# New Lenses in January [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 25, 2012)

```
<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/2012/09/new-lenses-in-january-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/new-lenses-in-january-cr1/"></a></div>
<strong>Two f/4 Telephotos Coming


</strong>I’m told we can expect two new f/4 telephotos to be announced in January, 2013.</p>
<p>The first will be an EF 300 f/4L IS II, you can obviously expect better coatings, IS and a slightly lighter weight.</p>
<p>The second is said to be an EF 400 f/4L IS, no mention of it being a DO lens. With the price of the coming EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x, mixed with the also expensive 400 f/4 DO IS, there is probably a big market for a 400 f/4 prime that is “affordable”.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 25, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11393\"></glusone></div><div class=\"tweetmeme_button\" style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a class=\"tm_button\" rel=\"&style=normal&b=2\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11393\"></a></div>
> <p><strong>Two f/4 Telephotos Coming
> 
> 
> ...



Nice, but My 200 F/2 fund is still alittle short. :-\


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 25, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> now what do you think "affordable" means?



Wild guess: about the same price as the 300 f/2.8, since the front element is almost the same diameter. On the other hand, the 300 f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC makes a very nice 420 f/4.


----------



## 2n10 (Sep 25, 2012)

It will be interesting if a 400mm f/4 IS comes out. I would think if priced right it should sell very well considering how old the 400/5.6 is and the desire for its replacement.


----------



## nonac (Sep 25, 2012)

Wake me up when you can actually get your hands on one of them.


----------



## jthomson (Sep 25, 2012)

2n10 said:


> It will be interesting if a 400mm f/4 IS comes out. I would think if priced right it should sell very well considering how old the 400/5.6 is and the desire for its replacement.



A 400mm f4 will likely be about $7000. It will be similar in diameter and cost to a 300mm f2.8 II

I doubt that many owners of the 400 mm f5.6 will be rushing out to buy a 400mm f4.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 26, 2012)

Prices these days are hard to swallow, but I think we'll be lucky if the 300 f4 IS II is near $2000.
I'd expect it to be great, and still be excellent 420mm f/5.6 when the 1.4 teleconverter is attached.

This could be a very interesting "affordable" tele.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Sep 26, 2012)

nonac said:


> Wake me up when you can actually get your hands on one of them.



+1


----------



## tron (Sep 26, 2012)

A 400mm F/5.6L IS is also missing.


----------



## 2n10 (Sep 26, 2012)

tron said:


> A 400mm F/5.6L IS is also missing.



Maybe that is what the 400mm F4L is replacing.


----------



## tron (Sep 26, 2012)

2n10 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > A 400mm F/5.6L IS is also missing.
> ...



Ehhh, hmmm, will it cost almost the same  ? I do not think so It will cost 3ple at least .

So it cannot replace it. Coexist maybe...


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Sep 26, 2012)

tron said:


> A 400mm F/5.6L IS is also missing.



In contrast to a 14-24mm USM and a 35mm f/2 USM with IQ to compete w/ the Samyang 35mm f/1.4?


----------



## Eimajm (Sep 27, 2012)

jthomson said:


> 2n10 said:
> 
> 
> > It will be interesting if a 400mm f/4 IS comes out. I would think if priced right it should sell very well considering how old the 400/5.6 is and the desire for its replacement.
> ...



Really!? I would think this would be the ideal wildlife lens for us 7D owners. The ability to increase focal length to 560mm and to have autofocus (yey!), still very handholdable, an extra stop and the latest IS would be just what I want. Thinking of what i can sell to fund it already...


----------



## RichM (Sep 27, 2012)

Etienne said:


> Prices these days are hard to swallow, but I think we'll be lucky if the 300 f4 IS II is near $2000.
> I'd expect it to be great, and still be excellent 420mm f/5.6 when the 1.4 teleconverter is attached.
> 
> This could be a very interesting "affordable" tele.



I very much like my current 300f4, and would certainly look to upgrade to this lens if it comes out at the right price (<$2K)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2012)

Eimajm said:


> jthomson said:
> 
> 
> > A 400mm f4 will likely be about $7000. It will be similar in diameter and cost to a 300mm f2.8 II
> ...



Remember, you need at least one kidney to support life.

For most people, there's a *big* difference between a $1300 lens and $7000 lens. For ~$7K, right now, you could get a 300mm f/2.8L IS II and put a 2x III behind it, and have AF at 600mm f/5.6. So...start selling!


----------



## Pieces Of E (Sep 27, 2012)

If the new 400 f4 is $7,000, they won't sell any. It's just too much money and people aren't gonna buy it. I'm really turned off by the mere proposal of it being that much. I was thinking more in the $2,000-$2,500 range, because I want one!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2012)

Pieces Of E said:


> If the new 400 f4 is $7,000, they won't sell any. It's just too much money and people aren't gonna buy it. I'm really turned off by the mere proposal of it being that much. I was thinking more in the $2,000-$2,500 range



...and then you woke up.

As correctly pointed out above, a 400/4 is going to be approximately the same size as a 300/2.8. 400/4 = 100mm front element diameter, 300/2.8 = 107mm front element diameter; compare that to the 400/5.6 = 71mm front element diameter. Sorry, but if you think Canon will price a lens that's similar to the 300/2.8 II at somewhere south of $6000, think again...

FWIW, there was a prototype, or at least a mockup, of a 400mm f/4 (non-DO) over 11 years ago! Here's the image:







400/4 DO on top, non-DO version on bottom, no colored rings on them...


----------



## tron (Sep 27, 2012)

I agree (unfortunately) with the above reasoning. However, in that case a 10K$ 500/4L IS II seems better value for money although a more expensive one...


----------



## vlim (Sep 27, 2012)

A new weather sealed and razor sharp 300 f/4 L IS II with a price under 2K would become my imediate target !

I really hope it's true 8)


----------



## tron (Sep 27, 2012)

vlim said:


> A new weather sealed and razor sharp 300 f/4 L IS II with a price under 2K would become my imediate target !
> 
> I really hope it's true 8)


Sounds nice! However, I already have a razor sharp Canon EF300mm f/4L. This thing is razor sharp fully open. In addition this lens with my 1.4X II produced a little sharper images than my 100-400 at 400mm. The only ommision is the IS! I know it seems important at such focal lengths but have you heard of many who can part with their 300 f/4L non-IS lens ?  So I would end up with 2 lenses


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2012)

tron said:


> I already have a razor sharp Canon EF300mm f/4L. This thing is razor sharp fully open. In addition this lens with my 1.4X II produced a little sharper images than my 100-400 at 400mm.



Interesting. I found just the opposite - my 100-400 @400mm beat the 300/4 IS + 1.4x II (and that seems to be a common theme from testers). That was with AFMA dialed in on both - without AMFA, the 100-400 would miss a bit at 400mm leading to reduced sharpness. 

It's funny - you think something is razor sharp, then you see what razor sharp really is, say going from a 100-400 or 300/4 IS to a supertele prime.

Regardless, I expect a new 300/4 IS II would be noticeably better than the current 300/4 or the 100-400. I'd also expect a revised 100-400 to noticeably sharper, and I'd take that over the 300/4 II.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 27, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I already have a razor sharp Canon EF300mm f/4L. This thing is razor sharp fully open. In addition this lens with my 1.4X II produced a little sharper images than my 100-400 at 400mm.
> ...


The good thing about both the 300mm f/4 and the 100-400mm L is the relatively short minimum focus distance. I hope they do not screw that up by trying to make the lens smaller and lighter. A 11+ foot mfd like the 400mm f/5.6 is why I sold mine.


----------



## tron (Sep 27, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I already have a razor sharp Canon EF300mm f/4L. This thing is razor sharp fully open. In addition this lens with my 1.4X II produced a little sharper images than my 100-400 at 400mm.
> ...


If you read again you will see I did not mention EF300 f/4L IS. I mentioned EF300mm f/4L (non-IS)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2012)

tron said:


> If you read again you will see I did not mention EF300 f/4L IS. I mentioned EF300mm f/4L (non-IS)



Ahhhh...sorry!


----------



## Pieces Of E (Sep 27, 2012)

Oh well, unless I win the lottery, my 300 f4L IS will have to do. Not that I have any complaints about it, mind you......but a new, lighter(?) 400 f4L with IS sure would be fun to sport around the wilds with.


----------



## DigitalDivide (Sep 27, 2012)

A new 400 f/4 would seem to me to be a replacement for the largely unloved 400 f/4 DO, which sells for a little over $6K in the US. It would make sense to price it at somewhat more than the 300 f/2.8 IS II, but not too much more or they might lose sales to the 200-400 f/4 1.4xTC.

The 400 would likely appeal to those who need the reach, don't like the IQ of the old DO model, and can't afford the 400 f/2.8. Those who need the flexibility of a zoom and built in TC would go for the 200-400, but for ultimate IQ the 400 f/4 will most likely deliver in the way that the other recent big white updates have.

This would mean there is still a need for a 400 f/5.6 replacement, finally with IS. If they could deliver that for under $2K I would think it would be a big seller. Currently there is a huge gap between relatively affordable prosumer teles like the 300 f/4 and the cheapest serious pro models. The aging 100-400L and 400 f/5.6 are the only options if you need more than 300mm, unless you slap a 1.4xTC on the 300 (as I do). A 400 f/5.6 with the latet IS and high IQ would be a nice option, especially if used on APS-C for more reach.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 27, 2012)

so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS? the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive. I'm sick of stuff that only goes out to 400mm. for your average consumer, you can get there with a 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x, a native 100-400, a 300 f/4 + 1.4x, the venerable 400 f/5.6 ... all of which puts you at roughly 400mm f/5.6. why can't we get something a little longer than that without having to spend $7k?


----------



## westr70 (Sep 27, 2012)

kubelik said:


> so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS? the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive. I'm sick of stuff that only goes out to 400mm. for your average consumer, you can get there with a 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x, a native 100-400, a 300 f/4 + 1.4x, the venerable 400 f/5.6 ... all of which puts you at roughly 400mm f/5.6. why can't we get something a little longer than that without having to spend $7k?



+1. right behind you on that.


----------



## Razor2012 (Sep 27, 2012)

Well at least I can buy a $500 2x III and have a 400 5.6.


----------



## xps (Sep 27, 2012)

westr70 said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS? the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive. I'm sick of stuff that only goes out to 400mm. for your average consumer, you can get there with a 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x, a native 100-400, a 300 f/4 + 1.4x, the venerable 400 f/5.6 ... all of which puts you at roughly 400mm f/5.6. why can't we get something a little longer than that without having to spend $7k?
> ...



+1 +1 +1

If they would do something like that, they would damage their cash cows. So, we all have to save a alot of money to get such long lenses.
But, maybe other companies will produce such a lens.
One of our cardiotechnicans owns an 70-200 Tamron 2.8 with an lot of letters behind. A lens of about 700 Euros. The lens makes wonderful pictures. My 70-200 2.8 LII too. But I paid nearly 2500€ for it.
So maybe tamron or another company will produce such a lens for us.
Maybe not as sharp as the original 7k Canons. But maybe a buyable 3,5k one...


----------



## tron (Sep 28, 2012)

xps said:


> westr70 said:
> 
> 
> > kubelik said:
> ...


If the 400 f/4L will cost so much (which I find very likely by the way) it will have to be a stellar lens. Otherwise the light and small 400/4.0 DO will suddenly look more interesting :


----------



## jthomson (Sep 28, 2012)

kubelik said:


> so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS? the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive. I'm sick of stuff that only goes out to 400mm. for your average consumer, you can get there with a 70-200 f/2.8 + 2x, a native 100-400, a 300 f/4 + 1.4x, the venerable 400 f/5.6 ... all of which puts you at roughly 400mm f/5.6. why can't we get something a little longer than that without having to spend $7k?



Sigma could probably do it. Their 120-300mm F2.8 was around $3000 before the recent remodeling. 
So they could do a similarly priced 400mm f4, maybe even a bit cheaper as primes use less glass, but their 300mm f2.8 prime was about the same price as the zoom so I would expect they'd charge a little more for a 400mm.

Sigmas' 500mm zooms are only f6.3 which is why they are not hugely expensive. Their 500mm f4.5 is around $5000


----------



## tron (Sep 28, 2012)

jthomson said:


> Sigmas' 500mm zooms are only f6.3 which is why they are not hugely expensive. Their 500mm f4.5 is around $5000


In that case a 500mm f/5.6 lens would have reasonable cost say 2-3.5K even with stabilizer add on it...


----------



## Steinn (Sep 28, 2012)

*WHY not 400/4.5 or 5.6?*

I should like to see a 400/5.6IS or a /4.5 as they in the FD-days


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2012)

kubelik said:


> so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS? the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive.



The Sigma xxx-500mm zooms aren't 500mm f/5.6, they are 500mm *f/6.3*. Sure, that doesn't sound like much...but 500/5.6 = 89mm, whereas 500/6.3 = 79mm. So, that innocent-sounding 1/3-stop translates to some elements needing to be 27% larger in area (which, of course, is the exact reason those less expensive Sigma zooms only open up to f/6.3). I wouldn't expect Canon to start releasing f/6.3 max aperture lenses anytime soon, and likewise, I expect high cost barrier to get over 420mm with a Canon lens that can AF on most bodies will remain in place.


----------



## tron (Sep 28, 2012)

What if Canon with their know-how improve the quality of their 400 f/4.0 DO lens? That would produce an expensive lens but it would outshine others in terms of portability.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 28, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > so a 400 f/4 probably won't be small or cheap ... but can't we get a 500 f/5.6 IS? the sigma superzooms that hit this focal length (150-500) aren't huge or hugely expensive.
> ...



still, the Sigma 500 f/4.5 is only $5K, and so a Sigma 500 f/5.6 would be, in my book at least, probably a reasonably-priced lens (especially for the length). Frankly though, I'd be happy with a true 480mm f/5.6, or 450mm f/5.6 ... anything to get out of the 400-420 range


----------



## FarQinell (Sep 28, 2012)

<p>The second is said to be an EF 400 f/4L IS, no mention of it being a DO lens. With the price of the coming EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x, mixed with the also expensive 400 f/4 DO IS, there is probably a big market for a 400 f/4 prime that is “affordable”.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>
[/html]
[/quote]

Maybe this new 400/4 - if it ever comes - could have an integral 1.4TC - like the long awaited 200-400/4!
Don't hold your breath though you probably would have to wait years for it!


----------



## jthomson (Sep 29, 2012)

*Price of new lenses*







Got into a bit of an arguement on another forum.
Produced this graph to back up my lens pricing.
Thought you might like to see it as well.
The blue dots are the following data taken from B&H
The Red dots are the estimated prices for new lenses based on the regressed equation of the data.


B&H $	(L/f)	Lens
1049	( 36)	100mm f2.8L IS
5999	( 100)	EF-200 f2L IS
7249	( 107)	EF-300 f2.8L IS II
11499	(143)	EF-400 f2.8L IS II
10499	(125)	EF-500 f4L IS II
12999	(150)	EF-600 f4L IS II
13899	(143)	EF-800 f5.6L IS


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2012)

Nice graph, but flawed (sorry!). Maybe it won't change the conclusion, but you're plotting iris diaphragm max diameter (focal length / f-number), and while that seems reasonable for a telephoto lens design, it breaks down for other lens designs. So, the 100L Macro that anchors the bottom of your regression curve isn't a valid data point (consider - what would the 14L would do to your curve, L/f = 5, $2124?). 

The 300/4 IS and 400/5.6 are current and should be included, as should the other tele primes, the 135L and 200/2.8L II. I'd like to see the re-plot including those but excluding the 100L Macro.


----------



## jthomson (Sep 29, 2012)

Revised graph without the 100mm macro IS. This is a telephoto but it does shift the cost up a little.
The 200mm f2.8L, 300mm f4L and 400mm f4.6L weren't included as they are all old designs, they are not weather sealed and 2 of them don't have IS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2012)

Thanks!



jthomson said:


> Revised graph without the 100mm macro IS. *This is a telephoto* but it does shift the cost up a little.
> The 200mm f2.8L, 300mm f4L and 400mm f4.6L weren't included as they are all old designs, they are not weather sealed and 2 of them don't have IS.



No, the 100L Macro is not a telephoto lens _design_. I'm not talking about the focal length. Compare the block diagrams on Canon's 'museum' (note the relative sizes of elements in front of vs. behind the iris diaphragm), and/or read Roger Cicala's articles on lens design types.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Sep 30, 2012)

xps said:


> If they would do something like that, they would damage their cash cows. So, we all have to save a alot of money to get such long lenses.



Does Canon sell enough superteles to make those lenses a cash cow?

Personally, I don't know anyone who owns a supertele, but know two guys who own the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII. My bet Canon makes more money on the later than on any of the superteles, my point being that Canon might make more money on cheaper 500mm f/5.6 and 600mm f/5.6.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Does Canon sell enough superteles to make those lenses a cash cow?
> 
> Personally, I don't know anyone who owns a supertele, but know two guys who own the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII. My bet Canon makes more money on the later than on any of the superteles, my point being that Canon might make more money on cheaper 500mm f/5.6 and 600mm f/5.6.



Only a 500/5.6 has even a chance at coming in under $5K, and a 600/5.6 would cost more than the 300/2.8. Are those 'cheaper' enough to matter?

Honestly, Canon's real 'cash cow' lens is the 18-55mm Rebel/xxxD kit lens, followed closely by the 55-250mm. I infer that because Canon released MkII versions of both lenses where the only changes were aimed at a small reduction in the unit production costs, which puts more cash in the cow. 

As has been discussed (ad infinitum!), pricing takes expected sales volume into account with an inverse relationship. Also, the superteles, with their stand-out white paint (that Canon just made even whiter) are advertising for Canon at every sporting event.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Sep 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > Does Canon sell enough superteles to make those lenses a cash cow?
> ...



Personally (= hobbyist, with my current income), I would consider <$5K cheap enough to matter.



neuroanatomist said:


> Honestly, Canon's real 'cash cow' lens is the 18-55mm Rebel/xxxD kit lens, followed closely by the 55-250mm. <snip>
> 
> As has been discussed (ad infinitum!), pricing takes expected sales volume into account with an inverse relationship.



My impression is Canon doesn't sell enough superteles for those to be cash cows, which is another way to say pretty much the same thing.

... which is why I wonder why is it that Canon is investing so much in upgrading the superteles, rather than ~20 years old primes (e.g. 35mm f/2), in face of competitors like Sigma coming out with competing lenses (e.g. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for APS-C & 35mm f/1.4 HSM for FF).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> ...I wonder why is it that Canon is investing so much in upgrading the superteles, rather than ~20 years old primes (e.g. 35mm f/2), in face of competitors like Sigma coming out with competing lenses (e.g. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for APS-C & 35mm f/1.4 HSM for FF).



One big reason is the 1D X. By eliminating the 1.3x crop sensor from the flagship line, they (intentionally) created demand for longer supertele lenses, and it's no coincidence that they updated those lenses at the same time.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > ...I wonder why is it that Canon is investing so much in upgrading the superteles, rather than ~20 years old primes (e.g. 35mm f/2), in face of competitors like Sigma coming out with competing lenses (e.g. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for APS-C & 35mm f/1.4 HSM for FF).
> ...



I would agree, except-

1. Canon could still introduce mkII versions of wide prime lenses, e.g. 35mm, 28mm, 24mm, and 20mm.

To go at it from a different angle, I was waiting for the EF 8-15mm f/4. Due to max aperture (I like f/2.8 on the EF 15mm for band shows) and price, I decided to buy a Sigma 8mm rather than upgrade.

Now, Canon did have an FD circular fisheye, it just decided not to make an EF version. It was f/5.6, but I would have considered it anyway.

2. The updated superteles are of the same focal length & max aperture the older versions, they are significantly more expensive, and the 1DX can't focus at f/8. If I had an APS-H camera, I would first look at a 7D, then at a Nikon D800. The last thing I would do would be considering a mk2 telephoto or a 1DX.

Which is why I think the olympics at the London is a much better explanation for upgrading the superteles.




Looking around at what I and photographers I know buy, it adds up to people choosing 3rd party lenses over Canon - Sigma 85mm f/1.4, Sigma 8mm f/3.5, Sigma 12-24mm (bought the mkI, than upgraded to the mkII), Samyang 35mm f/1.4, and so on.

People see what pros use on TV, but they also see what people around them use. This has the effect of 'Canon is good at making expensive lenses the rich media organizations buy, but hobbists are better off with Sigma / Tamron / whatever'

[As side note - I see lots of Tamron 18-270 in ads in newspapers and busses, and it sells well enough for local shops to sell in kit with Canon bodies. Olympus advertises on busses as well, and had the menus translated to the local language. Canon doesn't advertise at all, and I can't remember when I've last seen a rebate for Canon in any of the local shops. There's no denying local Canon sales are good, but I think Canon lens sales are heading in the wrong direction.]


----------



## insanitybeard (Oct 2, 2012)

Canon has updated the 24 and 28mm 2.8 primes- even if the price is a bit steep at present. The 24L has been revamped and is a mk.2 already and there have been hints on this site that a mk2 35L and possibly non L may be coming....

[/quote]

1. Canon could still introduce mkII versions of wide prime lenses, e.g. 35mm, 28mm, 24mm, and 20mm

[/quote]


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 2, 2012)

insanitybeard said:


> Canon has updated the 24 and 28mm 2.8 primes- even if the price is a bit steep at present. The 24L has been revamped and is a mk.2 already and there have been hints on this site that a mk2 35L and possibly non L may be coming....



I should have stated in advance I'm limiting my self to non-L lenses. I'm sure the L primes have a market, just like the superteles, but it does not include the average hobbist who isn't making any money off his lenses.

As for the 24mm & 28mm, I hope two swallows do make summer. The photozone review of the 28mm f/2.8 is encouraging, even though I would rather have f/2 over IS.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Oct 2, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ellen Schmidtee said:
> ...


----------



## jthomson (Oct 2, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> I should have stated in advance I'm limiting my self to non-L lenses. I'm sure the L primes have a market, just like the superteles, but it does not include the average hobbist who isn't making any money off his lenses.



I don't make money from photography, but have two L lenses. I belong to a photography club and I see lots of other members with L grade lenses. Amateurs like me usually have one or two in their prefered shooting ranges, the people who shoot professionally have the whole range covered.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 2, 2012)

jthomson said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > I should have stated in advance I'm limiting my self to non-L lenses. I'm sure the L primes have a market, just like the superteles, but it does not include the average hobbist who isn't making any money off his lenses.
> ...



Exactly - Canon should have reasonably good non-L lenses (primes & zooms) for amateurs who aren't going to cover the whole range covered in L lenses.

It's not that Canon can't make a 35mm f/2 USM to compete with the Samyang 35mm f/1.4 IQ & price (which I bought, but still keep an eye for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4) or an 85mm f/1.4 to compete with the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 (which a friend bought), it just prefers to cater to a different audience. That is Canon's right, but I find it strange as my guess (for the lack of hard data) is that audience is less profitable.


----------



## jthomson (Oct 2, 2012)

An interesting statistic is that canon have sold twice as many EOS lenses as Camera's. I forget exactly where this cames from but, they basically issued press releases when they had sold x million cameras and 2x million lenses.

This means that on average each camera has two lenses. This means that most people who buy an SLR camera never buy another lens for it. Most of the people who do buy additonal lenses are those who will spring for the better quality lenses. 

I think Canon has a pretty good understanding of the market and where they make their money.


----------



## insanitybeard (Oct 3, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> insanitybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has updated the 24 and 28mm 2.8 primes- even if the price is a bit steep at present. The 24L has been revamped and is a mk.2 already and there have been hints on this site that a mk2 35L and possibly non L may be coming....
> ...



I was also interested to see the Photozone review of the 28 IS, I'm hoping they also review the 24 IS. If it performs similarly I will be tempted (after leaving it a while to see if the price drops!), the 24 will make a nice compact walkaround and slightly wider than standard lens to use on my 7D, and if it is corner to corner sharp then it will be ideal as a landscape lens.


----------

