# Basic Information on Lenses Coming in 2016 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 7, 2016)

```
We’ve been trying to get more information on lenses coming in 2016 and things are been relatively hard to come by. We’re now being told that the non-L 200-600 super zoom <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-to-release-super-telephoto-zoom-in-2016-cr2/" target="_blank">we’ve been talking about</a> is likely an early 2017 lens and will not be announced for Photokina in September as originally planned.</p>
<p>The only new L lens that we can confirm is coming is a replacement to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, which is a lens we’ve been told is “done” and will be announced some time this year. We were also told that the EF-S lineup would get some attention this year, and that the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and 17-55 f/2.8 will see updates and a lower price tag, though we can’t confirm this from good sources.</p>
<p>We’re also told there are multiple Canon lenses that will get “direct replacements”, and a few would “surprise you”. Though we haven’t been able to publish what those lenses would be.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 7, 2016)

Eagerly waiting for a new shorter focal length FF macro to replace ancient 50mm macro also a replacement to 180mm f/3.5 L would also suffice. On the other hand if new Ef-s lenses are really released then would like to see if Canon uses same Nano-USM motor from new 18-135mm lens and if they are compatible with power zoom adaptor for video shooters.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 7, 2016)

I'm hoping sitting for updating EF-S 17-55mm and 10-22mm. 

I'm sitting there so long that my butt has become square ... 

Will Canon will give us these updates before Sigma Art? :-\


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2016)

The 16-35 f/2.8L USM III seems a hammerlock certainty. I wonder if the BR gunk will get into this one, or if it will be saved for wider aperture L primes for now. We shall see.

Very glad to hear that Canon wants to offer an update for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, but one wonders if a cheaper price tag means that USM or f/2.8 might be going away to accomplish that. Consider: the 24-105 f/4L IS USM was figuratively 'moved downmarket' with the release of the non-L 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM -- perhaps Canon has the same idea for the 17-55? I hope not, as it will leave the crop camp without a first-party f/2.8 standard zoom (unless they want to pay for L zooms).

I'm somewhat surprised the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM is up for refresh. I would have thought the recent (and pretty well reviewed) 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM lens would suffice for that segment. I guess Canon sees room for two price points there. Brace wallets for impact for a higher end UWA USM lens?

- A


----------



## jebrady03 (Apr 7, 2016)

Queue the lens wishlists...


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> Queue the lens wishlists...



For sure, that will happen, but in fairness, two of those lenses (the 16-35 f/2.8L III USM and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM update) are near the top of the list for the 'squeaky wheel' camp. 

But yes, I'm sure a 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM, a 24-105 f/4L IS USM II and a 400 f/5.6L IS USM will get shouted out in the next hour. 

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 7, 2016)

Everything sounds reasonable so far. 

But what about the 50 mm replacement? It was rumored to be announced soon...? *sigh



ahsanford said:


> But yes, I'm sure a 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM, a 24-105 f/4L IS USM II and a 400 f/5.6L IS USM will get shouted out in the next hour.


or minute


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2016)

dilbert said:


> _We’re now being told that the non-L 200-600 super zoom we’ve been talking about is likely an early 2017 lens and will not be announced for Photokina in September as originally planned._
> 
> So now the CR rumor agrees with comments from Rick Wagoneer.



And now it's formal? The lens with a ~ 107mm front element will be a non-L offering? 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2016)

Also, the "direct replacement" comment bodes well for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM camp (if that's what it was referring to) and it's exactly what we're expecting for the 16-35 f/2.8L USM III.

But it would be an opportunity lost for the non-L 50mm prime. I'd surely buy a redesigned 50mm f/1.4 USM II, of course, but I'd love to see IS on it.

- A


----------



## mrzero (Apr 7, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> We were also told that the EF-S lineup would get some attention this year, and that the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and 17-55 f/2.8 will see updates and a lower price tag, though we can’t confirm this from good sources. We’re also told there are multiple Canon lenses that will get “direct replacements”, and a few would “surprise you”. Though we haven’t been able to publish what those lenses would be.





Chaitanya said:


> On the other hand if new Ef-s lenses are really released then would like to see if Canon uses same Nano-USM motor from new 18-135mm lens and if they are compatible with power zoom adaptor for video shooters.



As soon as the PZ and the new 18-135mm USM came out, I thought that the 10-22 and 17-55 would be ideal candidates for similar treatment. I hope they are updated to be compatible with the power zoom, as those two with an 80D would make a great video rig, for home video types like me at least.


----------



## j-nord (Apr 7, 2016)

Yay! I hope that means a 500L f5.6 IS to replace the 400L f5.6! One can dream...


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 7, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Yay! I hope that means a 500L f5.6 IS to replace the 400L f5.6! One can dream...



I'm with you - I need something longer than 200mm for my 80D!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 7, 2016)

I guess one place to look with the "surprises" is lenses that dont currently offer enough resolution on high MP cameras the EF 16-34mm f2.8L II fits that bill but so does the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM which increased in price when the STM version arrived. The TS-E 45mm f2.8 TS lens could be another as would the EF 180mm f3.5L USM Macro.


----------



## JMZawodny (Apr 7, 2016)

The one lens I'd like to see updated is the 24-70 f/2.8L. I have the original and hope to bypass the II version. I'd like to see a return to the original zoom (out wide, in long) or an internal zoom - both with BR and IS.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> I guess one place to look with the "surprises" is lenses that dont currently offer enough resolution on high MP cameras the EF 16-34mm f2.8L II fits that bill but so does the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM which increased in price when the STM version arrived. The TS-E 45mm f2.8 TS lens could be another as would the EF 180mm f3.5L USM Macro.



"Surprises" might mean forgotten older lenses -- the 200 f/2.8L, the 100mm f/2, the 100mm non-L macro, the 20mm f/2.8, the 50mm 1:2 macro, etc., but who knows?

- A


----------



## -1 (Apr 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> .
> 
> Very glad to hear that Canon wants to offer an update for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, but one wonders if a cheaper price tag means that USM or f/2.8 might be going away to accomplish that. Consider: the 24-105 f/4L IS USM was figuratively 'moved downmarket' with the release of the non-L 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM -- perhaps Canon has the same idea for the 17-55? I hope not, as it will leave the crop camp without a first-party f/2.8 standard zoom (unless they want to pay for L zooms).



This being videotimes and all and with the 80d it would not be unresonable to think STM... It could 3.5 to somthing but the IS would likely stay.


----------



## fish_shooter (Apr 7, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Eagerly waiting for a new shorter focal length FF macro to replace ancient 50mm macro also a replacement to 180mm f/3.5 L would also suffice. On the other hand if new Ef-s lenses are really released then would like to see if Canon uses same Nano-USM motor from new 18-135mm lens and if they are compatible with power zoom adaptor for video shooters.



+1 - it needs to have full time manual focusing as well as weather sealing (ie., for outdoor use). Currently have the 50 Compact Macro while optically good has stone age auto-focusing. Also am reluctant to use in our typically drippy environment.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 7, 2016)

24-105 LIS mk II?


----------



## cayenne (Apr 7, 2016)

Geaux 50mm L f/1.2!!!

Geaux, Geaux, Geaux!!




Cayenne


----------



## schmidtfilme (Apr 7, 2016)

What about the 50 1.4 IS - I thought that is coming for sure this year.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 7, 2016)

85mm f/1.4L portrait redesign please!!!


----------



## wsmith96 (Apr 7, 2016)

The surprise lens could be an IS version of the 24-70 f2.8 L


----------



## Kim Bentsen (Apr 7, 2016)

Only ONE L-lens in 2016 will not cut it.

The elephant in the room is the 24-70mm/2.8 *IS*. Everyone else offers a stabilized solution with a 24-70mm/2.8.


----------



## Famateur (Apr 7, 2016)

Well, I guess I better finally get around to selling my EF-S 17-55MM F2.8 IS before a direct replacement comes along -- especially if it's at a lower price!

Anyone want to buy it?  It's a fantastic lens, but I just don't use it anymore...


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2016)

Kim Bentsen said:


> Only ONE L-lens in 2016 will not cut it.
> 
> The elephant in the room is the 24-70mm/2.8 *IS*. Everyone else offers a stabilized solution with a 24-70mm/2.8.



Does 'everyone else' offer an 85 f/1.2? A 17mm tilt-shift? A 5:1 macro? A 70-200 IS + aperture combination for every budget? 

Canon doesn't have to keep pace with everyone _everywhere_.

One might argue Canon's greatest hole in the lineup is a best-in-class astro lens. Right now, of the holy astro trinity of [very wide], [very fast] and [coma free], I believe Canon only can check off two boxes at a time. We all presume a new 24 f/1.4L with the BR gunk will come to save the day eventually (the 35L II controls coma well!), but we don't know when that might be.

- A


----------



## NancyP (Apr 7, 2016)

I am still stuck on my EF-S15-85 for good all-around travel lens.
I would like a 60mm to 75mm (fixed focal length) f/2.8 full frame 1:2 or 1:1 macro to replace the venerable 50mm macro.
If the 400 f/5.6L could get high level IS and high level performance without too much weight gain, I might regretfully retire my 400 f/5.6L no-IS.
My interests are in trying out some existing lenses - the TS-E 24 vII, for instance.


----------



## Kim Bentsen (Apr 7, 2016)

I am a die hard self-confessed Canon fanboy, and no one can match the quality of the Canon lens program.

But the 24-70mm/2.8 is the most critical lens for many people. It is essential that Canon gets with the program on this lens. They probably already have developed this lens but are hesitating to release it because of lack of production capacity. If released every man and his dog would want one. The Tesla Model 3 sales history would be shamed by the 24-70/2.8 *IS*. Canon is afraid they can't cope with the success. 

What other reason could there be?



ahsanford said:


> Kim Bentsen said:
> 
> 
> > Only ONE L-lens in 2016 will not cut it.
> ...


----------



## PepeSilvia (Apr 7, 2016)

So the 24, 28, and 35 primes got IS replacements as a group, but none of those had USM before. Maybe the USM non-L primes (or at least a few of them) are getting IS replacements as a group. Candidates include the 100 f/2, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 28 f/1.8, and 20 f/2.8.

Out of those, the ones I think need an update the most are the 50 and the 20. The 28 would compete with the current 28 IS, so unless it's much bigger and much more expensive or it doesn't have IS, I don't really see a place for it. The 85 and 100 are still good performers and the 85 is next in line for most likely replacement but since the design is so similar to the 100, I'd guess that those two will come as a pair later. The 50 is already rumored to be coming, but I think the 20 could be the one of the surprises.

My reasoning on the 20 f/2.8 is that it's the only ultrawide prime in the lineup that isn't an expensive L (14L) or a fisheye lens (15 fisheye, now discontinued), and it's worse optically than the 17-40 and every other ultrawide zoom in the lineup (16-35 and 11-24). There's almost no reason for anyone to choose the 20 over the 17-40 at the moment unless the f/2.8 aperture was critical. Sigma has the 20 f/1.4 ART lens and there are a ton of budget (<$500) primes wider than 24 from third parties though most lacking in AF. A relatively cheap and compact 20mm f/2.8 IS would be a nice reason to choose a prime over the current ultrawide zooms in the lineup, and paired with the 50 would expand the IS prime offerings (20, 24, 28, 35, 50).


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2016)

Kim Bentsen said:


> I am a die hard self-confessed Canon fanboy, and no one can match the quality of the Canon lens program.
> 
> But the 24-70mm/2.8 is the most critical lens for many people. It is essential that Canon gets with the program on this lens. They probably already have developed this lens but are hesitating to release it because of lack of production capacity. If released every man and his dog would want one. The Tesla Model 3 sales history would be shamed by the 24-70/2.8 *IS*. Canon is afraid they can't cope with the success.
> 
> What other reason could there be?



Because (a) it's not sexy _enough_ for people to leave if they don't get one, and (b) it'll be a $2500 lens with a fairly limited market as a result.

I think they'll make one someday, don't get me wrong, but they have more pressing needs. UWA event/sports folks need an update to their staple 16-35 f/2.8 pretty badly, and Nikon's $1,400 200-500 f/5.6 is a legitimate threat to flip budding birding/wildlife photographers to their side of the ledger. I think Canon will offer those before a 24-70 f/2.8L IS gets offered, but I could be wrong.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2016)

PepeSilvia said:


> So the 24, 28, and 35 primes got IS replacements as a group, but none of those had USM before. Maybe the USM non-L primes (or at least a few of them) are getting IS replacements as a group. Candidates include the 100 f/2, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 28 f/1.8, and 20 f/2.8.
> 
> Out of those, the ones I think need an update the most are the 50 and the 20...
> 
> [truncated]



You are referring to the long-awaited 'Middle' column of the chart that could sorely use an update (see attached). The 50 and 85 on that list simply must come first due to their usefulness, IMHO, but I understand your comments on the 20mm. 

- A


----------



## wsmith96 (Apr 7, 2016)

NancyP said:


> I am still stuck on my EF-S15-85 for good all-around travel lens.
> I would like a 60mm to 75mm (fixed focal length) f/2.8 full frame 1:2 or 1:1 macro to replace the venerable 50mm macro.
> If the 400 f/5.6L could get high level IS and high level performance without too much weight gain, I might regretfully retire my 400 f/5.6L no-IS.
> My interests are in trying out some existing lenses - the TS-E 24 vII, for instance.



That's a good point, I could also see canon updating their 400 5.6L to include IS.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 7, 2016)

PepeSilvia said:


> So the 24, 28, and 35 primes got IS replacements as a group, but none of those had USM before. Maybe the USM non-L primes (or at least a few of them) are getting IS replacements as a group. Candidates include the 100 f/2, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 28 f/1.8, and 20 f/2.8.
> 
> Out of those, the ones I think need an update the most are the 50 and the 20. The 28 would compete with the current 28 IS, so unless it's much bigger and much more expensive or it doesn't have IS, I don't really see a place for it. The 85 and 100 are still good performers and the 85 is next in line for most likely replacement but since the design is so similar to the 100, I'd guess that those two will come as a pair later. The 50 is already rumored to be coming, but I think the 20 could be the one of the surprises.
> 
> My reasoning on the 20 f/2.8 is that it's the only ultrawide prime in the lineup that isn't an expensive L (14L) or a fisheye lens (15 fisheye, now discontinued), and it's worse optically than the 17-40 and every other ultrawide zoom in the lineup (16-35 and 11-24). There's almost no reason for anyone to choose the 20 over the 17-40 at the moment unless the f/2.8 aperture was critical. Sigma has the 20 f/1.4 ART lens and there are a ton of budget (<$500) primes wider than 24 from third parties though most lacking in AF. A relatively cheap and compact 20mm f/2.8 IS would be a nice reason to choose a prime over the current ultrawide zooms in the lineup, and paired with the 50 would expand the IS prime offerings (20, 24, 28, 35, 50).



+1 .... I would be all for an affordable 20mm f/2.8 IS


----------



## j-nord (Apr 7, 2016)

wsmith96 said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I am still stuck on my EF-S15-85 for good all-around travel lens.
> ...


I think its unlikely since they have the 100-400ii. What would a 400 5.6L IS bring to the table over the zoom? I doubt there is much room for optical improvement or size/weight here. A 300L f4 IS II or 500L f5.6 IS would bring more options to the table and could conceivably be paired with a 100-400ii rather than an "or" scenario between 400 zoom and 400 prime.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2016)

j-nord said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > That's a good point, I could also see canon updating their 400 5.6L to include IS.
> ...



The 400mm f/5.6L USM is a legendary 'starter L' from a value perspective -- if you don't need the IS, you get a sharp 400mm prime for an unheard of $1,149. Nikon famously does not offer such a lens.

Further, the 100-400 II is a good 20 years newer than the 400 f/5.6L, so _I should hope_ it's sharper. A modern redesign of the 400 f/5.6L would outresolve the 100-400 II, one would think.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > wsmith96 said:
> ...



Of course, a sharper version with IS would likely see a substantial price bump, negating much of that appeal.


----------



## nicksotgiu (Apr 7, 2016)

I'm still holding off on buying the 16-35mm f/4.0L because of the f/2.8L III coming soon... hopefully...  

Is the filter size going to be 77mm like the f/4.0L version? I hope so.

All my filters are 77mm, so that would be convenient.


----------



## nightscape123 (Apr 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > wsmith96 said:
> ...



You can get the 100-400 II for $1800 during sales now, I doubt an updated 400 f/5.6 IS would come in much below that. 

I think a 500 f/5.6 would be pretty awesome, I would consider that.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 7, 2016)

Hey, maybe they'll announce the new 16-35mm 2.8 III with the new 5d Mk IV as a kit lens option! : :


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 7, 2016)

nicksotgiu said:


> I'm still holding off on buying the 16-35mm f/4.0L because of the f/2.8L III coming soon... hopefully...
> 
> Is the filter size going to be 77mm like the f/4.0L version? I hope so.
> 
> All my filters are 77mm, so that would be convenient.



Not happening. The current 16-35 f/2.8L USM II jumped to 82mm, so I would be stunned if it got smaller.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 8, 2016)

j-nord said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...


We hear this a lot, yet back when it was the 100-400 version 1 and the 400F5.6, a lot of people preferred the 400F5.6 and although the sales were not as good as the zoom, it's 20+ years in the Canon lineup remains as proof that there was sufficient demand for it.

Fast forward to the present and we have a newer 100-400 with greatly improved optics...yet it's image quality is only approaching (some say equal) to that 20 year old 400F5.6. Come out with a newer version of the 400F5.6 that includes the same advances in optic design, materials, coatings, and manufacturing precision, and you will have a lens that should be significantly better than the zoom..... and with a constant length it will be easier to seal and you will not be pumping dust and moisture through it like an extending zoom design such as the 100-400II zoom lens.

There is a market for both. Both co-existed in the Canon lineup with old tech... both can co-exist with new tech.


----------



## dslrdummy (Apr 8, 2016)

I'd be very interested in a 135mm f/2.0Lii. The current 135 is a great lense by all accounts and this is often put as the reason why it hasn't been upgraded but it is 20 years old. Might be the 'surprise' referred to.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 8, 2016)

Dear Canon, 
A viable 50mm 1.2 that focuses reasonably fast and very accurately, one without the worst focus shift of any 50mm on the market...That would be a surprise, because I've almost given up hope.

Almost.

It would be more of a surprise than a 20 year old lens being updated with blue goo.

Thank you.

YL


----------



## Cali Capture (Apr 8, 2016)

I would a L 50mm with Blue glue would have to be in the mix. The only thing I could see slowing a new 50L lens would be 35L f/1.4II sales performing below forecast. I would be surprised by a 135 f/2 with Image stabilization!


----------



## j-nord (Apr 8, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > wsmith96 said:
> ...


Why not 500 instead? Clearly there is demand for 500/5.6 and 600/6.3. Like I said it seems unlikely people would own both the 400 zoom and 400 prime where as a 500 prime would nicely compliment the 400 zoom. Also the 100-400 mkI was optically crap... by most accounts the 100-400ii is on par with the 400 f5.6 prime. Adding IS and making it sharper is going to add size, weight and cost. This would negate the benefits seen with the version I. This said, I'd definitely consider buying a 400 f5.6 L IS if thats the route canon goes, I'd just rather see a 500 f5.6 L IS.


----------



## wsmith96 (Apr 8, 2016)

j-nord said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...



A 300 f4L II would be interesting too. If it were on par with the 2.8 optics I could see this being a great seller as camera ISO performance has increased. It would make a great lightweight and economic (compared to the f2.8 version) sports alternative.


----------



## Sabaki (Apr 8, 2016)

As personal opinions go, my take is that a 500mm f/5.6 L IS would be the perfect partner to the 100-400ii.

Birders are always looking for that extra bit of reach and a 400mm can be considered a bit short when shooting birds in a true nature reserve. Heck, even a 500mm may be a tad short.

I personally would put both a 100-400mm L IS ii and a 500mm L IS into my bag. Would I put both a 100-400mm and 400mm L IS into one bag? I doubt it...


----------



## In-The-Dark (Apr 8, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re also told there are multiple Canon lenses that will get “direct replacements”, and a few would “surprise you”. Though we haven’t been able to publish what those lenses would be.</p>



Yes Canon, please do surprise us!

I'm in the camp of those who are wishing/hoping for a replacement for the 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 (or 100mm 2.0) . . . . . may Canon surprise us with IS, quick USM AF, great IQ wide-open, compact (but durable) build, and reasonable price ;D.


----------



## Sabaki (Apr 8, 2016)

My personal lens choice would be a successor to the 16-35 f/2.8 L ii

I'm not going to put forward that more millimetres on the short side would be fantastic (it would ) but I'd love image quality to best that of the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 AND shoot stars like a champion.

I'm dreaming of no aberrations when shooting trees and other foliage


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 8, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> My personal lens choice would be a successor to the 16-35 f/2.8 L ii
> 
> I'm not going to put forward that more millimetres on the short side would be fantastic (it would ) but I'd love image quality to best that of the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 AND shoot stars like a champion.



I'd be surprised if Canon went down to 14mm instead of 16mm -- that would (likely) eliminate the front filter threads. I think the _ultra_-ultrawide L zoom ship has sailed for the foreseeable future with the 11-24 f/4L USM, but hey, one can dream. Here's hoping it happens for you.

- A


----------



## traveller (Apr 8, 2016)

I can see a 24-70 f/2.8 L IS happening soon, as Canon is so Nikon focused. 

I would love to see a 300mm f/4 DO IS that plays nicely with a 1.4x teleconverter, as I generally carry a 70-200 f/2.8 and would like something lightweight for when a bit more reach is required. The 100-400 II is lovely, but I'm not about to carry that much extra weight in my bag alongside the 70-200. 

The 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 could also do with updates, as could the 28mm f/1.8. Nikon now has quite a strong lineup of f/1.8 primes from 20mm through to 85mm; Canon has quite a few gaps to plug if they want to match these. 

Despite my full frame centric wish-list, I still think that we get the most love from Canon. APS-C shooters still have a pretty raw deal: 
-no fast wide primes (the 24mm is good value at the low end, but neither as fast nor as wide as most XXD or 7D users would want); 
-a pretty long in the tooth 17-55mm f/2.8 that could do with being a couple of millimetres wider; 
-no fast telezoom -okay, you can use the 70-200 f/2.8s, but I find the loss of the 70-112mm range a problem, which is one of the reasons that I went full frame. YMMV, of course, but it would be nice for people to have the choice of a 50-135 f/2.8. 
You could argue that this is part of Canon's strategy to push "serious shooters" to full frame. The danger is that it ends up pushing them to Fuji or m4/3rds instead.


----------



## great9 (Apr 8, 2016)

New EF 16-35mm f/2.8L? Yes please. This might just be my first L lense.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Apr 8, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > _We’re now being told that the non-L 200-600 super zoom we’ve been talking about is likely an early 2017 lens and will not be announced for Photokina in September as originally planned._
> ...



It was sait that it would be a f8 EF-M lens.... so no 107mm front element. This sounds plausible. and if not, maybe from now on all bodies will be f8 capable, then it would make sense in EF mount as well, at least as a consumer lens.

BUT F8 is quite close to the difraction limit on a 24MP APS-C sensor (, or more precisely wrtitten in the region where diffraction will already reduce image quality), so the real value may be questionable, even if the optic is fantastic. In my expierience with the 7diii and the 100-400 ii lens, it's difficult to get any benefit from the 1.4 extender over cropping, and this is a really good lens, but yes, different situation on the 5diii

So in my opinion, this lens would make sense mainly for full frame bodies (except 5ds)

Just


----------



## nicksotgiu (Apr 8, 2016)

Maybe a fast non-L 85mm?
Like a f/1.4

I know there's a new 50mm f1.4 in the works...

We shall see, at NAB xD


----------



## d (Apr 8, 2016)

35mm 1.4L BR III - now that'd be a surprise!

d.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 8, 2016)

nightscape123 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...


The EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM II is truly an awsome lens better into the corners than the MK1 version and although slightly heavier still hand-holdable in certain situations.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 8, 2016)

The EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM lens is a great all round lens but it does suffer from cromatic abberations and distortions. A reworked version of this maybe even pushed to f2.8 would be a dream lens for a lot of people. Couple this with the EF 100-400mm f4.5 - 5.6L IS USM II and you have everything you need for travel & most game photography. 

Ive both the EF24-70mm f4L IS USM and the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM and prefer the latter for its better longer reach but the former is better optically.


----------



## j-nord (Apr 8, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> The EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM lens is a great all round lens but it does suffer from cromatic abberations and distortions. A reworked version of this maybe even pushed to f2.8 would be a dream lens for a lot of people. Couple this with the EF 100-400mm f4.5 - 5.6L IS USM II and you have everything you need for travel & most game photography.
> 
> Ive both the EF24-70mm f4L IS USM and the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM and prefer the latter for its better longer reach but the former is better optically.



I agree the 24-105L definitely needs and update. The sigma ART version is significantly sharper. I went with the 24-70L f4 IS because of the 77mm filter size and macro mode. I end up shooting more landscapes at 70 than 24 so the extra reach would go a long way. I still might switch the sigma 24-105 Art at some point. I don't use the macro mode on the 24-70L f4IS much anymore now that I have the 50f1.8STM and 300F4IS both with good MFD.


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 8, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Fast forward to the present and we have a newer 100-400 with greatly improved optics *everything* ...


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 8, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> The EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM lens is a great all round lens but it does suffer from cromatic abberations and distortions. A reworked version of this maybe even pushed to f2.8 would be a dream lens for a lot of people. Couple this with the EF 100-400mm f4.5 - 5.6L IS USM II and you have everything you need for travel & most game photography.
> 
> Ive both the EF24-70mm f4L IS USM and the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM and prefer the latter for its better longer reach but the former is better optically.



+1

The 24-105 + 100-400 II is my favorite hiking combo. (Sometimes, I'll replace the 24-105 with the 16-35/4 and a 50mm prime.)

I have often contemplated replacing the 24-105 with a 24-70/4, but hold off because I don't want to give up the extra reach. I have no illusions (delusions?) of a 2.8 version, but would very much like to see a 24-105 f/4L IS USM II.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 8, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> PepeSilvia said:
> 
> 
> > So the 24, 28, and 35 primes got IS replacements as a group, but none of those had USM before. Maybe the USM non-L primes (or at least a few of them) are getting IS replacements as a group. Candidates include the 100 f/2, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 28 f/1.8, and 20 f/2.8.
> ...



I agree on the 50mm. 

Disagree on the 85mm. The 85mm f/1.8 is a very solid lens. It's light, fast aperture, fast focusing, renders excellent bokeh, and is quite strong optically, especially stopped down (CA is it's weakness). In fact, if you don't need faster then f/1.8 it's a better choice then the 85mm f/1.2L.

The 85/100 consumer primes are oldies but goodies from Canon and while I wouldn't be surprised if they released updates, I think they probably have higher priorities, better opportunities in their lens design department.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 8, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> As personal opinions go, my take is that a 500mm f/5.6 L IS would be the perfect partner to the 100-400ii.
> 
> Birders are always looking for that extra bit of reach and a 400mm can be considered a bit short when shooting birds in a true nature reserve. Heck, even a 500mm may be a tad short.
> 
> I personally would put both a 100-400mm L IS ii and a 500mm L IS into my bag. Would I put both a 100-400mm and 400mm L IS into one bag? I doubt it...



For a tele prime, my personal choice would be a 400mm f/4L IS that does well with teleconverters.


----------



## Sabaki (Apr 8, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > As personal opinions go, my take is that a 500mm f/5.6 L IS would be the perfect partner to the 100-400ii.
> ...



Either way, I'm sure we will have some excellent options. 

The 100-400ii is so good, many owners of the 200-400 are saying that had the two been released simultaneously, they would possibly have gone for the 100-400ii.

What I'm imagining is the zoom on the 100-400 for larger birds and birds come near at hides and a 500mm for reach.


----------



## boogaloo (Apr 8, 2016)

Hope the 'no new lenses' thing doesn't apply to the EOS-M lenses too...


----------



## traveller (Apr 8, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > PepeSilvia said:
> ...



Longitudinal chromatic aberration can be a problem on the 85mm f/1.8, even if the Canon is typical of this class of lens. I would like to think that the technology is there to correct for this in a more modern lens design. The question is could Canon do this without bumping up the price to 'L' or Zeiss Milvus money? It would also be nice to see a slight bump in off-centre resolution; I know that some say it's not an issue on a portrait lens, because the depth of field wide open hides the softness anyway, but when did you last compose a photo with the subject dead centre? If you want to see what's possible, try this comparison:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=106&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1000&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=ISO30

Okay, it's not fair to compare a £240 lens to a £1240 lens (just like f/1.8 vs f/1.4 isn't fair either), but it shows what is possible with modern optics. Out of fun, compare the improvement of the Zeiss Milvus over its predecessor.... You pay a near 50% premium for the Milvus over the old ZE 85 f/1.4 T* and it looks to be worth every penny. I'd be willing to pay more than double for a similarly improved 85mm f/1.8 II, but I suspect that this will have to wait for the 85mm f/1.2 L III at >£2000 and >1.3kg


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Apr 8, 2016)

16-35 f2.8 IS please! I have the f4 but will get the 2.8 in a heartbeat especially if it has IS


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 8, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Fast forward to the present and we have a newer 100-400 with greatly improved optics *everything* ...


Quite true.....

The improvements in machining accuracy has put a beating on copy to copy variation.......


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 8, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I don't know that particular lens well, but there _may_ be more going on than you think. It's really, really expensive to cut all the tolerances in a design by 50%. Give the designing engineer some credit! 

I have little doubt the design did incorporate tighter tolerances in very strategic places, but _the design itself_ may have allowed/facilitated small but hugely important mechanical adjustments in the factory that could eliminate the 'slop' in the tolerance stack between elements.

- A


----------



## insanitybeard (Apr 8, 2016)

Not likely to happen but I'll repeat myself here- I'd quite like to see a compact 10mm EF-S prime, as a more compact option to the zoom with potentially higher IQ- the 10-22 is a great lens but I've always found the corners a bit mushy with it paired with the 7D when used for landscapes. I'm using a 16-35L IS as my walkaround now on the 7D so a compact ultrawide prime would complement the 16-35 nicely when something wider than 16mm was required.

As said though, I'm in a minority here so it's probably a non-starter.


----------



## drs (Apr 8, 2016)

The 16-35 had a long time sitting in my cases before it was used more often. It was pretty much one of my workhorses over many years, if I could use it on its sweet-spots, which are fairly small. I have replaced it with Sigma Art Primes, (apples and Oranges, I know) and there is currently no way back, except with a v3 version.

The only thing that bothered me [v2] is the CA and the strong flare, and nope I do not fix CA in post, as it is not a fix, it is a fake for hobbyists, at least in any app I had my fingers on so far. 

So, I look forward to the v3 of this one, and hopefully it has the flare suppression of the e.g., Sigma 24mm as well the CA of it (or better!), at least at comparable settings.
I guess we will see a price-point at 2K+, I hope Canon delivers accordingly. Fingers crossed.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Apr 8, 2016)

im guessing theres a new 70-200mm F2.8 IS III coming 
and yet another 24-105mm USM/STM variant as well


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 8, 2016)

traveller said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I agree with your assessment, and is part of the reason why I don't think we'll see an updated "consumer" 85mm prime anytime too soon. With that said, I believe Canon could completely refresh that lens and come out with something sharper, eliminate the CA and give us something a bit more punchy and micro contrasty. I don't think the lens would cost them all that much to manufacture, but because of the improvements and such they would probably demand a good premium for it, and come in somewhere in the double to triple price range of the current lens.

I really like Brian's website. I wish he had test results of those lenses stopped down through the common apertures (Would allow those "fair" comparisons you speak of too). The 85mm like a number of those era lenses, is a bit soft wide open, but sharpens up very quickly even stopping down a tiny bit. Which is why I typically shoot that lens in the f/2 to f/2.5 range.

It's interesting you speak of modern optics. For fun I looked at the 135mm f/2L (my most recent lens pickup) and that is a very solid/sharp lens across the frame and I think we all know how old that lens design is.


----------



## TommyLee (Apr 8, 2016)

I would like to see
a 180 or 200 macro ..............f4... I guess... with I.S. and a bit of speed to focus

...
for me ..as big choice....I want to buy the 200 f2 but I want to see it with new coatings and 4-stop I.S. .....
wont get the 'old' one.... beat the otus 85 in performance (in the 200mm class of course...but stunning edges..chromatics)
I'll just shoot the 14L II and 200mm f2L .... better hood
maybe a hood like the old... 300 f4 I.S....slider

ok my nice 35L II in middle..
to walk about..

so ................wide ...normal...and long...
...
I always hoped they would some slightly wider standard FF zoom. 
like 20mm to 85mm... or so 
f4 all the way


----------



## slclick (Apr 8, 2016)

Some will make some happy.
Some will make some unhappy.


----------



## RGF (Apr 8, 2016)

drs said:


> The 16-35 had a long time sitting in my cases before it was used more often. It was pretty much one of my workhorses over many years, if I could use it on its sweet-spots, which are fairly small. I have replaced it with Sigma Art Primes, (apples and Oranges, I know) and there is currently no way back, except with a v3 version.
> 
> The only thing that bothered me [v2] is the CA and the strong flare, and nope I do not fix CA in post, as it is not a fix, it is a fake for hobbyists, at least in any app I had my fingers on so far.
> 
> ...



I would rather have the F2.8 but right now I carry the 16-35 F4. Of course that means 82mm filters.

wish canon would go back to 77 mm on their std lenses.


----------



## slclick (Apr 8, 2016)

RGF said:


> drs said:
> 
> 
> > The 16-35 had a long time sitting in my cases before it was used more often. It was pretty much one of my workhorses over many years, if I could use it on its sweet-spots, which are fairly small. I have replaced it with Sigma Art Primes, (apples and Oranges, I know) and there is currently no way back, except with a v3 version.
> ...



I'm not sure I'd classify an UWA zoom a standard lens. 24+ sure. But I know what you mean, I've had to buy an extra 82 here and there as well.


----------



## FECHariot (Apr 9, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I'm somewhat surprised the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM is up for refresh. I would have thought the recent (and pretty well reviewed) 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM lens would suffice for that segment. I guess Canon sees room for two price points there. Brace wallets for impact for a higher end UWA USM lens?



It would be nice to see the 10-22 get 2.8. Make it good with coma for Milky Way shots while giving up none of the good points on the current 10-22. There just ins't enough separation between the 10-18 and 10-22 so if they are going to have 2 UWA options, the 10-22 replacement will have to go upscale.


----------



## rbr (Apr 9, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> In case you weren't aware, Canon recently released a new 400 f4 DO II lens. I seriously doubt that a non DO version could be any better or that it would be priced much differently. It's a fantastic lens and does very well with both the 1.4x and 2x III.


----------



## traveller (Apr 9, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...



The Canon 135mm f/2 is by all accounts a very good lens (though I've never used it myself), just don't compare it to the Zeiss ZE version!  (At double the price, to be fair to Canon). 

To be honest, most people would probably struggle to get optimal results from Zeiss lenses anyway, because of the difficulty of achieving critical focus at large apertures without the assistance of auto focus -unless you use live view or tethering. Canon's hybrid viewfinder patent would come in useful here.


----------



## Foxdude (Apr 9, 2016)

How about new ef-m lenses? I would like some fast primes, like 50mm and 85mm F1.8. 35mm would be nice too.
maybe new improved stabilized ef-m price to suprise us?


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 9, 2016)

FECHariot said:


> It would be nice to see the 10-22 get 2.8. Make it good with coma for Milky Way shots while giving up none of the good points on the current 10-22. There just ins't enough separation between the 10-18 and 10-22 so if they are going to have 2 UWA options, the 10-22 replacement will have to go upscale.



I agree the 10-22 needs differentiation optically, but from a feature standpoint, I think the EF-S 10-22mm is _already_ upscale to the EF-S 10-18mm in many respects...


It is a shade quicker (max aperture-wise)
USM focusing is superior to STM for stills
It has a metal mount vs. the 10-18's plastic mount
It has internal zooming and focusing (technically the 10-22 front element moves, but it is always behind the front filter threads)
Has a distance scale
Takes very common 77mm filters you may already own for another lens

..but the optics are 10 years older, so the much newer 10-18 outperforms it much like how a new non-L EF prime can out-resolve an aging L prime. Modernize the 10-22 and it will improve considerably. Whether or not it gets IS and how much it will cost are the $64,000 questions with that lens, IMHO.

- A


----------



## Ryananthony (Apr 9, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> FECHariot said:
> 
> 
> > It would be nice to see the 10-22 get 2.8. Make it good with coma for Milky Way shots while giving up none of the good points on the current 10-22. There just ins't enough separation between the 10-18 and 10-22 so if they are going to have 2 UWA options, the 10-22 replacement will have to go upscale.
> ...



I did not think any modern lenses were made with plastic mounts. thats a shame.


----------



## FECHariot (Apr 11, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> I did not think any modern lenses were made with plastic mounts. thats a shame.



Considering Canon is giving us a 10mm option for as low as $280 with the 10-18, I'd hardly call that a shame.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 11, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Eagerly waiting for a new shorter focal length FF macro to replace ancient 50mm macro also a replacement to 180mm f/3.5 L would also suffice. On the other hand if new Ef-s lenses are really released then would like to see if Canon uses same Nano-USM motor from new 18-135mm lens and if they are compatible with power zoom adaptor for video shooters.



Kinda stunned if the 50mm "macro" gets any love since it's not really a macro lens (1:2 mag without the life size converter). The lens was pretty much eclipsed by the old 100mm USM macro. Me thinks the only way to make the 50mm viable would be to come out with a real 1:1 capable version.

I'd also think that Canon might come out with a 200mm L macro with IS as a replacement for the 180L. Not really excited about it since the increase in focal length isn't important to me. Not when I can take images like this one with the MP-E 65mm. Hand held, and I'm the "finger model".

Speaking of the MP-E: Me thinks that Canon is gonna come out with a replacement, and announce an MT-24EX II. At least I'm hoping they do at least a refresh of the macro twin flash -long overdue...


----------



## scyrene (Apr 11, 2016)

Dalantech said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Eagerly waiting for a new shorter focal length FF macro to replace ancient 50mm macro also a replacement to 180mm f/3.5 L would also suffice. On the other hand if new Ef-s lenses are really released then would like to see if Canon uses same Nano-USM motor from new 18-135mm lens and if they are compatible with power zoom adaptor for video shooters.
> ...



Well, people want different focal length macro lenses for different purposes, so I don't think a 100mm can replace a 50mm (even noting the latter wasn't a true macro lens - for many people 1:2 is plenty). I have the MP-E and love it, but it's no use for subjects you can't get close to. A 180-200mm macro lens is for things like live butterflies. Nice bee btw


----------



## TheJock (Apr 11, 2016)

Has anyone seen that Canon have discontinued the 50mm f1.8 II???
The reason I ask is I just ordered a camo net for my blind from a local online store and noticed that the site stated the lens was discontinued by manufacturer, here's a link. https://www.desertcart.ae/products/1142543-canon-ef-50mm-f-1-8-ii-camera-lens-fixed-discontinued-by-manufacturer


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2016)

Stewart K said:


> Has anyone seen that Canon have discontinued the 50mm f1.8 II???
> The reason I ask is I just ordered a camo net for my blind from a local online store and noticed that the site stated the lens was discontinued by manufacturer, here's a link. https://www.desertcart.ae/products/1142543-canon-ef-50mm-f-1-8-ii-camera-lens-fixed-discontinued-by-manufacturer



It was replaced by the 50mm f/1.8 STM.


----------



## TheJock (Apr 11, 2016)

Thanks Neuro, I wasn't sure if that was the case, first time I've seen it mentioned as discontinued, for a moment there I thought this might be news


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 11, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Dalantech said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...



Thanks 

You mean live, wild, butterflies like this one? What if I told you that it's your skill, and the willingness of the subject, that determines if you'll get the shot and not the focal length of the lens... 

IMHO a 50mm 1:2 lens is worthless -you'd be better off with a true 1:1 lens even if you only wanted to shoot at 1:2...


----------



## scyrene (Apr 11, 2016)

Dalantech said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Dalantech said:
> ...



If you told me that I would roll my eyes a little. Sure the ability to get close to a subject is preferable, but it is not always possible - sometimes because subjects are flighty, sometimes because of intervening obstacles (like fences, undergrowth, etc) (I'd add that as I get older, I'm happy not to be crouching and kneeling more than necessary either - and a longer FL macro lens means less of that for some subjects too). Additionally, a longer FL gives more blurred backgrounds with the same magnification and aperture (Brian at TDP has shots demonstrating that on his 180L review, I think).

You're not wrong, but neither am I. We have different approaches, temperaments, and possibly different luck. It's just as with birds - some people prefer to get physically closer (fieldcraft, even camouflage and portable hides) and others prefer longer focal lengths/higher MP counts to achieve similar results - neither is wrong, and neither is better in every situation.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 11, 2016)

Dalantech said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Dalantech said:
> ...



PS your butterfly shot is great, but not what I have in mind for the 180 macro lens. I want whole insects in their environment - just what those long macro lenses were designed for.


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 11, 2016)

Dalantech said:


> IMHO a 50mm 1:2 lens is worthless -you'd be better off with a true 1:1 lens even if you only wanted to shoot at 1:2...



Oh, I don't know about that. I've had my 50/2.5CM for nearly 13 years now. It's the lens with the oldest design in my kit -- and also the lens I've owned the longest -- but I still find it very useful. Still today (as back in 2003 when I bought it), I find it to be the best compromise between price and quality among Canon's non-L 50mm primes. I have used it on numerous paid product photography shoots ... sharp, sharp, sharp! And fast enough for these applications.

Disclaimers: 

I am eagerly awaiting the 50/1.4 quasi-USM's replacement. 
I also have the 100/2.8L IS macro.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 11, 2016)

traveller said:


> The Canon 135mm f/2 is by all accounts a very good lens (though I've never used it myself), just don't compare it to the Zeiss ZE version!  (At double the price, to be fair to Canon).



Yes, it is a very good lens, but it's not as good as the fairly recent (last year) Rokinon/Samyang 135 f2 either - and while it no more has AF than the Zeiss does, at least it costs a mere $550....


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 12, 2016)

scyrene said:


> You're not wrong, but neither am I. We have different approaches, temperaments, and possibly different luck. It's just as with birds - some people prefer to get physically closer (fieldcraft, even camouflage and portable hides) and others prefer longer focal lengths/higher MP counts to achieve similar results - neither is wrong, and neither is better in every situation.



True. I based most of my preferences on actually shooting at life size and higher and dealing with the light. A lot of people buy a macro lens and never shoot above 1/3 life size.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 12, 2016)

scyrene said:


> PS your butterfly shot is great, but not what I have in mind for the 180 macro lens. I want whole insects in their environment - just what those long macro lenses were designed for.



But a long focal length macro lens won't give you the subject in its environment if you're shooting above 1/3 life size -and even that might be too much magnification. A 180mm macro is gonna give you some great, smooth bokeh, that will completely obliterate the subjects surroundings -and that's not a bad thing. Getting too much detail in the background will probably just distract the viewer from the subject.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 12, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> Dalantech said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO a 50mm 1:2 lens is worthless -you'd be better off with a true 1:1 lens even if you only wanted to shoot at 1:2...
> ...



Worthless in the sense that you really can't shoot macro with it unless you add the life size converter. I'd bet that a lot of the images that you've taken with it could have been done with a normal 50mm lens, or the EF-S 60mm (can use one even on a non crop factor camera if you add at least 12mm of extension). To me a 50mm 1:2 lens makes as much sense as drinking near beer, or decaffeinated coffee. But when I shoot macro it's usually at life size of higher mag.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 12, 2016)

Dalantech said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > PS your butterfly shot is great, but not what I have in mind for the 180 macro lens. I want whole insects in their environment - just what those long macro lenses were designed for.
> ...



True, it's a fine balance. I'll see how it works out over the summer, and if it's not what I'm hoping for, I'll sell it. I had toyed with a standard 200mm (or 70-200mm) lens, and maybe adding an extension tube, but I imagine that will not be as optically good. The main problem with standard telephoto lenses (like my 500) is their maximum magnification is generally very low, less than 0.2x - so I can photograph a butterfly from a few metres away, but not that middle ground, say 0.5-1.5m which is the distance I encounter many flying insects. I may not be using the 180mm at 1:1 all of the time, but there aren't many (or any?) lenses that fall in the middle - that 0.3-0.5x range. So for me, the 180 is the sensible choice (I use the 100L macro at present for these shots, and it just doesn't have enough reach for things like bees that I can't easily get close to). But we'll see


----------



## scyrene (Apr 12, 2016)

Dalantech said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > Dalantech said:
> ...



Some of us like decaffeinated coffee! I like the taste of coffee, but if I drink it in the evening, I can't get to sleep at night. So it's a good compromise...


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 12, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Dalantech said:
> 
> 
> > JonAustin said:
> ...



I don't like the taste of coffee, decaffeinated or otherwise, but I have found that the magnification provided by the 50/2.5CM was more than sufficient for many of my macro shots. Sure, a lot of the images I've captured with it could have been accomplished with a normal 50, but many more could not. My only point being that, just because it's worthless to you doesn't necessarily mean its useless to everyone else.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

Personally, instead of the 1:2 mag macro lens, I'd prefer to have a standard lens with a wide range of use with a larger max mag. Something with quick focusing is huge for me.

Tamron is doing this with their new 35mm VC lens, which clocks in around 0.4x, and I absolutely adore the 0.7x macro mode of my 24-70 f/4L IS. Neither will replace a macro lens, so I still own the 100L, but if I'm on walkabout and want to get closer to a flower, critter, etc. the 0.7x is a killer ace up your sleeve (provided the working distance + natural light's orientation to the camera + lens isn't shading the shot).

So -- acknowledging I may have unreasonable standards -- if it can't do 1:1 macro, _it had better be useful/great at something other than macro._

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2016)

Those dissing the 50/2.5 CM for insect photos are ignoring the advantage of a lens where the loud buzzing the micromotor AF might attract and soothe the intended subjects. 

;D


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Those dissing the 50/2.5 CM for insect photos are ignoring the advantage of a lens where the loud buzzing the micromotor AF might attract and soothe the intended subjects.
> 
> ;D



LOL. I love that for the older lenses that do not advertise the _lack_ of focusing 'technology' in the product title, _the feature that is lacking_ is the first, second and third thing you think about when you use them. 

Try taking candids or street with one of these buzzing, squeaky relics. It's practically a foghorn in those situtations.

- A


----------



## j-nord (Apr 12, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Dalantech said:
> ...



I agree that there are some people that are perfectly happy with a 50mm macro. I had one but I found I only really liked it for product photography. The working distance and slow focus made it next to impossible to chase insects, I dont find the 24-70 f4 IS much better. I also dont like the image compression/perspective of these lenses which is why I havent bothered even trying the 100L yet. I greatly preferred the 70-300L and now the 300f4L for flower photography and large/fast insects.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 12, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’ve been trying to get more information on lenses coming in 2016 and things are been relatively hard to come by. We’re now being told that the non-L 200-600 super zoom



Canon may be on a two year cycle. 
as a matter of fact for the last 10 years, only one "odd" year released anything other than 4 lenses, the even years launched more the last 3 times (2010, 2012,2014)

if so, we should expect a slew of lenses coming out

2010 - 5 lenses
2011 - 4 lenses
2012 - 9 lenses
2013 - 4 lenses
2014 - 7 lenses
2015 - 4 lenses
2016 - ?

Maybe instead of blowing all their load on EF lenses, they will work on EF-S and EF-M this time around. both could use some lenses for sure.

CR is predicting 3-5 EF-M lenses and a super zoom for EF mount and a 16-35/2.8

that would take us up to 8 lenses this year. pretty much what you'd expect if the pattern is accurate.


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 12, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I agree that there are some people that are perfectly happy with a 50mm macro. I had one but I found I only really liked it for product photography. The working distance and slow focus made it next to impossible to chase insects, I dont find the 24-70 f4 IS much better. I also dont like the image compression/perspective of these lenses which is why I havent bothered even trying the 100L yet. I greatly preferred the 70-300L and now the 300f4L for flower photography and large/fast insects.



I don't chase insects, so that was never an issue for me. I'm probably outing myself as weird, but I actually get a little grin listening to the 50CM buzz as the lens extends in and out in macro mode. I'm still signed up for *ahsanford's* 50mm f/whatever non-L IS (true ring) USM, if and when it is ever released, but I doubt that I'll ever part with my little 50CM, as long as it continues to work.


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Canon may be on a two year cycle. as a matter of fact for the last 10 years, only one "odd" year released anything other than 4 lenses, the even years launched more the last 3 times (2010, 2012,2014)



Interesting observation ... hope it pans out this year!


----------



## slclick (Apr 12, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Canon may be on a two year cycle. as a matter of fact for the last 10 years, only one "odd" year released anything other than 4 lenses, the even years launched more the last 3 times (2010, 2012,2014)
> ...



That would be wishful thinking, can you imagine the board meeting where they discuss how it's an odd numbered year and they have to ramp up production, R&D and prototypes to make the quota?


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 13, 2016)

slclick said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



right because they develop all that in a year. 

or it could be manufacturing is on a two year cycle for the creation of lenses, and it's easier to inject new lenses in certain parts of the manufacturing year.


----------



## j-nord (Apr 13, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > JonAustin said:
> ...


There could definitely a reason for the cycle. And cycles are pretty common for big companies. Intel, for example, has an explicitly stated tick-tock model which is a roughly 2 year cycle.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 13, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Dalantech said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



A couple of ideas:

1) Add a 500D diopter to that 500mm. It will reduce the working distance down to roughly half a meter and give you some more magnification.

2) Use a syringe and inject 1:1 sugar syrup into the flowers to give the bees a reason to let you get close...

It's your skill, and the willingness of the subject, and not the lens that lets you take the shot that you want. You create the images -the equipment is just a tool...


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 13, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> I don't like the taste of coffee, decaffeinated or otherwise, but I have found that the magnification provided by the 50/2.5CM was more than sufficient for many of my macro shots. Sure, a lot of the images I've captured with it could have been accomplished with a normal 50, but many more could not. My only point being that, just because it's worthless to you doesn't necessarily mean its useless to everyone else.



You could use that same 50mm macro to take a scenic, or a portrait, but the same could be said for any focal length. But is that 50mm useful for macro? No, because it's not really a macro lens at 1:2...


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Those dissing the 50/2.5 CM for insect photos are ignoring the advantage of a lens where the loud buzzing the micromotor AF might attract and soothe the intended subjects.
> 
> ;D



LMAO! I think I love you! ;D


----------



## scyrene (Apr 13, 2016)

Dalantech said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Dalantech said:
> ...



Constructive ideas are always welcome. However...

You can't put the 500D closeup lens on a 500mm supertele lens - the lens doesn't accept front filters. Also, I have tried using it with extension tubes to reduce minimum focus distance, but 500mm is just a bit *too* much, and unwieldy (it's a big heavy object, and tracking subjects that small is not easy - the lens really wasn't designed for this).

Using sugar syrup is a good method for attracting some insects, but not all - I don't just want to photograph nectarivorous bees, but also the many small wasps, and other invertebrates. Nonetheless, it's a method I will be using this summer.

No offence, but the 'it's not the equipment' cliché is patently false (but you're by no means the only person to repeat it). Otherwise let's go and photograph insect macros with a pinhole camera. Unless you're saying long lenses only exist for people with no skill? Obviously both the equipment's capabilities *and* the user's skill and knowledge are important. I dunno why you're so against the 180mm macro lens option...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2016)

Dalantech said:


> 1) Add a 500D diopter to that 500mm. It will reduce the working distance down to roughly half a meter and give you some more magnification.



Got any 500D diopters laying around that are 125mm in diameter and can attach to a lens with no front filter?


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 13, 2016)

Dalantech said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like the taste of coffee, decaffeinated or otherwise, but I have found that the magnification provided by the 50/2.5CM was more than sufficient for many of my macro shots. Sure, a lot of the images I've captured with it could have been accomplished with a normal 50, but many more could not. My only point being that, just because it's worthless to you doesn't necessarily mean its useless to everyone else.
> ...



{sigh}


----------



## kphoto99 (Apr 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dalantech said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Add a 500D diopter to that 500mm. It will reduce the working distance down to roughly half a meter and give you some more magnification.
> ...



Duct tape maybe ;-)


----------



## scyrene (Apr 13, 2016)

kphoto99 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Dalantech said:
> ...



I've actually mounted a 77mm ND filter on the front of the 500L for photographing the sun (usual warnings apply). I made a cardboard structure that fitted over the lens hood, and taped the filter into the middle of it. It worked fine, but of course the distance to the front element wasn't critical, as it would be with a close up filter I imagine...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2016)

scyrene said:


> I've actually mounted a 77mm ND filter on the front of the 500L for photographing the sun (usual warnings apply). I made a cardboard structure that fitted over the lens hood, and taped the filter into the middle of it. It worked fine, but of course the distance to the front element wasn't critical, as it would be with a close up filter I imagine...



Get much vignetting?


----------



## scyrene (Apr 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I've actually mounted a 77mm ND filter on the front of the 500L for photographing the sun (usual warnings apply). I made a cardboard structure that fitted over the lens hood, and taped the filter into the middle of it. It worked fine, but of course the distance to the front element wasn't critical, as it would be with a close up filter I imagine...
> ...



None visible - but then the sky is black in shots exposed for the sun's surface, and there is darkening towards the limb, so vignetting probably wouldn't be noticeable. Here's one (also lots of extenders and stopping down - 2800mm, f/22).


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 14, 2016)

scyrene said:


> No offence, but the 'it's not the equipment' cliché is patently false (but you're by no means the only person to repeat it). Otherwise let's go and photograph insect macros with a pinhole camera. Unless you're saying *long lenses only exist for people with no skill*? Obviously both the equipment's capabilities *and* the user's skill and knowledge are important. I dunno why you're so against the 180mm macro lens option...



No, I'm saying that just having a specific piece of equipment isn't a guarantee that you'll get the shot. The more you know about the habits and quirks of the subjects you want to photograph the easier it is to create the images that you want. 

I have a Canon 180mm macro because I bought into the "long focal length lenses are bug lenses" myth. It sits in my closet collecting dust while I take images like this one at 65mm. Check out the technique section under the photo, I explain how I was able to make that image.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dalantech said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Add a 500D diopter to that 500mm. It will reduce the working distance down to roughly half a meter and give you some more magnification.
> ...



Sorry, wasn't aware that the lens was such a monster.


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 14, 2016)

kphoto99 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Dalantech said:
> ...



Gaffers tape -won't leave any residue behind...


----------



## scyrene (Apr 14, 2016)

Dalantech said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > No offence, but the 'it's not the equipment' cliché is patently false (but you're by no means the only person to repeat it). Otherwise let's go and photograph insect macros with a pinhole camera. Unless you're saying *long lenses only exist for people with no skill*? Obviously both the equipment's capabilities *and* the user's skill and knowledge are important. I dunno why you're so against the 180mm macro lens option...
> ...



Well then we agree. I welcome constructive advice, but I've been chasing insects for a few years now, and I reckon a 180 is what will help. I've taken plenty of successful images of live insects - even focus stacks - with the MP-E and 100L, but they do not suit all situations I encounter. As I say, if it doesn't work out, I'll sell it - I'm pretty ruthless about getting rid of equipment I don't use, so it's no loss. Canon lenses especially hold their value pretty well, and you could probably get most of what you spent back for an uncommon lens like the 180L.


----------



## Fleetie (Apr 14, 2016)

Dalantech said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Dalantech said:
> ...


Leaving aside the question about why it's necessary to say both "D" and "dioptres" [Yank spelling noted], I suspect Neuro's point was that a 500 dioptre was that a 125mm diameter 500 dioptre lens is practically, though not physically impossible.

The focal length of such a lens would be 1000mm / 500 = 2mm !

Yes, a sphere of glass/whatever can achieve this (but only as BACK focal length, not effective focal length!), but it most certainly wouldn't be usable as a camera optic.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 14, 2016)

Fleetie said:


> Dalantech said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I think you misunderstand - the 500D is Canon's brand name for a front-mounted closeup filter: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-500D-Close-up-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Fleetie (Apr 14, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Fleetie said:
> 
> 
> > Dalantech said:
> ...


Ah!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2016)

Fleetie said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Fleetie said:
> ...



To clarify further, the Canon 500D is both an entry-level dSLR (aka T1i) and also a screw-on 'filter' close-up lens. Optically, the 500D is a +2 diopter. The designation derives from the focal length, which is 500mm, and the D refers to the double element; there's also a 250D close up lens, 250mm focal length thus +4 diopters. They used to make 240, 250, 450 and 500 lenses (no 'D') that had a single element. 

My point was that the 500D close up lens is available in several thread diameters, the largest being 77mm, whereas the 500/4 has a front element that's ~125mm in diameter and lacks filter threads.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fleetie said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



It's always struck me as odd that they would use the same name for two totally different products available simultaneously. (Your explanation clarifies the logic behind the name of the closeup lens but still, names are a matter of marketing, and giving every product a different one is surely preferable. But it's a minor confusion).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2016)

scyrene said:


> It's always struck me as odd that they would use the same name for two totally different products available simultaneously. (Your explanation clarifies the logic behind the name of the closeup lens but still, names are a matter of marketing, and giving every product a different one is surely preferable. But it's a minor confusion).



It's also confusing when they use the same name for similar products at different times...


----------



## Dalantech (Apr 14, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Well then we agree. I welcome constructive advice, but I've been chasing insects for a few years now, and I reckon a 180 is what will help. I've taken plenty of successful images of live insects - even focus stacks - with the MP-E and 100L, but they do not suit all situations I encounter. As I say, if it doesn't work out, I'll sell it - I'm pretty ruthless about getting rid of equipment I don't use, so it's no loss. Canon lenses especially hold their value pretty well, and you could probably get most of what you spent back for an uncommon lens like the 180L.



I carry a 100-400 F4 - F5.6 L II all the time, hoping that when the light is good I'll find something to point it at. Pre-ordered it, so I was one of the first to get one, and I still haven't broken it in. YMMV.

I hold on to old glass just in case my techniques change and I suddenly find a use for them, and they come in handy when I meet up with other photographers who want to try them out.


----------



## slclick (Apr 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > It's always struck me as odd that they would use the same name for two totally different products available simultaneously. (Your explanation clarifies the logic behind the name of the closeup lens but still, names are a matter of marketing, and giving every product a different one is surely preferable. But it's a minor confusion).
> ...



My son still uses that same Elph!


----------

