might sound crazy, but it is the one major gap in the EF-S lens series and would be a huge seller w/ the 7D MKII and 70D.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 29, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Here is my guess:
> 
> EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 IS $1499 - similar to the EF version in quality but smaller in size w/o weather sealing.
> 
> ...


I fully agree. The full frame body owners would say "buy EF lenses" because they think you will someday make the leap to full frame.  Well, I say do not intend to move to full frame, and would be very happy with a lens like the EF-S 70-200 F2.8 IS, or 55-150 F2.8 IS. Where are the high quality lenses, lighter and cheaper?  Ah ... They are only in Sigma.


----------



## candyman (Aug 29, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Here is my guess:
> 
> EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 IS $1499 - similar to the EF version in quality but smaller in size w/o weather sealing.
> 
> ...




More thinking about a 55-135mm f/2.8 IS...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 29, 2013)

candyman said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Here is my guess:
> ...


In the past did Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 but no longer does. :'( Now only Sigma 50-150 F2.8 OS, which seems a good lens, but size and weight seem as large as 70-200 F2.8.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 29, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Here is my guess:
> 
> EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 IS $1499 - similar to the EF version in quality but smaller in size w/o weather sealing.
> 
> ...



Wouldn't you think an EF-S 70-300mm IS F4 would be more likely?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 29, 2013)

dstppy said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Here is my guess:
> ...


Yes, I wish it was. But, according to statement of Neuro:

"for a telephoto design, the size of the image circle isn't limiting, the limiting parameter is filling the entrance pupil with light, and the entrance pupil is effectively at the front element."

So it seems 300mm does not allow a great advantage of EF-S in size and weight compared to EF.


----------



## Ripley (Aug 29, 2013)

The 40mm was a pretty big hit, how about another EF pancake of some sort?

A big small lens announcement ???


----------



## Ewinter (Aug 29, 2013)

The 14-24 would be typical as I've just bought a 16-35


----------



## Ruined (Aug 29, 2013)

dstppy said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Here is my guess:
> ...



The only problem with that is that APS-C really needs F/2.8 for optimal quality in low light due to its smaller sensor and the noise seen in higher ISOs. Thus, a F/2.8 IS EF-S telephoto zoom with L-lens quality (on par with the 17-55 & 10-22) would really fit the bill, and it would be a cool option if it was a bit lighter and smaller than the EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS II, perhaps by having polycarbonate body (but metal mount) instead of metal body and utilizing advantages of EF-S for a bit smaller size/weight.

It shouldn't be Canon's marketing strategy to get people to dump 1.6 crop for full frame. It should be their strategy to market that each are better at different things (which is actually true) and get people to buy into BOTH.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 29, 2013)

A new big white for the masses please. This could be a couple of different forms---100-400L, 400 mm f/5.6 IS or a 500 mm f/5.6 IS (that one may cost, say $3-5k, but with great optics, I'd buy it)


----------



## dlleno (Aug 29, 2013)

Ruined said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



it seems to me that with the recent 55-250mm IS STM announcement, that Canon is showing their roadmap in this focal length range for the EF-S mount. Indeed, f/2.8 in this focal length range is wonderful, but apparently, Canon expects that those who value that capability enough to make a sizable investment will purchase the real deal.


> It shouldn't be Canon's marketing strategy to get people to dump 1.6 crop for full frame. It should be their strategy to market that each are better at different things (which is actually true) and get people to buy into BOTH.



Well, a lot of folks put the whites on EF-S bodies , and the use of the real deal on both bodies may be the Canon expectation. Anyway, this is a rumor site so any and all opinions are both valid and welcome; The suggestion is compelling, to be sure. For some reason I just don't see Canon investing in a budget version of what can arguably be considered a flagship achievement, not to mention the marketing value of the '70-200' label itself.


----------



## xps (Aug 29, 2013)

100-400 4.0 L @ 5000-6000€
100-400 4,5-5.6 II @ 3000 €-3500€

Announcement in September, sold in CPS stores 4-5 month from announcement. price like announced, no rebates. 
Delivery on massmarket after another 4 month. Then rebates are possible on online stores like we are used to see..


Just kidding? 
No. This was an price winning scenario to "optmize" the profit some years ago ....


----------



## jasonsim (Aug 29, 2013)

Who is going to pay for a $1500 70-200 EF-S lens that is plastic, no weather sealing, no hood included, and may or may not have fluorite elements?

I know I would not! It will still have a lot of glass and only be marginally lighter.


----------



## xps (Aug 29, 2013)

Maybe an wideangle L lens to fight the Sigma 1.8 Art lenses. 
I own one. It is an great lens...
If Canon would produce it, the price would have benn doubled.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 29, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> Who is going to pay for a $1500 70-200 EF-S lens that is plastic, no weather sealing, no hood included, and may or may not have fluorite elements?
> 
> I know I would not! It will still have a lot of glass and only be marginally lighter.



$1000 less is a lot of money  The f/2.8 70-200mm IS II is simply out of the price range for some people. 

And, I would bet a lot of people would opt for a plastic, non-weather sealed EF-S f/2.8 70-200mm over an equivalent focal length f/4 metal EF lens. Because although it would not be as solid in build, it would be lighter both physically and on the pocket - and you'd likely get better low light pics due to the f/2.8 aperature.


----------



## dlleno (Aug 29, 2013)

The after market already has $1500 70-200 f/2.8 offerings. I don't see the motivation for Canon to compete in that arena.


----------



## dlleno (Aug 29, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> Who is going to pay for a $1500 70-200 EF-S lens that is plastic, no weather sealing, no hood included, and may or may not have fluorite elements?
> 
> I know I would not! It will still have a lot of glass and only be marginally lighter.



Sigma and Tamron both think there is a market for such a lens, and appear to be filling this particular niche. I havent used either of these but compared to the Canon I'm guessing you will give up things like AF performance, distortion, CA, flare control, edge sharpness, build quality. Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 ii is a flagship and I don't think they are willing to compromise the "70-200" branding either. It seems they appear to be perfectly happy yielding to the after market in this category. 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892851-REG/Tamron_20_200mm_F_2_8_DI_VC.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689577-REG/Sigma_589101_70_200mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-70-200mm-f-2.8-DG-OS-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## xROELOFx (Aug 29, 2013)

If they say big and white, my guess is a new 800mm. Probably for the price of around EUR 14.000,-.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 29, 2013)

well the latest buzz is on focused on the sigma 18-35 1.8.. Wouldn't be surprised if Canon dishes out one of theirs. I'm gonna cash in on a big aperture zoom. with IS?


----------



## Frage (Aug 29, 2013)

I hope a cheap 35mm f/1,8 is coming


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 29, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



Remember that the F number is just the focal length divided by the diameter of the opening (a 50mm lens with a 50mm aperture is f1, 50mm with a 25mm aperture is f2, etc...).
300mm f4 basically just tells you the dimensions of the lens. 300 millimeters long with a 75mm front opening.
The advantage you get when applying a crop sensor to your lens is that you get the equivalent Field Of View of a much longer lens. When I use my $1K 400mm lens with a crop sensor it gives the same FOV as a $12K 640mm behemoth, which is nice, but once you're in the lower focal length range, getting the equivalent FOV of a 50mm lens out of a 35mm lens really doesn't save me any money. Rather the opposite actually, making a lens shorter than the flange distance requires added complexity in the lens design, to then zoom in on that with a too-small sensor is just counter-productive.
Now that the Metabones Speed Booster is out I know for sure that they could be making EF-S lenses that give the same FOV and light gathering capability as regular 35mm lenses on 35mm cameras. Canon just seems to have no interest in doing that. What really confuses me is that even the dedicated crop systems (MFT, Fuji) seem to like toting their small sensors as a focal length modifier rather than trying to give people equivalent wide angle/low light capabilities. It's like there's some pact that no-one anywhere (other than Metabones) is allowed to try something like that.
The unfortunate reality is probably just that companies are too afraid to try something new.


----------



## silvestography (Aug 29, 2013)

Since this won't be "just a lens", I wonder if canon will announce a USB dock similar to Sigma's offering or a new "genre" of optical formula like the DO lenses.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 29, 2013)

dlleno said:


> The after market already has $1500 70-200 f/2.8 offerings. I don't see the motivation for Canon to compete in that arena.



One of the main issues a lot of people have with the current 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is that it is too heavy to comfortably carry through the day, and it costs $2500.

By adding a EF-S F/2.8 70-200 or EF-S f/2.8 55-250 IS etc, Canon does a few things:
A) Further legitimizes EF-S/crop mount making 7D MKII and 70D easier sells.
B) Competes with third parties that are likely stealing sales away from them for people who simply cannot afford a lens that costs $2500.
C) Does little to impact sales of EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II because EF-S does not work on a full frame camera, and the EF version would be metal and weather sealed unlike the EF-S version.
D) Provides a lighter weight plastic F/2.8 lens w/ metal mount - Canon appears to be positioning crop for wildlife photographers who may not want to go hiking with a 3.3lb lens. While it may not be massively lighter, I am sure they could cut down the weight and size a bit if more plastic was used and the lens was optimized for EF-S.

Canon can very easily convince people it is worth buying both a high quality EF-S telezoom and also the current EF 70-200. Don't forget many currently have both the F2.8 *and* F/4 70-200 simply because the former is too heavy for some applications. The EF-S would be another alternative that is cheaper and of lesser build but similar optical quality, better for crop than the f/4L. 

This is of course all conjecture, but I think it would be a great idea to get people to buy into the idea of owning both APS and APS-C sets for different situations.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 29, 2013)

I'm hoping the announcement is an updated 100-400f5.6. Really for all I care it could be a 200-400f5.6, everything I've pointed my 400mm at so far hasn't filled the frame anyway, and if they could make it zoom internally as well then I wouldn't have to worry about sucking in dust.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 29, 2013)

Ruined said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > The after market already has $1500 70-200 f/2.8 offerings. I don't see the motivation for Canon to compete in that arena.
> ...


I agree. Not all owners 7D and 70D can pay $ 2500 in a 70-200 F2.8. If Canon makes an EF-S 70-200 F2.8 IS, or EF-S 55-200 F2.8 IS, can sell like hotcakes, even if it costs $ 1500. This strategy does not cannibalize sales of L series lenses.


----------



## silvestography (Aug 29, 2013)

Just had another thought based on this review (http://www.ronmartblog.com/2013/08/review-canon-ef-200-400mm-f4l-is-usm.html): could we get a 70-200 2.8 IS WITH built in 1.4x TC? The 1.4x in the 200-400 is designed specifically for that lens as to maximize optical performance, so I don't see why they couldn't do the same for a 70-200. It would be big, heavy and expensive, but I'm sure there's a market for it.


----------



## dlleno (Aug 29, 2013)

Ruined said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > The after market already has $1500 70-200 f/2.8 offerings. I don't see the motivation for Canon to compete in that arena.
> ...



well you're opinion is as good as mine  . imho Canon has bigger fish to fry than to compete head on with a lens they are already yielding to the after market. All the items in your list except B are fulfilled in the aftermarket today. Maybe Canon can find room to make money in the Budget 70-200 world I don't know ,but if so I think an APS-C offering would have to be sub $1000 to be attractive. The serious "C" body users will buy the $2500 L lens but you're making a good point here that an affordable zoom would be attractive; I just don't know how much room there is between the 55-250 and a $1200 FF compatible Sigma in which they could compete effectively. 

To direct and priorotize their available R&D efforts I think they need to update the 100-400 and shore up the UWA zoom arena before trying to enter a mature market in which they have no presence. Sigma is attacking the APS-C UWA market too; Canon needs to remain competitive there, imho and not loose to the after market. 

that said, for all I know Canon may be thinking differently. I mean they could market a $1500 long lens that can't be used on a FF; I just don't think they have it in their DNA to to that. The After market has already determined that a lightweight 70-200 f/2.8 north of $1000 will sell, but it must be usable on a FF as well.


----------



## JonAustin (Aug 29, 2013)

RGF said:


> replacement for the version II of the 300, 400, 500, and 600 with built-in 1.4 convertors (like the 200-400). Of course the price would jump by $2,000 per lens (ouch!)



I proposed a 300/4L IS II with built-in 1.4x TC in another thread here a while back, and a couple of folks jumped on me and shouted "heresy!"

My longest reach currently is 70-200/2.8L IS (I) + 1.4x TC II. My desire for something longer is present but not pressing. And swapping my 1.4x TC in and out is a pain.

I'd like to see an update to either the 300/4L IS or the 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS before opening my wallet. Like others here, a 200-400 f/4-5.6 IS would more than satisfy; I don't need the FL range overlap (or the additional size, weight and cost) of reaching down to 100 (or 80) mm.

For me, an updated 300/4L with built-in 1.4x TC, weather sealing, the latest IS, etc. would be a dream come true.


----------



## dlleno (Aug 29, 2013)

silvestography said:


> Just had another thought based on this review (http://www.ronmartblog.com/2013/08/review-canon-ef-200-400mm-f4l-is-usm.html): could we get a 70-200 2.8 IS WITH built in 1.4x TC? The 1.4x in the 200-400 is designed specifically for that lens as to maximize optical performance, so I don't see why they couldn't do the same for a 70-200. It would be big, heavy and expensive, but I'm sure there's a market for it.



interesting concept; not for me though. imho the 70-200 f/2.8 IS ii is already heavy and for me the range is just so beautiful with a FF that I want it to remain hand-holdable. If you need 70-300 then get a 70-300 ,but don't mess with the 70-200 which by itself is just soooo awesome. It would surely be a niche/specialty lens, imho, to have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS plus 1.4x. 

I do think Canon is onto somethign though -- to build the TCs into the big whites, i.e 300mm f/2.8 with a dedicated 1.4 or even 2x (or both) would be waaaaay cool. whether or not doing that to the 70-200 is another matter ...


----------



## PhotographerJim (Aug 29, 2013)

MrFotoFool said:


> sevvo said:
> 
> 
> > A new-and-improved 100-400?
> ...



I would be very happy with a 100-400 f/4


----------



## dlleno (Aug 29, 2013)

Yessss. A constant aperture f4 that will take a 1.4x nicely and a 2x in a pinch. 80 vs 100 I don't care it's just a label and the difference is not that important


----------



## Kit. (Aug 29, 2013)

Ruined said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > The after market already has $1500 70-200 f/2.8 offerings. I don't see the motivation for Canon to compete in that arena.
> ...


But 200mm/2.8 is 71mm of the entrance pupil no matter what mount is used at the back of the lens. That's a lot of glass, needing a lot of support. What makes you think that the EF-S version would be considerably cheaper and/or lighter?


----------



## sambafan (Aug 29, 2013)

You guys. It has to be a new 35/1.4, as I just bought one. You're welcome.


----------



## dlleno (Aug 30, 2013)

Kit. said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > dlleno said:
> ...



yea thats the thing. the only way to make it lighter is to use fewer elements and inferior construction materials, neither of these things would amount to a serious contribution in my opinon. Witness the $1250 Sigma, which is only two ounces lighter than the Canon. The "cheaper" aspect might come from lesser build quality and inferrior glass at least in the rear elements, as the the image circle seen by the sensor does not have to be as large as in a FF. 

So the expectation of 70-200 that is _lighter _ remains a fiction. one that is _cheaper _ could be acheived, I suppose, but I can't imagine settling for anything less than what is already available in the after market. Canon would have to basically offer a me-too lens competing directly with the current after market, or produce something even lower quality, say at $799 which frankly I can't imagine would be attractive or succesful. In fact, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the market has already established that a low cost 70-200 in the $1k region has to be FF compatible,. ergo, EF-S is'nt going to happen.

so -- what is being asked for here already exists: The Sigma. it isn't lighter but it is cheeper, and sports all the IQ features that are associated with the lower cost, compared to the $2500 canon: inferior AF performance, CA, edge-to-edge sharpness, flare control and build quality. and its FF compatible.


----------



## jasonsim (Aug 30, 2013)

I will 2nd or 3rd the guess for a new 800mm. Sales of those must be pretty stagnant since the 600mm f/4L IS II came out. I know I sold mine in favor of the new 600mm II. Very few wildlife photogs are going to pay more for an 800mm, when the 600mm + 1.4x III renders more focal length (840mm) and has better image quality. Plus I can put the 2x III on there and have a very usable 1200mm f/8 lens. 

Nikon has come out with their new 800mm lens, so Canon must answer.

That's my logic at least...I'd say it would need to be f/4 or be f/5.6 and much lighter in weight than the 600mm II to get some interest.


----------



## DzPhotography (Aug 30, 2013)

Let it be the 14-24 f2.8 pretty please! ;D


----------



## Eimajm (Aug 30, 2013)

dlleno said:


> Yessss. A constant aperture f4 that will take a 1.4x nicely and a 2x in a pinch. 80 vs 100 I don't care it's just a label and the difference is not that important



Its never going to be F4, why do people keep saying this. They have just released a 200-400 @£12K, Canon are not going to release a 100-400 F4 which would compete with their flagship model, and to get a similar quality in a wider zoom range would mean better engineering and therefore higher costs. So you would be looking at again another £12K lens...


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 30, 2013)

Given the concept has been proven on the 200-400mm and that the 500 & 600mm have been replaced fairly recently, I'm half expecting a stupidly expensive 800mm with the 1.4x built in extender at some point in the future...

But stand by my earlier post of the "big" announcement being about a "small" lens or lenses - the 22mm & 18-55mm EF-M must be up there in the top 10 for total numbers manufactured, despite been panned by many, the mirror less market isn't going to go away and will be making a small fortune for Canon. Thus, a launch of the 11-22mm in the US along with a 18-1xx or 55-2xx lens or all three !


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 30, 2013)

sambafan said:


> You guys. It has to be a new 35/1.4, as I just bought one. You're welcome.



In that case, it has to be the rumored 16-50L/4 that replaces the old 17-40L as I just bought that  ... but in each case, the new lens will be much more expensive, at least at first, so having bought the old one is not necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## Gadger (Aug 30, 2013)

I'm going with in order of importance (in my opinion )

*1) 12/14-24L f/2.8* I want in the future :

*2) 100-400L IS f/4.5-5.6* I want  (won't be a straight f4, not having just launched the 200-400 f4 x1.4) 

*3) 16-50L f/4 IS* I want


----------



## endiendo (Aug 30, 2013)

So let's start dreaming... 
A 100-400 F4 constant, with build-in 1.4 converter (which keep the f4).. for less than 2500 $.

could go well with a 7d markII


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 30, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> I will 2nd or 3rd the guess for a new 800mm. Sales of those must be pretty stagnant since the 600mm f/4L IS II came out. I know I sold mine in favor of the new 600mm II. Very few wildlife photogs are going to pay more for an 800mm, when the 600mm + 1.4x III renders more focal length (840mm) and has better image quality. Plus I can put the 2x III on there and have a very usable 1200mm f/8 lens.
> 
> Nikon has come out with their new 800mm lens, so Canon must answer.
> 
> That's my logic at least...I'd say it would need to be f/4 or be f/5.6 and much lighter in weight than the 600mm II to get some interest.


+1


----------



## rs (Aug 30, 2013)

endiendo said:


> So let's start dreaming...
> A 100-400 F4 constant, with build-in 1.4 converter (which keep the f4).. for less than 2500 $.
> 
> could go well with a 7d markII


Yeah, and it could easily be the same size/weight as a nifty fifty. While they're creating such a technically simple lens, what about making the TC 4x which magically retains the f4 aperture? ??? 

Or how about just taming down the design by letting the 1.4x TC obey the laws of physics by reduce the f4 aperture to f5.6 when engaged, and for simplicities sake, start at a more conservative 200mm at the wide end. It'll be cheaper, lighter, optically better, and physically possible. And while they're at it, why not call it the EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM Extender 1.4x? :


----------



## KyleSTL (Aug 30, 2013)

I can't remember how many times we've gone over this on this forum, but I'll present it again:

*There is no size advantage for an EF-S telephoto lens*

In the telephoto lens design the only two factors that will determine size are -
1) Focal length (e.g. 300mm), or longest focal length in the case of zooms
2) Aperture (e.g. f/4), or aperture at the longest focal length in the case of zooms

A 300mm f/4 lens, regardless of the sensor size for which is was design, will always have an objective (read: front) element of at least 75mm (math: 300/4=75), a 70-200mm f/2.8 will always have an objective of at least 72mm. Now, having said that, they might be able to make some of the internal elements slightly smaller, or the overall length slightly shorter, but you will never decrease the size of the objective element.

Sigma and Tamron made APS-C f/2.8 telephoto zooms, but they have the same effective focal lengths as their full frame equivalents, not the same absolute focal lengths. That is the only thing that gives those lenses a size advantage.


----------



## Jim K (Aug 30, 2013)

If it's a BIG lens, the 800 II.

If it's the expected sales, the 100-400 II.

If it's not white it's not a Big Lens announcement.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 30, 2013)

endiendo said:


> So let's start dreaming...
> A 100-400 F4 constant, with build-in 1.4 converter (which keep the f4).. for less than 2500 $.
> 
> could go well with a 7d markII



Heck, if we're dreaming, let's say anything L that goes over 200mm for under $2k.


----------



## dlleno (Aug 30, 2013)

Eimajm said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > Yessss. A constant aperture f4 that will take a 1.4x nicely and a 2x in a pinch. 80 vs 100 I don't care it's just a label and the difference is not that important
> ...



just cuz, thats all  yes f/4 at 400 would be large and, while it wouldn't compete directly with the 200-400 without the integral TC you're probably right that they wouldn't do it - However, I could be f/4-5.6 like the present though, and still accept a 1.4 in a pinch for 5D3 and 1DX owners at least. that would keep the cost and weight down -- still another reason to avoid 400mm f/4: The 100-400 should keep its slim figure lol


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 30, 2013)

They might be able to get away with doing a 400f4 prime with built in TC. The lack of zoom could differentiate it enough so as not to encroach on sales of the current model too much. It would be the beggars lightweight version (probably just $8,000.00 and a pound or two lighter, at which point I'd still go for the 500f4).
Practically though, an updated 400f5.6 would be best. Something that's super sharp in the middle for under $2,000 so that us crop shooters can have some decent telephoto without selling a kidney.


----------



## vlim (Aug 30, 2013)

> A 100-400 F4 constant, with build-in 1.4 converter (which keep the f4).. for less than 2500 $



a lens like that would cost 15K at least...

Just a dream


----------



## paul5515 (Aug 30, 2013)

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/new-ef-s-lenses-are-coming-cr2/

On European market the price for EF-s 17-55 and ef-s 10-22 dramaticly droped down, abouth month ago ,is straight signal that these lenses wil be replaced with the new one , and may be new fish -eye for APS-C come.


----------



## dlleno (Aug 30, 2013)

vlim said:


> > A 100-400 F4 constant, with build-in 1.4 converter (which keep the f4).. for less than 2500 $
> 
> 
> 
> ...



not only that, a 1.4x converter "which keep the f4" is impossible. Moreover, a constant f/4 100-400 with built in 1.4x would be a more complex design and more expensive than the present-day 200-400 f/4 with built in 1.4x!!!!

I agree completely that a constant f/4 100-400 isn't going to happen; The present day 100-400 fills a need for a lightweight tele zoom that would be impossible to accomplish with constant f/4. It is f/5.6 at 400mm for a reason: to keep the size and weight down. now then, if they updated the 100-400 f/4-5.6 to match the IQ performance of the 70-200 f/2.8, it would still command a high price because of the greater zoom ratio (a 4:1 zoom is no small acheivement). I'd expect $2K minimum, maybe $3K.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 31, 2013)

An awful lot of the "Big Whites" have been upgraded to version II with incredible optics.... but not the 800F5.6 or the 400F5.6. Both are long overdue. Also, the 100-400F5.6 is long overdue for an upgrade. If I had to rate in terms of probability, i'd say 800F5.6, 100-400, 400F5.6...


----------



## viggen61 (Aug 31, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> An awful lot of the "Big Whites" have been upgraded to version II with incredible optics.... but not the 800F5.6 or the 400F5.6. Both are long overdue. Also, the 100-400F5.6 is long overdue for an upgrade. If I had to rate in terms of probability, i'd say 800F5.6, 100-400, 400F5.6...



The 800 has only been out for 5 years. The 300, 400, 500, and 600 version IIs replaced lenses that were introduced twelve years earlier. I don't think there will be an update of the 800 terribly soon.

The 400 f/5.6, the 300 f/4 and the 100-400 are from 1993, 1997 & 1998, respectively, and all need to be refreshed, if for nothing else than IS & AF updates.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 31, 2013)

viggen61 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > An awful lot of the "Big Whites" have been upgraded to version II with incredible optics.... but not the 800F5.6 or the 400F5.6. Both are long overdue. Also, the 100-400F5.6 is long overdue for an upgrade. If I had to rate in terms of probability, i'd say 800F5.6, 100-400, 400F5.6...
> ...


I thought the 800 was older than that.... so I looked it up... 2008... You are right, it probably isn't going to be updated soon.

Personally, I am hoping for the 400F5.6.... I know an updated version will cost more, but it's the longest prime that is portable enough for me to pack into the backcountry. I bet it would sell well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2013)

viggen61 said:


> The 800 has only been out for 5 years. The 300, 400, 500, and 600 version IIs replaced lenses that were introduced twelve years earlier. I don't think there will be an update of the 800 terribly soon.



I'm not sure I agree. The 600 II really obviates the 800L - the 600 II + 1.4xIII gives 840mm f/5.6 that's lighter and cheaper, and still delivers better IQ. Same for the 600 II + 2x vs. 800L + 1.4x. 

There are good reasons that Art Morris sold his 800L and now uses the 600 II instead, and I really can't imagine Canon is selling many (any?) 800's any more. 

Add to that the fact that Nikon is launching an 800/5.6 with fluorite and some very impressive MTF curves. 

These big lenses are tough and expensive to design - but Canon has shown no reluctance to pass those costs on to customers (and the price of the Nikon 800mm gives Canon plenty of headroom on price).

It may be a while before we see an 800 actually available, but I expect they'll at least announce its development (and likely avoid mentioning a release time frame, they don't need more egg on their faces!)


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> viggen61 said:
> 
> 
> > The 800 has only been out for 5 years. The 300, 400, 500, and 600 version IIs replaced lenses that were introduced twelve years earlier. I don't think there will be an update of the 800 terribly soon.
> ...


I know it needs replacement to compete, but I thought that Canon was swamped in their production of really big fluorite elements and that was the reason for slow delivery times for the 200-400.... I sort of thought that it would be coming in a year or two... once production caught up... with the remote possibility of it having the built-in extender like the 200-400. That would certainly be a "big announcement"...... but until they catch up on the 200-400's I would expect the 100-400F5.6 and the 400F5.6, with their somewhat smaller optics and much higher sales numbers, to be more likely...

Of course, this is all guessing.... I'm probably wrong, but hey, it's a guess


----------



## ME (Aug 31, 2013)

If it is a "big lens" announcement, the 100-400 is what 1st popped into my mind. If it is a big "lens announcement", maybe the 14-24 or 50mm. Many canon users have been begging for these to be either replaced or created (14-24) for a good while, at least on canon rumors. Does canon read cr?


----------



## rs (Aug 31, 2013)

ME said:


> Does canon read cr?


Canon has somewhere in the region of 200,000 employees. Some of them will read CR (I've spoken to Canon sales reps who do), but as to whether the people who have any say about product direction read it, your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## RGF (Sep 1, 2013)

Canon announces EF 2 mount - backward compatible with current bodies but with promise of MF and compatible with 1.4 flip down extender and TS attachment. All new bodies starting in 205 will require lens with there the EF 2 mount


----------



## unfocused (Sep 1, 2013)

Canon has just announced price cuts on the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 and the EF-S 10-22 wide angle. Could be a sign, or it could be coincidence. Certainly both lenses could use an update/upgrade.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 1, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Could be a sign, or it could be coincidence.



It also could be a sign that they're loosing sales vs. Nikon in the aps-c segment and want to lower their ef-s system price, the lenses are in production a long time so lowering the price mustn't mean a replacement is due.



rs said:


> but as to whether the people who have any say about product direction read it, your guess is as good as mine.



My guess: No way, the people really deciding about Canon's corp policy would be a handful of Japanese execs who will take advice from their tech, sales/marketing and maybe cps departments, but certainly ignore any Internet buzz.

Some marketing guys will watch these forums to prevent bad press about broken products, but the opinions here on anything are so diverse that a quick poll on cps will be better than reading CR to get the ear to the ground.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Canon has just announced price cuts on the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 and the EF-S 10-22 wide angle.



Glad I sold mine when I did... 8)


----------



## preppyak (Sep 1, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Canon has just announced price cuts on the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 and the EF-S 10-22 wide angle. Could be a sign, or it could be coincidence. Certainly both lenses could use an update/upgrade.


Both are <10 years old, and really, an update/upgrade would mean they'd cost as much as their L equivalents, maybe even more. Unless Canon is churning out an EF-S 10-22 f/2.8, no point in updating the current model, which is a solid lens.


----------



## rs (Sep 1, 2013)

preppyak said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has just announced price cuts on the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 and the EF-S 10-22 wide angle. Could be a sign, or it could be coincidence. Certainly both lenses could use an update/upgrade.
> ...


With the 70D's dual pixel AF and the push for video, why not update these two with STM AF? IS on the 10-22 would also help video shooters. And a bit of an optical refresh never goes amiss - as good as these two lenses are, they were both introduced when APS-C cameras had 8MP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2013)

rs said:


> With the 70D's dual pixel AF and the push for video, why not update these two with STM AF?



If you'll forgive me for a bit of poetic license with the abbreviations, I'd prefer the lenses' AF motors to retain their Ultra Speed Movement instead of being made Slow To Move.


----------



## rs (Sep 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > With the 70D's dual pixel AF and the push for video, why not update these two with STM AF?
> ...



I'm a stills shooter so I prefer USM for my own work, but I can see Canon going down that Stills To Movies road at full crawl


----------



## cellomaster27 (Sep 3, 2013)

preppyak said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has just announced price cuts on the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 and the EF-S 10-22 wide angle. Could be a sign, or it could be coincidence. Certainly both lenses could use an update/upgrade.
> ...



Ahk!!! I love my 10-22mm but a price cut... I should've known huh.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 5, 2013)

I predict a Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS *III* USM. Not really, but I just bought the Mark II, so it will probably happen


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 7, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> I predict a Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS *III* USM. Not really, but I just bought the Mark II, so it will probably happen



Congratulations.
Arguably the best lens Canon makes, may you take oodles and oodles of pictures with it for many years to come.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 7, 2013)

9VIII said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I predict a Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS *III* USM. Not really, but I just bought the Mark II, so it will probably happen
> ...



I hope he's right and wants to sell his current one! 

Jim


----------



## waving_odd (Sep 10, 2013)

ME said:


> If it is a "big lens" announcement, the 100-400 is what 1st popped into my mind. If it is a big "lens announcement", maybe the 14-24 or 50mm. Many canon users have been begging for these to be either replaced or created (14-24) for a good while, at least on canon rumors. Does canon read cr?





Gadger said:


> I'm going with in order of importance (in my opinion )
> 
> *1) 12/14-24L f/2.8* I want in the future :
> 
> ...



+1 : : :


----------

