# New Lenses Coming [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 22, 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/2012/02/new-lenses-coming-cr3/"></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/2012/02/new-lenses-coming-cr3/" 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/2012/02/new-lenses-coming-cr3/"></a></div>
<strong>New Lenses Coming

</strong>The announcement dates for the following lenses haven’t been confirmed. However, they will be coming sooner rather than later.</p>
<p><strong>EF-S 18-135 II

</strong>This lens will have a silent autofocus motor geared to video. It will arrive with the new Rebel T4i. This has shown up in a US retailer inventory system. No price for the kit with the T4i.</p>
<p><strong>EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4X

</strong>This highly anticipated lens will be officially announced shortly. The price will most likely be $10,999 USD.</p>
<p><strong>EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake</strong>

I think it’ll be EF, but a 40 f/2.8 Pancake lens is coming. Expect it to be announced either with the 5D or shortly after.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<div class="prli-social-buttons-bar"><a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/delicious_32.png" alt="Delicious" title="Delicious" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/stumbleupon_32.png" alt="StumbleUpon" title="StumbleUpon" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/digg_32.png" alt="Digg" title="Digg" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=RT @prettylink:  [url=http://www.canonrumors.com/]http://www.canonrumors.com/[/url] (via @prettylink)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/twitter_32.png" alt="Twitter" title="Twitter" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.mixx.com/submit?page_url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/mixx_32.png" alt="Mixx" title="Mixx" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://technorati.com/faves?add=http://www.canonrumors.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/technorati_32.png" alt="Technorati" title="Technorati" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&t=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/facebook_32.png" alt="Facebook" title="Facebook" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&h=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/newsvine_32.png" alt="News Vine" title="News Vine" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/reddit_32.png" alt="Reddit" title="Reddit" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/linkedin_32.png" alt="LinkedIn" title="LinkedIn" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/yahoobuzz_32.png" alt="Yahoo! Bookmarks" title="Yahoo! Bookmarks" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a></div>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2012)

Hmmm...

A new kit lens, quieter AF, but also likely production cost decreases like the 18-55 II and 55-250 II. Yawn.

A lens that's already been announced as being in development. Given the lag from formal announcement (which this would be for the 200-400mm) and actual availablity for lenses in this range (currently 18 months and counting for the 500/600 II lenses), should we be excited about a lens that may not hit the streets for over a year?

A small, flat, inconspicuous lens released with a bulky and far-from-inconspicuous dSLR. Ummm...why?

Overall, while I'm glad there are announcements of lenses, and I acknowledge these are going to make some people happy, I'm not particularly excited, here...


----------



## jdavis37 (Feb 22, 2012)

Hmmmmmmmm $11K USD for the 200-400 1.4X lens.. no wonder it has taken so long to be announced. Took that long to get the nerve to show the price 

All joking aside.... this will add creedence to my thoughts perhaps I should consider a D4. D4 + Nikon 200-400F4 = $12800 Add 1.4X TC at about $400 = $13,200

200-400F4 to 5D3 = $14,500

That's getting roughly 5 to 6 fps for a negative $1300!

Hope this 200-400 is worth the price of admission


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2012)

jdavis37 said:


> Nikon 200-400F4 = $12800 Add 1.4X TC at about $400



If I were considering this lens (personally, I'd get the 500/4 ahead of the 200-400/1.4x, I think), the ability to flip a switch to engage the TC, rather than having to unmount and remount the lens on the TC, would be worth a lot...especially having to juggle a lens as heavy as a 200-400/4.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> A small, flat, inconspicuous lens released with a bulky and far-from-inconspicuous dSLR. Ummm...why?



Maybe this means that the Canon Mirrorless will be a *Digital EOS IX*. I'd buy one  or maybe two  

For those not familiar with the APS Film EOS IX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_IX


----------



## SPG (Feb 22, 2012)

A silent autofocus for a t4i is interesting in that it might signal that this camera will have autofocus capabilities in video mode. Not that most pros want AF in video, but it is a nice option to have in some situations.


----------



## BXL (Feb 22, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> <strong>EF-S 18-135 II</strong>
> This lens will have a silent autofocus motor geared to video. It will arrive with the new Rebel T4i. This has shown up in a US retailer inventory system. No price for the kit with the T4i.


Silent autofocus motor? I would prefer USM for a better and faster AF... don't care too much 'bout video.


----------



## Cornershot (Feb 22, 2012)

I'd have use for a flat lens. There are many jobs in which I want to travel small and light so will slide a second body into a smaller bag profilewise. But even with a 50, it doesn't fit so I have to put the body in alone with a cap. A flat lens would work great here and keep the second camera instantly usable.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 22, 2012)

Looks like f/2.8 is the *NEW f/1.8* for Canon. With higher ISOs being "grainless", f/1.8 lenses may not be necessary for *general photography*. The introduction of Kodak Ektapress 400 and Fuji Press 400 changed things for Pjs and later for birthday-party-photographers. The EF 24mm f/2.8 would make a great lens for a 4Ti (or maybe a Digital EOS IX  ).


----------



## Ricku (Feb 22, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> Looks like f/2.8 is the *NEW f/1.8* for Canon. With higher ISOs being "grainless", *f/1.8 lenses may not be necessary *for general photography.


Not if you don't like good bokeh.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 22, 2012)

I find a 18-135mm II interesting and surprising. The Mk I does have some issues but it's a fine enough kit lens. But, I'm guessing that the "silent autofocus motor" isn't exactly USM or it would be a Mk II. It would just be a 18-135mm USM. Is this hinting at the T4i having full time autofocus while shooting video?

What's the difference between USM and "silent autofocus motor geared to video"?


----------



## bdeutsch (Feb 22, 2012)

I have no need for super-zooms, so I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter...but that is a *huge* price jump (about 10x) to go from the 100-400 f/4-5.6 plus a separate 1.4x TC, to get a 200-400 f/4 with TC built in. How big is the market for that? You gain one stop at the long end of the zoom and have the convenience of a built-in TC, but lose the 100-200mm range and pay 10x the price.


Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos  | NY Wedding Photos


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2012)

bdeutsch said:


> I have no need for super-zooms, so I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter...but that is a *huge* price jump (about 10x) to go from the 100-400 f/4-5.6 plus a separate 1.4x TC, to get a 200-400 f/4 with TC built in. How big is the market for that? You gain one stop at the long end of the zoom and have the convenience of a built-in TC, but lose the 100-200mm range and pay 10x the price.



'Superzoom' means means a >5x zoom range. 200-400mm is a 2x zoom range, not even as great a zoom range as the 16-35mm. 

The market is small, so the price is high. The 100-400mm is a prosumer-class lens, and has a <$2K price tag to match. The 200-400mm f/4 + 1.4x is in the supertele camp, and should be compared to the 400/2.8, 500/4, etc. When you compare the IQ, AF performance, and build of the 300/2.8 IS II to the 300/4 IS, that's the analogous comparison to the 200-400mm vs. 100-400mm - you're paying a lot more, and getting a lot more lens.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 22, 2012)

Ricku said:


> Not if you don't like good bokeh.



It may surprise you to learn that most people don't give a Flying Eff about bokeh. Didn't you see the words *"general photography" *. When was the last time you heard people raving about the *creamy bokeh* off a Pulitzer Prize winning News Photo. Or heard "Oh WOW, that paper-thin-DOF really makes those Birthday Party shots ROCK!!!"


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > Not if you don't like good bokeh.
> ...



Well, heck, then...let's all just get point-n-shoots for "general photography".


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 22, 2012)

bdeutsch said:


> I have no need for super-zooms, so I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter...but that is a *huge* price jump (about 10x) to go from the 100-400 f/4-5.6 plus a separate 1.4x TC, to get a 200-400 f/4 with TC built in. How big is the market for that? You gain one stop at the long end of the zoom and have the convenience of a built-in TC, but lose the 100-200mm range and pay 10x the price.
> 
> 
> Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos  | NY Wedding Photos



Well, a couple of reasons I think:
-The 100-400mm was released in 1998. (It's not a superzoom either)
-The f4 while "only a stop" needs a lot more glass than a 5.6. Look at it, it's huge and heavy. Plus, it looks to be internal zoom.
-The 200-400 will be newer and much better. It will likely be sharper with the 1.4x than the 100-400 is without it.
-Plus it has the 1.4x which does cost something.

All that said, $10,999 is higher than I expected.


----------



## dstppy (Feb 22, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> bdeutsch said:
> 
> 
> > I have no need for super-zooms, so I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter...but that is a *huge* price jump (about 10x) to go from the 100-400 f/4-5.6 plus a separate 1.4x TC, to get a 200-400 f/4 with TC built in. How big is the market for that? You gain one stop at the long end of the zoom and have the convenience of a built-in TC, but lose the 100-200mm range and pay 10x the price.
> ...



$11k is higher than Dr. Evil expected ;D

I dunno . . . I'm still waiting for something 'wow' to come out for lenses in the $500-$1500 range.

Maybe make the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS in black, remove the L and red-ring then charge the DO price?  Maybe just a respectable 100-300 f/4 for the po' fo'k . . . .


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 22, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > Not if you don't like good bokeh.
> ...



Well, maybe I don't know what you mean by your term "general photography" but no matter my camera's ISO performance I'll take the shallower depth of field any day. What you say most people don't "give a flying eff" about is one of my primary concerns.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 22, 2012)

I really hate Canon's sudden love of the f/2.8 max aperture for primes. what is the point of purchasing a prime if it's just going to do only what your zoom lens can do anyway with more flexibility? a 35mm f/2 pancake would have been nice. a 40mm f/2.8 ... hands up if you really want this lens ... anyone? in all their supposed polling of photographers interests, I guess a lot of us voted for "slow, near-standard focal length prime"?

I bet it'll cost $800 too.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Feb 22, 2012)

I'm going to guess a Canon EF 40mm 2.8 pancake lens like the Nikon 45mm 2.8 with the possible addition of AF and slightly better optics would range between $499-999! I can see it now...people are going to be scratching their heads to justify the price and will probably be comparing to the 50 1.8!


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Feb 22, 2012)

surprise me Canon and drop the 14-24 lens announcement and charge me up to $2999 for it!


----------



## kubelik (Feb 22, 2012)

Canon 14-24 said:


> surprise me Canon and drop the 14-24 lens announcement and charge me up to $2999 for it!



don't be silly, Canon would only dare charge ... uh ... $2500 or so for such a lens


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 22, 2012)

But aren't most pancakes f2.8? I always assumed some optical design had to be sacrificed for the pancake design.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Feb 22, 2012)

kubelik said:


> Canon 14-24 said:
> 
> 
> > surprise me Canon and drop the 14-24 lens announcement and charge me up to $2999 for it!
> ...



Yes silliness aside, I can see it'd be hard for some to justify a price for such a lens over $2500 like the launch of the 17mm ts-e (I believe $2499), however if Canon for example wants to throw in some new IS version or some unnecessary video additions in the design for this lens and charge another $500+, hopefully my budget of an excess $500 can cover it


----------



## kubelik (Feb 22, 2012)

Canon 14-24 said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > Canon 14-24 said:
> ...



if they couldn't/wouldn't work IS into the 24-70 Mark II, I doubt they'd insert it into the 14-24.


----------



## Caps18 (Feb 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> If I were considering this lens (personally, I'd get the 500/4 ahead of the 200-400/1.4x, I think), the ability to flip a switch to engage the TC, rather than having to unmount and remount the lens on the TC, would be worth a lot...especially having to juggle a lens as heavy as a 200-400/4.



I have the 300 f/4 and a separate 1.4x. If they would update the 300 f/4 to add in the TC, it should be a lot cheaper and just as good. Even if they put the built in 2x TC into the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, it would be a better choice for the price.

Unless they figured out how to make the 280mm-560mm still at f/4, it isn't worth close to that much. I would get the 600mm f/4 for that price...


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Feb 22, 2012)

kubelik said:


> Canon 14-24 said:
> 
> 
> > kubelik said:
> ...



I do have my fingers crossed they don't, but seeing how they were able to add IS on some wide angle focal lengths (even though they are primes), I am prepping myself for the worst!


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 22, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Well, maybe I don't know what you mean by your term "general photography" but no matter my camera's ISO performance I'll take the shallower depth of field any day. What you say most people don't "give a flying eff" about is one of my primary concerns.



Didn't you see *"Pulitzer Prize winning News Photos"* A PJs work isn't gauged by *Creamy Bokeh*, but by how his work *connects with the audience*. Would Nick Ut's Pulitzer winning *Burning Girl* photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Ut been improved by Paper-Thin-DOF ???

Me, I shoot advertising at f/5.6 to f/16. Sometimes I need a Tilt-and-Shift lens to INCREASE my DOF. I once shot an ad with a EF-S 10-22mm lens at f/16. So, yes I'd buy a 24mm f/2.8. YMMV

Architecture Photographers use Wide Angle Tilt-and-Shift lenses for increased DOF, because that's what their clients want/need.

What about Landscape Photographers ???

Yes, there are many photographers who don't give a Flying Eff about shallow DOF.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 22, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Well, maybe I don't know what you mean by your term "general photography" but no matter my camera's ISO performance I'll take the shallower depth of field any day. What you say most people don't "give a flying eff" about is one of my primary concerns.
> ...



Ok, but see buddy, you could have said "With the work I do, I shoot at higher F values so I don't really care about the f2.8" Instead of coming off rude, arrogant and insulting. The fact is if, you buy a f2.8 lens you can still do the work you need to do with it. My work becomes much for difficult at high F values. Do I need f1.8 or 2.8? Yes, actually, I do.

So your comment to Ricku was completely out of line and he had a valid counter to what you said.

I'm so happy you don't want a shallow depth of field. But I do.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, heck, then...let's all just get point-n-shoots for "general photography".



Terry Richardson and Juergen Teller built their Fashion Photography reputations with P&S Film cameras. Juergen Teller is still shooting Ads and Fashion Editorial with his Film P&S Contax G2.

The problem with Digital P&S cameras is you push-the-button and several seconds later the camera fires.


----------



## lol (Feb 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, heck, then...let's all just get point-n-shoots for "general photography".


My compact with an unremarkable 5.6x crop factor sensor is f/4 actual at 40mm full frame equivalent. So that's f/22 equivalent. Want to compare to APS-C? At 64mm full frame equivalent it's f/4.5 actual for f/16 equivalent.

So while a 40mm f/2.8 isn't going to set blur potential records, it still offers a lot more potential relative to compact cameras.


Elsewhere: if the 200-400 price is remotely true, I feel a Sigma 120-300 purchase coming on!


----------



## mkln (Feb 22, 2012)

why 40? that's 40 on FF and 65 on crop. huh?

and what are you going to use it on? consumer DSLRs have that ugly prism/flash thing protruding from the body and a pancake would look real ugly on them
a 5D or 1D is so large that a 50/1.8 already looks like a pancake (i.e. no advantage using an even smaller lens)

why 2.8? I understand the 24 and 28, they have IS, they are wide angle. but 40 is in the "normal" range, f/2 would help. even if not the best quality, who cares.
I hope that this is going to be cheap at least.

Unless they are actually planning a EOS-mount mirrorless camera like the new pentax thing. (uhhgly) so a pancake would make sense. still, 30/35 would have been better.


----------



## jwong (Feb 22, 2012)

The only thing I can think where a 40mm f/2.8 pancake would make sense is on an EVIL camera. Is this the precursor of Canon's answer to the Sony NEX and Nikon One lines? I can see where people would be pretty happy using the 24 IS or 28 IS with the 40 pancake for a fairly light kit that would still produce decent video.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 22, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> So your comment to Ricku was completely out of line and he had a valid counter to what you said.



Here's the original post from Ricku.



Ricku said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like f/2.8 is the *NEW f/1.8* for Canon. With higher ISOs being "grainless", *f/1.8 lenses may not be necessary *for general photography.
> ...



Why is he attacking my Original post ??? Did I say that there was anything wrong with people who like Shallow DOF ??? No I just said for many people f/2.8 would work fine. Canon seems to think so too, because they are releasing many *NEW f/2.8 lenses*. So "Looks like f/2.8 is the *NEW f/1.8* for Canon." is a *true statement*. What has *bokeh* got to do with it ???


----------



## p-ivo (Feb 22, 2012)

...
hope that f2.8 is a typo.

if not, 'think cosina makes something better for some time now.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/40mm-f2.htm


----------



## -hh (Feb 22, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If I were considering this lens (personally, I'd get the 500/4 ahead of the 200-400/1.4x, I think), the ability to flip a switch to engage the TC, rather than having to unmount and remount the lens on the TC, would be worth a lot...especially having to juggle a lens as heavy as a 200-400/4.
> ...



These are my thoughts as well...haering their price tag of $11K means that they came in at literally twice what I was expecting it to be, and takes it out of consideration. 

Buying a {400mm DO IS f/4 + 1.4x + 7D body} instead clearly isn't the same feature set, but it is ~30% less costly while also being an entirely redundant standalone kit that would suppliment one's 70-200L setup for shorter focal length shots, etc. 


-hh


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 22, 2012)

Oh HELL no Canon. $11,000 for the 200-400? 

The 200-400 lens from the company whose name shall remain unsaid costs $7000. I could buy their lens and a D800 and have enough left for some high-priced companionship.

Wow....


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 22, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> Oh HELL no Canon. $11,000 for the 200-400?
> 
> The 200-400 lens from the company whose name shall remain unsaid costs $7000. I could buy their lens and a D800 and have enough left for some high-priced companionship.
> 
> Wow....



well when you move over to the nameless system I would be interested in buying your 1D4


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 22, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> well when you move over to the nameless system I would be interested in buying your 1D4


No chance. I live in Argentina half the year and their are huge tariffs on imported camera equipment. I can sell my used gear down here and make a profit 

That being said, I won't do anything rash... I'm still thinking about the company whose name begins with an S and makes a 120-300/2.8, that with a 1.4 extender is f4 and beats the pants off the 100-400 in terms of IQ. I shall rent it and see. 

My ass is twitching.


----------



## photophreek (Feb 22, 2012)

smirkypants wrote"


> Oh HELL no Canon. $11,000 for the 200-400?



If the Canon offereing with TC is as sharp(probably sharper) than the lens from the dark side, then this lens will be outstanding and could put a dent in Canon's other supertele sales. 

I remember when this lens was first discussed, the $10K + number was thrown around. This won't sell like kit lenses. but many of these lenses will sell world wide when available.


----------



## SiliconVoid (Feb 22, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > Not if you don't like good bokeh.
> ...




Actually.. Most people do care about DOF and Bokeh, they just do not fully understand why a photograph attracts their eye. They do not know how to assess the effects nor how achieved it on a consistent basis. You can see it anywhere, go look on Pbase, DPReview, Flicker etc.. they are the pictures that get commented on the most, get put in the photographers favorites folder, have the most impact on the viewer - and for 'most people' those shots were just luck because they do not really understand what they did.
The problem with shooting for that effect all the time is a rather thin DOF (missed focus) - consumer grade lenses that do not have the sharpness at faster apertures (the proverbial 'soft lens') nor better aperture mechanisms that produce the more appealing bokeh. I have read many comments from 'most people' who question why others would pay $1200 for a 50mm f/1.2 L when 'their' 18-55mm kit lens produces sharper images (at f/5.6 of course).

If I had to guess I would say Canon has decided that f/2.8 is a decent compromise for many. Still providing a creative tool for those who know how to use it, yet still providing a better opportunity for most people to get properly focused shots across the majority of their camera models.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 22, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > well when you move over to the nameless system I would be interested in buying your 1D4
> ...



well if that S 120-300 2.8 is anything like their 85 1.4 It would be worth a serious look


----------



## bvukich (Feb 22, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> Terry Richardson and Juergen Teller built their Fashion Photography reputations with P&S Film cameras. Juergen Teller is still shooting Ads and Fashion Editorial with his Film P&S Contax G2.



Side note:
A Contax G2 is a rangefinder, not a P&S.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 22, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> Oh HELL no Canon. $11,000 for the 200-400?
> 
> The 200-400 lens from the company whose name shall remain unsaid costs $7000. I could buy their lens and a D800 and have enough left for some high-priced companionship.
> 
> Wow....



Don't worry...they'll have a $5000 rebate with purchase of a T4i body buy Xmas.


----------



## michi (Feb 23, 2012)

Kinda curious, how many of you would buy a new 50mm 1.4 with fantastic optics? That's the kind of lens I have been waiting/hoping for. Even if it was let's say $500, I would still jump on it. Am I the only one who doesn't have thousands of dollars and would still love to have a great affordable lens like that?


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 23, 2012)

michi said:


> Kinda curious, how many of you would buy a new 50mm 1.4 with fantastic optics? That's the kind of lens I have been waiting/hoping for. Even if it was let's say $500, I would still jump on it. Am I the only one who doesn't have thousands of dollars and would still love to have a great affordable lens like that?


I have one... it's from a company whose name begins with an S but that I can't say out loud lest I be smitten to smithereens. It's the only reason I would think of buying a 120-300/2.8 from them.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 23, 2012)

michi said:


> Kinda curious, how many of you would buy a new 50mm 1.4 with fantastic optics? That's the kind of lens I have been waiting/hoping for. Even if it was let's say $500, I would still jump on it. Am I the only one who doesn't have thousands of dollars and would still love to have a great affordable lens like that?



in a heartbeat... same materials as the 100 f2.8L same build quality, call it an L but priced lower than the 1.2
still dreaming....


----------



## BXL (Feb 23, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> Looks like f/2.8 is the *NEW f/1.8* for Canon. With higher ISOs being "grainless", f/1.8 lenses may not be necessary for *general photography*.


Don't think so, because those "new" 2.8 lenses are only replacing the "old" 2.8 lenses. At some point of time, the mid-range primes, like the 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 100/2, will be updated as well.


----------



## JR (Feb 23, 2012)

I am surprised there is no mention of the new 35mm 1.4L mkII in this latest rumor.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 23, 2012)

dstppy said:


> $11k is higher than Dr. Evil expected ;D



Even Mr. Bigglesworth fainted and fell out of his lap upon hearing the price.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 23, 2012)

JR said:


> I am surprised there is no mention of the new 35mm 1.4L mkII in this latest rumor.



more surprising is no mention of a 50mm 1.4 with working AF.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 23, 2012)

mkln said:


> why 40? that's 40 on FF and 65 on crop. huh?
> 
> and what are you going to use it on? consumer DSLRs have that ugly prism/flash thing protruding from the body and a pancake would look real ugly on them
> a 5D or 1D is so large that a 50/1.8 already looks like a pancake (i.e. no advantage using an even smaller lens)
> ...



Seems very similar to the existing Pentax 40mm 2.8 limated pancake thats been sold for use on DSLR's not much smaller than a 5D.

The prism and the grip still don't add that much more lenght to a 5D beyond the mount so a slim 40mm 2.8 will potentially save space, the same with most Canon DSLR's.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 23, 2012)

bvukich said:


> Side note:
> A Contax G2 is a rangefinder, not a P&S.



A Contax G2 is an autofocus camera. "But the AF mechanism in the G-series does indeed use a twin-window system much like that of the older mechanical rangefinders — only in electronic form." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contax_G I talked to a Contax rep at a large Photo-Show when the camera was new. He said that with manual focus you were just controlling the electronic autofocus manually, i.e. not at all like focusing a Leica. He thought it was a Big Step Forward. 

Here are two videos of Juergen Teller shooting ads for Marc Jakobs, notice how he treats the G2 like a P&S, no focusing, he just pushes the shutter.

*Daisy by Marc Jakobs* Daisy by Marc Jacobs film 2

*Marc Jacobs Perfume Oh, Lola* Dakota Fanning - Behind the Scenes - Marc Jacobs Perfume Oh, Lola - Full Video


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 23, 2012)

michi said:


> Kinda curious, how many of you would buy a new 50mm 1.4 with fantastic optics? That's the kind of lens I have been waiting/hoping for. Even if it was let's say $500, I would still jump on it. Am I the only one who doesn't have thousands of dollars and would still love to have a great affordable lens like that?



+1 The 50mm f/1.4 is my most used lens, but it really needs an upgrade to Ring USM and better build quality. Someone else said they want the same build quality as the 100L macro; I'd settle for the same quality as the 28mm and 85mm f/1.8 lenses (which I also own), as both are solid. The Sigma, with it's 77mm threads is just too large for me to consider. I'd choose the Zeiss over that, even though it's manual focus.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > I am surprised there is no mention of the new 35mm 1.4L mkII in this latest rumor.
> ...



(As I've previously stated) I'm hoping Canon is keeping it under wraps to make it a kit lens option for the next 5D, as part of the EOS 25th anniversary (a 50mm prime is what SLRs used to come with, years ago).


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 23, 2012)

michi said:


> Kinda curious, how many of you would buy a new 50mm 1.4 with fantastic optics? That's the kind of lens I have been waiting/hoping for. Even if it was let's say $500, I would still jump on it. Am I the only one who doesn't have thousands of dollars and would still love to have a great affordable lens like that?



Ahhhh.. I had a good chuckle at something you wrote above, michi ;D
"Even if it was let's say $500".
It's much more likely to be closer to $1000 seeing the price of most of Canon's latest offerings! Eg the 24mm f2.8 USM IS and 28mm f2.8 USM IS are around $800. A much faster (eg f1.4!) lens, even without IS would cost around $800 to $1000 is my guess.

I'd be happy with a new 50mm f1.8 that has true (ring) USM (IS could be a bonus) for around $500-$600, or a f1.4 for around $800-$1000 with true USM (IS again, just as a bonus). I had the 50mm f1.8, but sold it - as the focus accuracy & speed as well as bokeh aren't up to my standards.

I want a fast lens (at least f2), around 50 - 60mm, very high IQ wide open, true USM. That is the only real 'gap' in my current lens range  I have 4 other lenses: 10-20mm, 15-85mm, 100mm macro and 70-300mm L, so the 'fast quality prime' is the one I'm looking for.

I've seen too many focus issues with the Sigma 50mm f1.4 to be convinced by it. Same (weak, not true full ring USM) with the Canon 50mm f1.4, where many copies are not sharp enough wide open either.

Please please please Canon... 

Paul


----------



## jdavis37 (Feb 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> bdeutsch said:
> 
> 
> > I have no need for super-zooms, so I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter...but that is a *huge* price jump (about 10x) to go from the 100-400 f/4-5.6 plus a separate 1.4x TC, to get a 200-400 f/4 with TC built in. How big is the market for that? You gain one stop at the long end of the zoom and have the convenience of a built-in TC, but lose the 100-200mm range and pay 10x the price.
> ...



If they can sell it at that price they will... not exactly price I was hoping for... given the Nikon 200-400F4 VR2 is $6800 USD I had figured the Canon version would be in the $8900 range. But $11K? Ouch. Just means more than likely I won't be buying.. wasn't fortunate enough to be wealthy. $8000 range and I would have justified it MAYBe but 411k is hard to imagine in good faith. A D4 + 200-400 is less expensive than proposed 5d + Canon 200-400. i'm actually surprised.. course until Canon releases a price it is just rumor but at CR3 have afeeling it will be so!


----------



## jdavis37 (Feb 23, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> bdeutsch said:
> 
> 
> > I have no need for super-zooms, so I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter...but that is a *huge* price jump (about 10x) to go from the 100-400 f/4-5.6 plus a separate 1.4x TC, to get a 200-400 f/4 with TC built in. How big is the market for that? You gain one stop at the long end of the zoom and have the convenience of a built-in TC, but lose the 100-200mm range and pay 10x the price.
> ...


It's the $11K I am choking on. Nikon version $6800. Quite the difference!


----------



## RC (Feb 23, 2012)

Nothing exciting about the lens announcement for me. :'( Where's the 35 1.4 II and anything 50? 

Ok, what is with pancake lens? ??? Not the focal length, even though that is weird unless its an EF-S. Why a stubby little lens? Seems to me something has to be compromised else more lens would be nice and compact. Someone educate me on "pancake" lenses please. Thanks


----------



## bvukich (Feb 23, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > Side note:
> ...



I know it has autofocus. So does a 1Dx. Neither are P&S cameras.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 23, 2012)

SPG said:


> A silent autofocus for a t4i is interesting in that it might signal that this camera will have autofocus capabilities in video mode. Not that most pros want AF in video, but it is a nice option to have in some situations.



More than that, if it has af in video it has af in live view too - and that's good news, because the contrast af of the 60D is so broken I seldom use live view to take pictures, and if only with quick af which is tiresome because the mirror flips at each focus action.


----------



## michi (Feb 23, 2012)

Right, my whole point about mentioning a new 50mm 1.4 at a decent price is that just about every enthusiast who owns a Canon would get one sooner or later. At around the $500 mark, even the less enthusiastic might save up money and get one, it could be a huge seller. Sadly, I agree, it will probably cost more like something around $800 or more, which again will be too much for me for a basic prime.
Sometimes I wonder if companies realize that they could sell more if they lowered the price of a item. Makes me think of Adobe Photoshop. I cant afford the full suite, and actually Photoshop does way more than I would need it to. A Photoshop version geared towards photographers for $300 or so, count me in. (I know, Lightroom does a lot of the same stuff, but you know what I'm saying).


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 23, 2012)

michi said:


> Right, my whole point about mentioning a new 50mm 1.4 at a decent price is that just about every enthusiast who owns a Canon would get one sooner or later. At around the $500 mark, even the less enthusiastic might save up money and get one, it could be a huge seller. Sadly, I agree, it will probably cost more like something around $800 or more, which again will be too much for me for a basic prime.
> Sometimes I wonder if companies realize that they could sell more if they lowered the price of a item. Makes me think of Adobe Photoshop. I cant afford the full suite, and actually Photoshop does way more than I would need it to. A Photoshop version geared towards photographers for $300 or so, count me in. (I know, Lightroom does a lot of the same stuff, but you know what I'm saying).



That's why I hope a 50mm f/1.4 "Mark II" lacks IS, so as to keep the price lower and the size of the lens smaller, though I do realize that those who shoot video will want IS.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Feb 23, 2012)

michi said:


> A Photoshop version geared towards photographers for $300 or so, count me in. (I know, Lightroom does a lot of the same stuff, but you know what I'm saying).



Out of curiosity - why didn't you buy photoshop elements?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, heck, then...let's all just get point-n-shoots for "general photography".





c.d.embrey said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Well, maybe I don't know what you mean by your term "general photography" but no matter my camera's ISO performance I'll take the shallower depth of field any day. What you say most people don't "give a flying eff" about is one of my primary concerns.
> ...



But, there are many who do. The problem is that you have defined _your_ type of photography as 'general' and relegated certain other types to the status of esoteric and unimportant. 

Let me ask you this. You believe that you do "general photography" and you use a tilt shift lens to do it? Yeah, right, that's a lens every "general photographer" has in their kit.


----------



## Caps18 (Feb 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Let me ask you this. You believe that you do "general photography" and you use a tilt shift lens to do it? Yeah, right, that's a lens every "general photographer" has in their kit.



They 'should' have it in their kit... ;D


----------



## mitchell3417 (Feb 23, 2012)

I won't buy any of these lenses. Ever.

That's my prediction. But someone will, and to them it's worth the $.


----------



## Astro (Feb 23, 2012)

pancake?
why would i be interested in a pancake lens design on a DSLR?


mhm.... now im really curious if that means EF mount for the mirrorless system?


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> A small, flat, inconspicuous lens released with a bulky and far-from-inconspicuous dSLR. Ummm...why?



+1 A Pancake lens would seem to be better mated to a mirrorless body, not a dSLR. Judging by the MSRPs for the 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses, I'm sure this will cost a lot and they'll probably charge extra for the syrup!


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 23, 2012)

*The missing lens to fill the gap?*

I had that lens in my signature as a wish lens for severel weeks. It would be the perfect companion for a 5D and a great standard lens (on the long side) for crop cameras.

I love the 24mm on my 40D as a single walk around solution (aside my 60mm macro) but I waited for a 40mm pancake - hopefully with ultimate quality - to have the option to go full frame with a 5D.

In our times of bulky standard zooms or large standard lenses a pancake makes absolutely sense: It converts a standard (D)SLR into a high quality cam with moderate compactness.

Just f/2.8 is a bit disappointing, f/2.0 had been great but ... if it is a 4-lens 3-group system with one aspherical lens it might be the winner in terms of quality: High contrast, very low flare, very good sharpness, no distortion, ultra fast AF (very low mass of focusing group) ...

Very exciting!


----------



## Mooose (Feb 23, 2012)

That pancake lens announcement is really good news. May mean that the 600mm f4.0 Pancake prototype may finally see the light of day:


----------



## Jamesy (Feb 23, 2012)

Mooose said:


> That pancake lens announcement is really good news. May mean that the 600mm f4.0 Pancake prototype may finally see the light of day:



LOL - Looks like an Alien Bee Ring Flash 800...


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 23, 2012)

Mooose said:


> That pancake lens announcement is really good news. May mean that the 600mm f4.0 Pancake prototype may finally see the light of day:



ROTFLMAOLOL!!! Teh Lulz. ;D


----------



## herbert (Feb 23, 2012)

Mooose said:


> That pancake lens announcement is really good news. May mean that the 600mm f4.0 Pancake prototype may finally see the light of day:



If Canon can make one of those then I'll be waiting for the Flux Capacitor and a Telepad as additional extras. Price estimate $3500.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Feb 23, 2012)

I'm not complaining about the price of the 200-400. There is probably a lot of technology in it, and they aren't going to sell too many of them in comparison to everyday lenses. But my question is this: how many pictures of birds and wildlife do you need to sell to pay off a lens like that - not even including profit?


----------



## funkboy (Feb 23, 2012)

The folks questioning the necessity of pancake lenses on DSLRs have clearly never used the Voigt 20mm Color Skopar or any of the fantastic options available for Pentax bodies. The Zeiss Tessar has tempted me in the past as well...


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 23, 2012)

I'm actually fine with a pancake on a DSLR. I think it will make travel even easier. If the 40mm f2.8 Pancake from Canon is cheap I'd be interested in it. I don't generally enjoy taking my DSLR on trips but I think this would help.

Of course as I'm typing this I'm wondering how much small it is than the 50 f1.4...


----------



## iaind (Feb 23, 2012)

Typical Canon missed the boat again. The announcement was on Ash Wednesday not Shrove Tuesday


----------



## Kernuak (Feb 23, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> how many pictures of birds and wildlife do you need to sell to pay off a lens like that - not even including profit?


It depends on how many unique images you can licence for $5000 .


----------



## WoodyWindy (Feb 24, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A small, flat, inconspicuous lens released with a bulky and far-from-inconspicuous dSLR. Ummm...why?
> ...



As an owner of the original, I've been advocating for a digital return of that form factor for years!


----------



## MazV-L (Feb 25, 2012)

A small, flat, inconspicuous lens released with a bulky and far-from-inconspicuous dSLR. Ummm...why?
[/quote]

40mm pancake will mean having to hold the Dslr like a point and shoot, Yuk!

Maybe okay for people new to Dslr photography or who rarely use their's and tend to hold it that way anyway!


----------



## amesbah (Mar 6, 2012)

So whatever happened to pancake day? 

My 24-70 and 70-200 are a joy to use....so much so that I've really struggled lately with the compacts I've tried - not liking the feel and response. A pancake lens would give my 5d2 an additional P&S capability and fit in my jacket! For this reason I'm excited about an EF pancake with AF.

Ade


----------



## funkboy (Mar 9, 2012)

The pancake lens fits very well with Canon's line of thinking mentioned in this article (thanks Northlight 



> "It's not a question of whether or not you have a mirror. There is a consumer need for good-quality cameras to be made smaller," Maeda said. "We will meet this need."
> 
> He denied this would be difficult without removing the internal mirror, adding that Canon had produced very small SLR cameras in the past.



Now, certainly part of what he was talking about was the G1 X, but there's certainly more to come...


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Mar 10, 2012)

michi said:


> Right, my whole point about mentioning a new 50mm 1.4 at a decent price is that just about every enthusiast who owns a Canon would get one sooner or later. At around the $500 mark, even the less enthusiastic might save up money and get one, it could be a huge seller.



I own a 50mm f/1.4, but my impression is the 50mm f/1.8 is far more people than the f/1.4 among enthusiasts.


----------

