# 2014, the year of the lens...but for whom?



## Mr_Canuck (Apr 11, 2014)

We know it's the year of the lens for Sigma. Last year certainly was. They've turned a corner. Is Steve Jobs's nephew running the company now or what?

We know it's the year of the lens for Tamron. They've come up with some notable updates and improvements to their already most popular lenses.

But really, who else is it the year of the lens for?


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 11, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> But really, who else is it the year of the lens for?


Wait for Photokina in September - Canon has traditionally announced pro lenses there. The year ain't over yet


----------



## Menace (Apr 11, 2014)

The usual suspects from Canon: 35 1.4L II, new 50 1.4 and/or 1.8IS or even 800 5.6 II.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 11, 2014)

Menace said:


> The usual suspects from Canon: 35 1.4L II, new 50 1.4 and/or 1.8IS or even 800 5.6 II.



If they don't do something soon about the 100-400L, I think we might have a small revolt going on.


----------



## Menace (Apr 12, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> Menace said:
> 
> 
> > The usual suspects from Canon: 35 1.4L II, new 50 1.4 and/or 1.8IS or even 800 5.6 II.
> ...



+1
Yes that one too as well as 400 f 5.6 II too.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 12, 2014)

135L f/2 IS plz


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 12, 2014)

Ruined said:


> 135L f/2 IS plz



Yeah, but at what cost?


----------



## Menace (Apr 12, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > 135L f/2 IS plz
> ...



Double the $$$s compared to the current offering me thinks


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 12, 2014)

Menace said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...


that would still be cheap, I think maybe an f2.8 IS might be that but if it were f2 it would be north of 2k


----------



## climber (Apr 12, 2014)

I wonder why Canon don't produce these lenses which would be logical to have. Let say 14-24, 2.8. I think that lens exactly would be sold very well.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 12, 2014)

As long as high quality lenses at decent prices, I don't care who making it


----------



## ktatty (Apr 12, 2014)

climber said:


> I wonder why Canon don't produce these lenses which would be logical to have. Let say 14-24, 2.8. I think that lens exactly would be sold very well.


Agreed! This is a great lens in the nikon version.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 12, 2014)

ktatty said:


> climber said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why Canon don't produce these lenses which would be logical to have. Let say 14-24, 2.8. I think that lens exactly would be sold very well.
> ...



I am going to go out on a limb and say that Canon is probably planning a one-up lens in this area (like the 200-400+1.4x).
The 14-24 f/2.8 cannot take filters and has a short zoom range. It is also susceptible to flares (yes, I know, everything else is solid gold).
The 16-35 f/4 VR is not that stellar, but provides the convenience of longer FL range and filter threads.
I'd say Canon is going to bring out something that gets rid of all the shortcomings.

No, it won't be cheap. Not even close. But people will lust for it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 13, 2014)

I find myself in a strange possible future predicament. If sigma releases a 135 mm f/1.8 IS... I could end up switching entirely to sigma primes. A thought unimaginable 2 years ago.


----------



## terminatahx (Apr 19, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> We know it's the year of the lens for Sigma. Last year certainly was. They've turned a corner. Is Steve Jobs's nephew running the company now or what?
> 
> We know it's the year of the lens for Tamron. They've come up with some notable updates and improvements to their already most popular lenses.
> 
> But really, who else is it the year of the lens for?



The Steve Jobs reference simply implies that Sigma steals ideas from others and rebrands them as their own. Sigma needs to prove that they can consistently produce equal quality copies. Buying a lens should feel like playing the lottery.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Apr 19, 2014)

> The Steve Jobs reference simply implies that Sigma steals ideas from others and rebrands them as their own. Sigma needs to prove that they can consistently produce equal quality copies. Buying a lens should feel like playing the lottery.



The Steve Jobs reference simply implies that there is evidence at Sigma of: leadership, focus, quality, design, cohesive brand architecture, and most importantly, passion.


----------

