# Pre CES Week: Lenses, Cameras & Compacts



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 3, 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/2012/01/pre-ces-week/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/01/pre-ces-week/" 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; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/01/pre-ces-week/"></a></div>
<strong>Nothing yet

</strong>The rumoured lens announcements from a <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/ef-35-f1-4l-ii-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-on-january-3-2012-cr2/">few weeks back</a> have yet to materialize. Beyond what I was told then, I haven’t heard a single thing about the lenses in question.</p>
<p>Lens announcements are always the toughest to pin down. One of the major reasons is, Canon doesn’t have media events for them if they’re being announced alone. If a DSLR is involved, they’re a little easier to get information on.</p>
<p><strong>Camera Bodies

</strong>I have heard some murmurs about a DSLR announcement before or at CES, nothing concrete though.</p>
<p><strong>Compacts?

</strong>I haven’t had one PowerShot camera rumor in a while.</p>
<p><strong>Canon at CES?

</strong>Yes, they’re there. They’ll be showing their gear at booth 13304. For the moment however, it looks like they won’t be showing anything new. All this could change literally overnight.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## JR (Jan 3, 2012)

Well I will cross my finger CR guy for all of us! I am so much hoping for some new lenses announcement! Maybe they are waiting for Nikon to announce something Jan 6th and then respond to take some of the media attention away from the potential D4!?!? Anyway I am still hoping for some announcement before CES...


----------



## Galvatron0828 (Jan 3, 2012)

Canon will have new stuff at CES... they do every year. But it usually revolves around their VIXIA HD Camcorder lineup and powershots. 

Although aren't they combining a photo trade show with CES this year? I go to CES every year, but will not be this year.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2012)

Galvatron0828 said:


> Although aren't they combining a photo trade show with CES this year?



Yes, the Photo Marketing Association (PMA) merged their annual trade show into CES.


----------



## stark-arts (Jan 3, 2012)

I think you'll see the new G series this year = bigger sensor, somewhere between m43 and apsc with a shorter zoom than in past...


----------



## Justin (Jan 3, 2012)

Boring.

Come on Canon surprise us with a lens announcement like you did early in 2010 with the amazing 70-200 2.8L II IS!


----------



## Justin (Jan 3, 2012)

Waiting for this lens is a Sisyphean task. Rumors about this lens are older than this site, and the site Craig made before this site (also of the same name). 

I'd suggest the following: 

1) don't buy the current 24-70 lens for more than $1000-1050. You may not be able to find it for that little, but if you do you won't regret getting it and can unload it for close to what you paid for it if/when the 24-70 redux appears
2) get a 24-105 f/4 IS (the IS on this lens goes a long way to helping with handholdability in lower light). 
3) get a prime or 2 or 3 for narrow depth of field shooting in the range (24, 35, 50, 85) and true low light shooting (f/2.8 is neither that fast, nor that shallow)
4) don't ever buy it or the ver II (for the reasons I stated above) especially since the ver II looks like it will lack IS (a real shame given that IS is a very important tool to all photographers).



00Q said:


> Sorry guys I dont get it. I been following the forum. People were raving on about canon announcment on jan 3rd. which is today. Today i checked the forum and theres nothing. does this mean canon has announced nothing today??? We are in UK time here. am I a bit early?
> 
> Im expecting the 24-70 MkII announcement. It will help me decide what lens to buy! either to buy it back now or wit for MkII. does this mean that there is NO ANNOUNCEMENT OF THIS F***KING LENS THIS MONTH?????
> 
> so much for rumous....


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 3, 2012)

50 1.4 mk II? 50-300 ef-s? 85-300 f4 (THEY USED TO MAKE ONE!!! :'()? 8mm ef-s? 50-150 f2 ef-s? Maybe, a 100 f2 IS? 200 2.8 IS?


----------



## takeapic (Jan 3, 2012)

Was hoping to hear something about the new G series. Looks like the price on the S100 is starting to drop which could be a sign of things to come.


----------



## waving_odd (Jan 3, 2012)

Things should be clearer after Jan 6 which is rumored to be the BIG day for Nikon!

Just 3 more days folks...

I really like them to announce the D4 (so review sites can compare it to 1D X) and D800 (so we _might_ have some more insights about 5D III or the holy 3D).


----------



## KyleSTL (Jan 3, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> ... 85-300 f4 (THEY USED TO MAKE ONE!!! :'()? ...



Yes, but only in FD/nFD mount and f/4.5 (not f/4)

new FD 85-300mm f/4.5
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/nfd/data/zoom/nfd_85~300_45.html
FD 85-300mm f/4.5 S.S.C.
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/fd/data/zoom/fd_85~300_45_ssc.html

They weighed 1.6 and 1.8 kg (3.5 and 4.0 lbs), respectively.

And there's also the 1.85 kg FL mount 85-300mm f/5
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/fl/data/zoom/fl_85~300_5.html

EDIT:
For comparison the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L weighs 1.67 kg, the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L weighs 1.36 kg, and the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II weighs 1.49 kg. I'm sure modern plastics and metals would bring the weight down, but it is still going to be a very large and heavy lens. Honestly, with the 200-400 f/4 1.4x in the future and the great 70-300mm f/4-5.6L available now, I can't see a lens like that being resurrected.


----------



## 00Q (Jan 3, 2012)

Justin said:


> Waiting for this lens is a Sisyphean task. Rumors about this lens are older than this site, and the site Craig made before this site (also of the same name).
> 
> I'd suggest the following:
> 
> ...



The reason why they are NOT releasing the mkII is for obvious reasons:

1) If it has IS, that is 24-70mm f/2.8 IS MkII ( makes me excited just to write this), then EVERYONE WILL BE BUYING THIS LENS and NOT the 24-105mm f/4. This will reduce canon's sales obviously. all the pros will be getting the 24-70 and chose the larger aperture over the zoom range. and there is no reason to spend another £800 buying the extra 70-105 range that is slower at f4. 

2). As everyone says, what is the point of releasing MkII without IS? People will want to stay with the old MkI version and this will not help the sales of the mkII. 

So, I vent all my hatured towards the 24-105. I blame this lens lol!!


----------



## Viggo (Jan 3, 2012)

Justin said:


> Boring.
> 
> Come on Canon surprise us with a lens announcement like you did early in 2010 with the amazing 70-200 2.8L II IS!



Completely agreed!! Enough with the s100 that didn't work and old G12 and 6 year old flashes and IR triggering. 

I'm sooo tired of released products you can't buy until 2 years later! 6 months wait for the 1d X, they should just spend that time developing and producing and just sell the frikkin thing. Same story with ALL FOUR super-teles and also the 5th, 200-400 L. All I see are productshots of them, nothin taken with them. And not single frikkin lens to buy anywhere.

Yesyesyes, I know the earthquake and flood and whatnot, but I saw some images from japan of a completely destroyed road (earthquake aftermath), rebuilt to better than new within 6 days. I know they don't stop all production due to a small amount of water on the floor and couple of knock over shelfs. They could have built a new factory and up and running much sooner. 

GET THE PRODUCTS OUT!!!! Stop releasing stuff that we NEVER see in a store......pi$$e$ me off....


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 3, 2012)

00Q said:


> Justin said:
> 
> 
> > Waiting for this lens is a Sisyphean task. Rumors about this lens are older than this site, and the site Craig made before this site (also of the same name).
> ...



if it has IS it wont take sales from the 24-105 due to the fact it will come in at well north of $2000 so more than double the cost of the 24-105 and the 24-105 still is and always will be an outstanding value for money L series lens


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 3, 2012)

Justin said:


> Waiting for this lens is a Sisyphean task.



Sisyphean=excellent word! (Except when it applies to my job...) 

+1 for sheer vocabulary awesomeness.


----------



## Justin (Jan 4, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Justin said:
> 
> 
> > Boring.
> ...



I applaud your rant. 2011 had to be the biggest waste of a year for Canon product announcement-release cycles in a long time. And 2012 ain't smelling much better, at least not on Jan three.


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 4, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > ... 85-300 f4 (THEY USED TO MAKE ONE!!! :'()? ...
> ...



I know it was 4.5, but I'd like to see it f4... A whole stop is a whole lot!


----------



## candyman (Jan 4, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Yesyesyes, I know the earthquake and flood and whatnot, but I saw some images from japan of a completely destroyed road (earthquake aftermath), rebuilt to better than new within 6 days. I know they don't stop all production due to a small amount of water on the floor and couple of knock over shelfs. They could have built a new factory and up and running much sooner.



Disasters should not have impact on the business. 

One may think that Canon, as a multi-national company - a worldleader, is prepared to deal with disasters and not let those interupt the business continuity and therefor the production process. 
Well, obviously NOT. They probably never prepared their companies business with Business Continuity Management (BCM) plans and actions.
If they would have done that, then they could immdiately switch to alternative productionplants and keep up delivery.

What is BCM?
Business Continuity Management means ensuring the continuity or uninterrupted provision of operations and services. Business Continuity Management is an on-going process with several different but complementary elements. Planning for business continuity is a comprehensive process that includes disaster recovery, business recovery, business resumption, and contingency planning as shown below.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 4, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> if it has IS it wont take sales from the 24-105 due to the fact it will come in at well north of $2000 so more than double the cost of the 24-105 and the 24-105 still is and always will be an outstanding value for money L series lens



+1 - the 24-105 is an all time classic - in a totally different market from the 24-70

Perhaps they will release a 17-105 f/4 IS - that would put the cat amongst the pidgeons ;D ;D ;D


----------



## 00Q (Jan 4, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > if it has IS it wont take sales from the 24-105 due to the fact it will come in at well north of $2000 so more than double the cost of the 24-105 and the 24-105 still is and always will be an outstanding value for money L series lens
> ...



I see this as canon being purely economisto. It is perfectly capable of making a 24-105 f/2.8 lens with IS  but to double their sales they deliberately made 2 different lenses to confuse people so on average they buy 1.5 lenses. absolutely shitty canon. shitty! 

moral of story to self....stop reading this site too often about rumours and make decisions not base on rumours.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 4, 2012)

candyman said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Yesyesyes, I know the earthquake and flood and whatnot, but I saw some images from japan of a completely destroyed road (earthquake aftermath), rebuilt to better than new within 6 days. I know they don't stop all production due to a small amount of water on the floor and couple of knock over shelfs. They could have built a new factory and up and running much sooner.
> ...



Absolutely!! I think it's an excuse and that they ran out of ideas how to screw us...


----------



## Viggo (Jan 4, 2012)

What they need to do is release the 35 II and 24-70 f2,8, same IQ and AF as the 70-200 II, end of story


----------



## squarebox (Jan 4, 2012)

candyman said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Yesyesyes, I know the earthquake and flood and whatnot, but I saw some images from japan of a completely destroyed road (earthquake aftermath), rebuilt to better than new within 6 days. I know they don't stop all production due to a small amount of water on the floor and couple of knock over shelfs. They could have built a new factory and up and running much sooner.
> ...



You my friend have never worked at a japanese company in Japan. They are easily 20 years behind the U.S. in terms of accounting, Disaster Recovery and efficiency. From my own experience and those of my friends it would not surprise me one bit if Canon had no DR plan in place for an earthquake. My former company's DR plan was "While you are running out of the building, can someone make sure to unplug the server backups we do to an external drive via usb cable and take it with them"... To which all the IT guys and myself laughed, like that is what we are going to be thinking as we are running out of the building.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 4, 2012)

00Q said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...


a canon L series 24-105 f2.8 IS is top of my wish list even if its the same size and cost as the 70-200 f2.8 IS II


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> I know it was 4.5, but I'd like to see it f4... A whole stop is a whole lot!



?? Going from f/4.5 to f/4 is 1/3-stop, not a full stop (which would be f/4.5 to f/3.2).



00Q said:


> I see this as canon being purely economisto. It is perfectly capable of making a 24-105 f/2.8 lens with IS  but to double their sales they deliberately made 2 different lenses to confuse people so on average they buy 1.5 lenses. absolutely S___ty canon. S___ty!



I prefer choice, and I don't find the 24-105 vs the 24-70 choice to be confusing. Do you want f/2.8, or do you want IS? 

They aren't making a 24-105mm f/2.8L IS precisely for economic reasons. The 24-105/4 and 24-70/2.8 are each under $1300, and reasonably easy to carry (certainly the 24-105). A 24-105/2.8 IS would likely exceed the 70-200/2.8 IS II in weight and in cost - one lens that's 'general purpose' yet heavier than a telezoom and more expensive, too, would likely not be a big seller.


----------



## candyman (Jan 4, 2012)

squarebox said:


> ..................My former company's DR plan was "*While you are running out of the building, can someone make sure to unplug the server backups we do to an external drive via usb cable and take it with them*"... To which all the IT guys and myself laughed, like that is what we are going to be thinking as we are running out of the building.



     That's really funny..... 

But seriously, that has nothing to do with Business Continuity Management. 
I sure hope that those companies think about one thing first: how to get staff as quickly and as save as possible out of the compound. Evacuation plan etc.


----------



## Ralph Conway (Jan 4, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> KyleSTL said:
> 
> 
> > AprilForever said:
> ...



From 4.5 to 4.0 is 1/3rd stop only (examples given for full stops are: 1.4 - 2.0 - 2.8 - 4.0 - 5.6 - 8.0 - 11 - 16).


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> They aren't making a 24-105mm f/2.8L IS precisely for economic reasons. The 24-105/4 and 24-70/2.8 are each under $1300, and reasonably easy to carry (certainly the 24-105). A 24-105/2.8 IS would likely exceed the 70-200/2.8 IS II in weight and in cost - one lens that's 'general purpose' yet heavier than a telezoom and more expensive, too, would likely not be a big seller.


normally i agree with most stuff you say but I think you are wrong on this, the tamron 28-105 is 880 grams
granted it has a rep for 2.8 being softer than a marshmallow in a bonfire so its kind of pointless. but using that as a basis 82mm filter lets say it's length is fixed like the 70-200 and doesnt extend and the length is the same as a fully extended 24-105 f4 let say canon double the tamrons weight (it wouldn't be that much though)
so in the 1.5 to 1.7 kg range. I would exspect price to be around $2500 for a lens like this and i think they would sell boatloads of them especially if they were non extending. 

Extending lenses are less sealed than the non extending ones as very fine dust can still be dragged through the seal into the focus ring from the extending barrel. I know this for a fact because i recently had to pay the canon tech to pull my 24-105 down and clean the iron ore dust out of the focus ring because it started making crunchy noises.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 4, 2012)

Ralph Conway said:


> From 4.5 to 4.0 is 1/3rd stop only (examples given for full stops are: 1.4 - 2.0 - 2.8 - 4.0 - 5.6 - 8.0 - 11 - 16).



It will be an important 1/3 when putting it on a non 1.3 series 1 with a 1.4 converter as you will lose the AF


----------



## Ralph Conway (Jan 4, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> 00Q said:
> 
> 
> > Justin said:
> ...



+ 100
Making the 24-70 2.8 L an IS would imo be the same like offering a 24 105 L IS at F 2.8 both would be as expensive as a 70-200 L II IS USM. The 24-105 would surely cost even more. But a lense is bought for a decade. That is no big investment at least. If it costs $ 1000 more that would make 8-10 bucks a month. One (huge) pizza less. Or 1,5 package of cigarettes (if you are a smoker here in germany)

Ralph


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 4, 2012)

Ralph Conway said:


> + 100
> Making the 24-70 2.8 L an IS would imo be the same like offering a 24 105 L IS at F 2.8 both would be as expensive as a 70-200 L II IS USM. The 24-105 would surely cost even more. But a lense is bought for a decade. That is no big investment at least. If it costs $ 1000 more that would make 8-10 bucks a month. One (huge) pizza less. Or 1,5 package of cigarettes (if you are a smoker here in germany)
> 
> Ralph



If the 24-105 became a 16-105 f/2.8 then the 16-35, the 17-40, the 17-55 and the 24-70 could be withdrawn - and the extra for the one lens would be more than offset by the savings on a second lens ;D ;D ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> It will be an important 1/3 when putting it on a non 1.3 series 1 with a 1.4 converter as you will lose the AF



Exactly. There was a great deal recently on a local used EF 500mm f/4.5L. For the price, I could live without IS and live with the electro-focus like my 85L II, but the loss of AF with a TC was a deal breaker.


----------



## rjpcordeiro (Jan 5, 2012)

Check this out... http://www.computeruniverse.net/products/e90391547/canon-eos-60d-body-schwarz.asp

Pay attention to this:
"not available
Product is no longer available. Only listed for information purposes."

Can this mean that Canon will release the EOS 70D sooner than later? Maybe during the CES?

**********************

Regarding the EOS 7D, they seem to be selling the last available units. http://www.computeruniverse.net/products/e90346353/canon-eos-7d-body.asp

Pay attention to this:
"Remaining stock
Remaining stock. Ready for shipping within, ready for shipping within 2-3 business days"


This online shop is a reference in Europe.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 5, 2012)

So yeah, Nikon is doing what I just said Canon need to do. GET THE STUFF OUT!!! 

D4 announced three months later than the 1 d X, in stores three months before... wow....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2012)

rjpcordeiro said:


> Check this out... http://www.computeruniverse.net/products/e90391547/canon-eos-60d-body-schwarz.asp
> 
> Pay attention to this:
> "not available
> ...



The 7D body is out as well, now.

Several 60D and 7D kits are listed as In Stock or Ships in 2-3 Days. I'd say all the above means is that the vendor hasn't sold very many of the body only versions compared to the kits with lens, so they've decided to stop selling the body only version.


----------

