# More Mentions of 2014 Being the Year of the Lens [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 18, 2013)

```
<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/?p=14758"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14758">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>The year of the lens!


</strong>We’ve had a few confirmations that 2014 will be the “year of the lens” for Canon. While Nikon and Sony go into new markets such as full frame mirrorless and retro designs, Canon will apparently stay the course and concentrate on DSLRs and lenses for the EOS lineup.</p>
<p>What should we expect?</p>
<p>Firstly, a new worlds widest full frame zoom lens (nor sure what this could be), a wide angle zoom with IS (17-50 f/4L IS?), a new fast wide angle successor with “new technology” (35 f/1.4?). We can also expect two new tilt-shift lenses, a telephoto zoom successor (100-400?) as well as “budget high quality lenses”.</p>
<p>I’m starting to believe the hype, as the info is coming from known and new sources, and they all seem to be saying the same thing.</p>
<p>More to come.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## LuCoOc (Nov 18, 2013)

Give us more rumors!!!

Widest FF zoom lens: 12-24 L f/2.8 USM
Budget high quality lenses: 50 f/1.8 or 2.0 IS USM

I'd take both


----------



## Eldar (Nov 18, 2013)

Looks like Canon´s business development department reads Canonruomors.com after all


----------



## preppyak (Nov 18, 2013)

LuCoOc said:


> Widest FF zoom lens: 12-24 L f/2.8 USM


Except 12mm is already being done; they'd have to make it an 11-xx lens to be the widest.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 18, 2013)

preppyak said:


> LuCoOc said:
> 
> 
> > Widest FF zoom lens: 12-24 L f/2.8 USM
> ...


Canon makes the 8-15mm already, so to be the widest, it must be really wide ...


----------



## preppyak (Nov 18, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Canon makes the 8-15mm already, so to be the widest, it must be really wide ...


That's a fisheye though


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 18, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> Firstly, a new worlds widest full frame zoom lens (nor sure what this could be), a wide angle zoom with IS (17-50 f/4L IS?), a new fast wide angle successor with “new technology” (35 f/1.4?). We can also expect two new tilt-shift lenses, a telephoto zoom successor (100-400?) as well as “budget high quality lenses”.



You had me believing you, right up until "budget high quality lenses". Or maybe your source just accidentally omitted the word 'big' as in big budget high quality lenses. That sounds more like the Canon we know and love.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly, a new worlds widest full frame zoom lens (nor sure what this could be), a wide angle zoom with IS (17-50 f/4L IS?), a new fast wide angle successor with “new technology” (35 f/1.4?). We can also expect two new tilt-shift lenses, a telephoto zoom successor (100-400?) as well as “budget high quality lenses”.
> ...


or budget high quality big lenses


----------



## Cali_PH (Nov 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> You had me believing you, right up until "budget high quality lenses". Or maybe your source just accidentally omitted the word 'big' as in big budget high quality lenses. That sounds more like the Canon we know and love.



Haha, I had a similar thought! Although if a new UWA is stellar, I'll be willing to pay quite a bit, and I'm guessing a lot of others would too.

Anyone have thoughts on the 'new technology' rumor? I know some of you guys follow Canon's patents, which might give a hint about what it could be. Perhaps a newer version of IS (does it need an update though?) or new focusing mechanism/motor?


----------



## DzPhotography (Nov 18, 2013)

Eldar said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > LuCoOc said:
> ...


Maybe they mean the widest OPEN! ;D 14-24 f2.0 or less


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 18, 2013)

Eldar said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > LuCoOc said:
> ...



IMHO, a wider than 180deg circular fisheye is very unlikely - it would have the granddaddy of niche market, and compete with Canon's own 8-15mm fisheye zoom.

So I'm for an ultra wide lens, as

I. Both Nikon & Sigma have wider zooms, so there's a market for such a lens.

II. Canon camera owners buy Nikon's ultra wide zoom with an adapter, so Canon is losing sales, and specifically the kind which might make people switch brands. Again, more so than to the Nikon 6mm.

III. Nikon issued a patent for a full frame 10mm prime. It wouldn't necessarily get into production, but it helps giving Nikon an image of the leader in ultra wide lenses.

So I'm for an ultra wide rectilinear zoom.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly, a new worlds widest full frame zoom lens (nor sure what this could be), a wide angle zoom with IS (17-50 f/4L IS?), a new fast wide angle successor with “new technology” (35 f/1.4?). We can also expect two new tilt-shift lenses, a telephoto zoom successor (100-400?) as well as “budget high quality lenses”.
> ...



I am pretty sure Canon considers $599 "budget" 

Probably referring to the 50mm f/1.8 IS USM and potentially 85mm f/1.8 IS USM.


----------



## Ricku (Nov 18, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Looks like Canon´s business development department reads Canonruomors.com after all


Ah! So that's why they are still milking their ancient sensor tech, and put so much focus on video features and video gear? Is that also why the EOS M _(and probably the M2)_ is the shittiest of all MILC-cameras?

Does not compute. 

I mean, it's quite sad when the best thing that happens to Canon users this year, comes from Sony!!


----------



## J (Nov 18, 2013)

I dunno, haven't we been told something like this since 2012?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 18, 2013)

J said:


> I dunno, haven't we been told something like this since 2012?



Actually, 2010 was going to be the year of the lens. The following were predicted:

[quote author=CanonRumors]
14-24 f/2.8L
24-70 f/2.8L IS
70-200 f/2.8L IS II
300 f/2.8L IS II
400 f/2.8L IS II
500 f/4L IS II (but no 600 f/4L IS upgrade
EF-S 10mm f/4 Fisheye
EF 15mm f/2.8L II Fisheye
EF 50 f/1.4 II
EF 35 f/1.4L II
Some kind of f/2 zoom 
I wouldn’t be shocked to see the 1.4 & 2.0 TC’s getting an update.
[/quote]

In that 'year of the lens' we got all of these lenses:

70-200/2.8L IS II

...and development announcements for the 8-15mm fisheye and the new superteles and TCs, which didn't hit the streets for 1-2 years. 

Here's hoping 2014 is a year of the lens with a few more actual lenses released.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 18, 2013)

I think most know what lens I want.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 18, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I think most know what lens I want.



You've made no secret of your desire for a 40mm f/2.8 MkII.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I think most know what lens I want.
> ...



:


----------



## Eldar (Nov 18, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like Canon´s business development department reads Canonruomors.com after all
> ...


Just for the record, this crappy company picks up more EISA awards than any other company, for bodies, lenses and printers and have done for years (and still do). But then, what do these useless jury members know ... To me it sounds like you are one of those who would do yourself a favor by selling whatever you have and buy the good stuff from someone else. Your great new Sony should do it.
By the way, I tried to find some images you had posted, but could´t find any ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 18, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I think most know what lens I want.


135mm f4 ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I think most know what lens I want.
> ...


Black or white?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 18, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Black.

I think he's mentioned wanting a updated 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus, too.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Nov 18, 2013)

I think most know what lens I want.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 18, 2013)

Canon 14-24 said:


> I think most know what lens I want.



135mm F/1.8L IS USM?


----------



## Ripley (Nov 18, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



LOL


----------



## Ripley (Nov 18, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Canon 14-24 said:
> 
> 
> > I think most know what lens I want.
> ...



If you're wishing, why not 135mm F/1.4L IS USM? Is it impossible or something?


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 18, 2013)

Ripley said:


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



Shhhh! Sigma will hear you. :-X


----------



## Vossie (Nov 18, 2013)

+1 for Eldar


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 18, 2013)

"a wide angle zoom with IS (17-50 f/4L IS?"

That would be awesome.
.
.
.
.
.
(To use on a new A7R ;D.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 18, 2013)

This would make the perfect pairing with the 24-70 II! and 70-300L.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 18, 2013)

Not "year of the new sensors"?  lol
(like whole new manufacturing process and so on)


----------



## Famateur (Nov 19, 2013)

dufflover said:


> Not "year of the new sensors"?  lol
> (like whole new manufacturing process and so on)



LOL...If Duffman was a Canon exec:

"New...feelings sensors...brewing in Duffman Canon! What...would Jesus Sony do?"


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 19, 2013)

35-85mm F2L

FTW 8)


----------



## Woody (Nov 19, 2013)

Bring it on, Canon. I am all ready to splurge on lenses...


----------



## Woody (Nov 19, 2013)

preppyak said:


> LuCoOc said:
> 
> 
> > Widest FF zoom lens: 12-24 L f/2.8 USM
> ...



That will be pretty cool. But the lens need to be as sharp as the 14-24 f/2.8 wide-open. If Canon's EF-S 10-22 is much sharper than Nikon's DX 10-24, I don't see why they cannot do the same for FF ultrawide lens.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Nov 19, 2013)

How come the "Slim Your Wallet" ad shows up more than once in this thread? Is it subliminal advertising?

Ads are individual, so most others do not see the exact same ones you see. Google reads your cookies from sites your computer has visited, and serves up ads just for you. Just by visiting CR, you will see ads for photo related items on other sites with Google Ad Choices advertising, which is almost everywhere.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Nov 19, 2013)

wockawocka said:


> 35-85mm F2L
> 
> FTW 8)



God that would be an amazing lens. Give it a nice and close minimum focusing distance. Unless I was doing landscape, this would never leave my camera body.


----------



## Woody (Nov 19, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, 2010 was going to be the year of the lens.



I followed the link above and the lens list that followed were CR's predictions, not based on any CR2 type of rumors. What it tells us is CR site owner is poor in predictions. 

I will not be surprised if 2014 seriously turns out to be the Year of the Lens. Firstly, Canon Imaging needs to improve on their profits and the ILC market is nearly saturated. So, selling more lenses is an option. Secondly, Nikon has nearly caught up with Canon in the lens department, so it's time for Canon to put some distance between themselves and Nikon. Lenses like the widest rectilinear zoom lens and 16-50 f/4L IS will help cement Canon's status as the manufacturer with the widest lens options. Thirdly, the EOS-M fire sale is working (see Amazon and BCNRanking), so it's time for Canon to release more M-mount lenses.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 19, 2013)

Famateur said:


> dufflover said:
> 
> 
> > Not "year of the new sensors"?  lol
> ...



ROFL! Gold! ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 19, 2013)

Woody said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, 2010 was going to be the year of the lens.
> ...



Fine, but this is not a CR2-type rumor, either...


----------



## 100 (Nov 19, 2013)

“Firstly, a new worlds widest full frame zoom lens (nor sure what this could be)”

There is a 16-35 and a new 14-24 or 12-24 has a big overlap so it would compete with the 16-35. What if they figured out a way to make something like a high quality 10-16 for FF?
An addition on the wide end without overlap is commercially probably the best option, and making money is Canons primary goal.


----------



## Woody (Nov 19, 2013)

100 said:


> “Firstly, a new worlds widest full frame zoom lens (nor sure what this could be)”
> 
> There is a 16-35 and a new 14-24 or 12-24 has a big overlap so it would compete with the 16-35. What if they figured out a way to make something like a high quality 10-16 for FF?
> An addition on the wide end without overlap is commercially probably the best option, and making money is Canons primary goal.



Hey, I like that! EF 10-16 will make a perfect combo with EF 16-50 f/4 IS. Now if the 10-16 lens does not have a bulging front element, that will be even more attractive.


----------



## tron (Nov 19, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


They play it safe 8)


----------



## tron (Nov 19, 2013)

Woody said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > “Firstly, a new worlds widest full frame zoom lens (nor sure what this could be)”
> ...


In addition the 14-24 would compete with the expensive 14 2.8L II. Canon wouldn't like that I guess.
In addition 16-35 2.8 could use an improvement at the corners...


----------



## tron (Nov 19, 2013)

dufflover said:


> Not "year of the new sensors"?  lol
> (like whole new manufacturing process and so on)


Hmmm, unless we saw it happen we would practically consider it as CR0 ...


----------



## ewg963 (Nov 19, 2013)

LuCoOc said:


> Give us more rumors!!!
> 
> Widest FF zoom lens: 12-24 L f/2.8 USM
> Budget high quality lenses: 50 f/1.8 or 2.0 IS USM
> ...


+1 on the wide zoom @ 2.8 that is really needed!!!


----------



## Nirmala (Nov 19, 2013)

10-16mm non-fisheye L now that is something I could get out of bed in the morning for...


----------



## infared (Nov 19, 2013)

......ta,p,tap,tap,tap......um...Canon....we're ALL here....waiting...(as the photography world explodes around us from all other manufacturers). Yawn.


----------



## TrabimanUK (Nov 19, 2013)

Widest FF zoom lens? 10-24? Go on, give us a whole 2mm more than Sigma! (and better IQ and hopefully not at L prices, though that would just be wishful thinking of course).

oh AND GIVE US A 100-400mm UPGRADE! (please)


----------



## dhr90 (Nov 19, 2013)

What, no rumours about a 1500mm f5.6 with built in 1.4x converter?  
Probably a global market of less than 10, but I can day dream can't I? ;D


----------



## TrabimanUK (Nov 19, 2013)

dhr90 said:


> What, no rumours about a 1500mm f5.6 with built in 1.4x converter?
> Probably a global market of less than 10, but I can day dream can't I? ;D



Funny you should say that, but I heard a mention of a 1400mm f5.6 IS floating around last year. No built in 1.4x or 2x though. Of course if you can afford it, you can afford the staff to carry it for you and to bring the things closer to you


----------



## bseitz234 (Nov 19, 2013)

TrabimanUK said:


> dhr90 said:
> 
> 
> > What, no rumours about a 1500mm f5.6 with built in 1.4x converter?
> ...


I can see it now... "Smithers, fetch me that grizzly bear. Oh, he cannot be too far from the river. Bring the river closer as well."


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 19, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



1) Definitely black! Of that there can be no doubt ;-)
2) Internal focusing optics
3) A 2cm wide focus ring that is calibrated to be butter-smooth.
4) Must also include rear-dust gasket and be fully weather sealed with front filter.
5) Less than 40% heavier than the 40mm mk-I


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 19, 2013)

tron said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



Yes and no. A 14-24 zoom would be larger and heavier than the 14mm prime and if it were optically equal or superior then it would simply be priced higher than the prime.


----------



## tron (Nov 19, 2013)

StudentOfLight said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...


How much more than the current price of 14 2.8L II would be enough? The Nikon 14-24 2.8 costs less than that, not more. Even with a higher price it would have a 15-24mm additional range... 14 2.8 II would still be redundant...


----------



## Famateur (Nov 19, 2013)

dufflover said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > dufflover said:
> ...



;D


----------



## Zlyden (Nov 19, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Looks like Canon´s business development department reads Canonruomors.com after all



If this is true, then I'm among those who want more "budget high quality lenses" for EOS M.  

"Dear Santa Canon, for 2014 we need at least some small and light telephoto zoom like "EF-M 55-250/4-5.6 IS STM". Please, make it as good as EF-M 11-22 you brought us this year (my impression so far is that it behaves better in the corners than both EF-S 10-22 and EF 17-40, thank you!). Or, if you have other plans to make a tiny lens called "EF-M 70-200/2.8 IS"-- I'm not the one who will object..."


----------



## Harv (Nov 19, 2013)

I don't want to wait until 2014. I want a new and improved 100-400..... NOW.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 19, 2013)

dhr90 said:


> What, no rumours about a 1500mm f5.6 with built in 1.4x converter?
> Probably a global market of less than 10, but I can day dream can't I? ;D



Cool.... but then we would have a debate over if we should put a 270mm filter on the lens to protect it.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 19, 2013)

Harv said:


> I don't want to wait until 2014. I want a new and improved 100-400..... NOW.


I agree.... there are 10,000 geese on the bay behind my house mocking my lack of a quality long lens


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 19, 2013)

If Canon can come up with a 24-70/2.8L IS, a 50mm/1.4-2.0 with true USM or an updated 1xx-400 IS, then the "Year of the Lens" will be the "Year of the Buy" for me. Otherwise, I'll continue to make do with what I have.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Nov 19, 2013)

wider than 12mm?

the widest fiel of view gives the 17 TSE f4 which has a image circle of 67mm instead of 43mm of a normal lens.

by attaching a hypothetical wide angel converter with x=0.64 this would compress the resulting picture to a 10.9mm f 2.6 view. Allready this is a bit wider than 12 or 14mm, and this converter would give this amazing lens additional possibilities (just with no sense in using the movements anymore, or only on crop).

but to be on topic again, a similar design like this lens would give the possibility of a much wider lens than the existing 14mm, and would even be nearly free of distortion. 

Now to be hypothetical: by sacrifying some fastness it should be possible to design a even wider field of view, without sacrifying image quality to much. 

Next question may be answered by the marketing compartment, but how many leneses with a 11mm 2.8 or hypothetical 9-10mm and 4 or 5.6 fastness would sell for a price between 2000$ - 4000$ ?

I am not sure, if for such a specialised lens a zoom is needed, assuming it would sacrify either focal lenght, brightness or image quality.


----------



## stulandr (Nov 20, 2013)

Woody said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, 2010 was going to be the year of the lens.
> ...



Also, Sigma is outperforming Canon at the moment with their Art series lenses at a significantly lower price point. I think this could be a good marketing ploy by Canon to prevent people from potentially jumping ship to Sigma by putting out a rumour that a significant number of lenses are coming.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

stulandr said:


> Also, Sigma is outperforming Canon at the moment with their Art series lenses at a significantly lower price point. I think this could be a good marketing ploy by Canon to prevent people from potentially jumping ship to Sigma by putting out a rumour that a significant number of lenses are coming.



I've seen statements like this several times lately, but I'm not sure the argument is valid. Previously, Sigma's core strategy was two-fold: make decent lenses and sell them at lower prices than OEM lenses; and, make niche lenses no one else would (e.g., the 200-500/2.8 at $26K). They accomplished the former by having lower optical quality than OEM lenses, certain design decisions (e.g., zooms that are f/6.3 at the long end), and apparently lower QC standards. 

Now, it seems that they're struggling to redefine their core strategy. Their 35/1.4, 18-35/1.8 DC, and 24-105/4 OS are not inexpensive lenses, and the 30/1.4 DC is also pretty expensive for an APS-C only prime lens. The 30/1.4 DC and 18-35/1.8 DC have no direct OEM competition. The Sigma 35/1.4 does directly compete with the Canon L, and wins. But it's beating a lens that was designed 15 years ago, so perhaps that's not too surprising, and as I said the Sigma 35mm is not exactly cheap. Also, anecdotally I have noticed that several people who sing the praises of the Sigma 35/1.4 have also stated that they had to try 2-3 copies to get a good one – so it looks like Sigma's QC issues are still present. The 24-105/4 OS hasn't been tested yet, but judging by the MTF curves (although there are caveats in doing so) the Canon counterpart is slightly better at the wide end, and the long end appears that it will be a wash. I think the vast majority of 24-105L lenses that Canon cells are in kits, and the Sigma counterpart is priced 50% *higher* than the current Canon kit lens price.

So, looking at the Art offerings from Sigma, two have no direct Canon competition, and of the two that do, one is better and cheaper, while the other is not better and is more expensive. Thus, I disagree with the statement that Sigma is outperforming Canon, and I sincerely doubt that Canon is terribly worried about their customers "jumping ship" to Sigma.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Nov 20, 2013)

i was a sigma nay sayer for a long time. i had my share of problems and said "no more sigmas" 4-5 years ago.

but the new 35mm f1.4 is a great lens.
no problems at all here.

thought im curious to see how good the AF is for telephoto sigmas.



neuroanatomist said:


> Now, it seems that they're struggling to redefine their core strategy. Their 35/1.4, 18-35/1.8 DC, and 24-105/4 OS are not inexpensive lenses, and the 30/1.4 DC is also pretty expensive for an APS-C only prime lens. The 30/1.4 DC and 18-35/1.8 DC have no direct OEM competition. The Sigma 35/1.4 does directly compete with the Canon L, and wins. But it's beating a lens that was designed 15 years ago, so perhaps that's not too surprising, and as I said the Sigma 35mm is not exactly cheap



but cheaper than the worse canon. 



> . Also, anecdotally I have noticed that several people who sing the praises of the Sigma 35/1.4 have also stated that they had to try 2-3 copies to get a good one



you hear the same from canon lens user. especially people who shoot testcharts all day and not much else. 

overall the sigma quality is MUCH better today.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 20, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> i was a sigma nay sayer for a long time. i had my share of problems and said "no more sigmas" 4-5 years ago.
> 
> but the new 35mm f1.4 is a great lens.
> no problems at all here.
> ...



Last sentence may be true to some extent. But that only means that they were previously atrocious. I went through two copies of the 35/1.4 mounted on my 5d3 and had nothing but inconsistencies in varying distances and lighting. Stunningly awesome when it hit (35% success). Tried AFMA through FoCal and was still getting inconsistent results. Before we get to the accusations of user error, let it be known that I have gone through about 30 canon lenses and never had this problem. And no, I was not shooting test charts. I spent a week with both copies taking hundreds of shots with each in regular outings with the family. 

Another thing to note is that I am not the only person I know that had these issues with AF. If I had two copies that were bad and know two other people that also had at least one bad copy that I knew of, I'd say Sigma is batting pretty poorly. I will give Sigma a serious consideration again when they can license Canon's OEM AF tech instead of backwards engineering it.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 21, 2013)

After further thought, here's what I'd like to see:


A 50mm f/1.0 reissue (optionally in a version 2)
A 600mm lens that is short enough to fit in a typical camera bag
A 12mm (or wider) rectilinear lens
An EF superzoom with more reach than the 24-105, but without massive zoom creep problems

Not holding my breath. I'm expecting a pony long before any of these things, with the possible exception of the last one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> After further thought, here's what I'd like to see:
> 
> 
> A 50mm f/1.0 reissue (optionally in a version 2)
> ...



Regarding the last one, do you mean a non-L lens? The 28-300L has much more reach than the 24-105L, has IQ that's basically equivalent across their respective ranges, and I certainly never had any zoom creep issues (that's why there's a zoom tensioning ring, and if yours wasn't wroking properly, the lens needed service). 

Regarding the shorter 600mm lens, that's where diffractive optics come into play. The 400/4 DO is physically shorter than both the 300/2.8 IS II and 400/5.6 lenses, and only 1 cm longer than the 300/4 IS. If I had to guess, I'd say a 600/4 DO might be ~14" long, about the length of the 400/5.6L with its hood extended. Based on published patents, Canon is still actively working on DO technology.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > After further thought, here's what I'd like to see:
> ...



I've considered the 24-300, but it is kind of a whale. What I'd really like is something closer to what a 17-135 does on a crop body, but on a full frame—something more along the lines of 24-200, ideally a DO version.

And yes, the lens creep from h*** I experienced was on a 28-135. I sent two back before giving up on that one. Not only was it not as long as I'd have liked, but it just felt insanely cheap, even when compared with the kit lens that came with my original Digital Rebel. 





neuroanatomist said:


> Regarding the shorter 600mm lens, that's where diffractive optics come into play. The 400/4 DO is physically shorter than both the 300/2.8 IS II and 400/5.6 lenses, and only 1 cm longer than the 300/4 IS. If I had to guess, I'd say a 600/4 DO might be ~14" long, about the length of the 400/5.6L with its hood extended. Based on published patents, Canon is still actively working on DO technology.



Yeah, but 14 inches is still hopeless unless you're not planning to carry any other lenses but that one. You won't find a camera bag that will hold something that big unless it's one of those giant VHS bags from the 1980s, and even then, it won't hold your camera along with it. So at that size, it's still a hard-core specialty lens that you'd buy only if you plan to do a lot of sports shooting where you have to have the reach, and where you're pretty much just going there to shoot with that one lens from a single spot for an extended period of time.

Here's what I keep thinking: Almost all of the space that a long lens takes up is just air. If you collapsed that giant 18" long 600mm lens down to where the glass was touching, it probably wouldn't be that much bigger than my 70-300, give or take, even without diffractive optics. With DO, it might even be smaller. If they can make lenses where the focus mechanism moves elements precisely, other than the manufacturing complexity inherently resulting in more QC rejects, what's so much more difficult about making *all* the elements move, allowing the entire body to collapse like an old-style telescope? 

(Yes, I know it would be a pain in the *** to engineer, but it would make those sorts of lenses a lot more usable by ordinary folks.)


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 23, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> After further thought, here's what I'd like to see:
> 
> 
> [*]A 600mm lens that is short enough to fit in a typical camera bag



There are always mirror lenses


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Here's what I keep thinking: Almost all of the space that a long lens takes up is just air. If you collapsed that giant 18" long 600mm lens down to where the glass was touching, it probably wouldn't be that much bigger than my 70-300, give or take, even without diffractive optics. With DO, it might even be smaller. If they can make lenses where the focus mechanism moves elements precisely, other than the manufacturing complexity inherently resulting in more QC rejects, what's so much more difficult about making *all* the elements move, allowing the entire body to collapse like an old-style telescope?
> 
> (Yes, I know it would be a pain in the *** to engineer, but it would make those sorts of lenses a lot more usable by ordinary folks.)



Your last line is the key point - a 600mm lens engineered to be collapsible. How many 'ordinary folks' would be able to afford the _extraordinarily_ exorbitant cost of such a lens?


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what I keep thinking: Almost all of the space that a long lens takes up is just air. If you collapsed that giant 18" long 600mm lens down to where the glass was touching, it probably wouldn't be that much bigger than my 70-300, give or take, even without diffractive optics. With DO, it might even be smaller. If they can make lenses where the focus mechanism moves elements precisely, other than the manufacturing complexity inherently resulting in more QC rejects, what's so much more difficult about making *all* the elements move, allowing the entire body to collapse like an old-style telescope?
> ...



It wouldn't necessarily be more expensive. A significant percentage of the cost of any new piece of technology is the R&D expense amortized across the expected number of sales. If you make a lens that 1% of people would consider using, you have to amortize that cost across a relatively small number of sales. If you make a lens that 50% of people would consider using, you can amortize that cost across a lot more sales. Build a lens that is more physically approachable by the general public, and more people will buy it, which means you can charge less money for it.

This, of course, assumes that they can overcome the QC problems so the yield doesn't suck.

On second thought, you're probably right that at least the very first model they tried that trick on would cost a small fortune.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 23, 2013)

Hey the 100-400 is kind of something like that ...
(not that I think any sort of collapsible lens is likely, or remotely affordable if created)


----------



## Ruined (Nov 23, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> If Canon can come up with a 24-70/2.8L IS, a 50mm/1.4-2.0 with true USM or an updated 1xx-400 IS, then the "Year of the Lens" will be the "Year of the Buy" for me. Otherwise, I'll continue to make do with what I have.



+1, holding out on the 24-70 f/2.8L until IS is incorporated. 70mm benefits from IS, as does video use and I would want this lens to last me a longggggg time given its pricetag.


----------



## thedman (Apr 1, 2014)

It's April 1st in the *Year Of The Lens*. Can't decide which one to buy! Too many new ones!


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 1, 2014)

thedman said:


> It's April 1st in the *Year Of The Lens*. Can't decide which one to buy! Too many new ones!



Just remember.... it's the year of the LENS, not the year of the LENSES...


----------



## thedman (Apr 2, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> thedman said:
> 
> 
> > It's April 1st in the *Year Of The Lens*. Can't decide which one to buy! Too many new ones!
> ...




Aah, good point!


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Apr 2, 2014)

Year of the (Cine) lens so far.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 8, 2014)

Wow....year of the lens....a pair of wides no one wanted and a set of TS-e lenses that certainly no one wanted....
Meanwhile, the 35mm f1.4 II L and 100-400 II L unicorns stay in their stable....


----------



## tron (May 8, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Wow....year of the lens....a pair of wides no one wanted and a set of TS-e lenses that certainly no one wanted....
> Meanwhile, the 35mm f1.4 II L and 100-400 II L unicorns stay in their stable....


 plus the 16-35mm 2.8L III


----------



## Mr_Canuck (May 13, 2014)

It's the year of two lenses!


----------



## Skirball (Nov 13, 2014)

Bumping this one back up, now that the Unicorn II(TM) is on Amazon. Did Canon overstate it, or are people happy with the lens additions?


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 13, 2014)

Skirball said:


> Bumping this one back up, now that the Unicorn II(TM) is on Amazon. Did Canon overstate it, or are people happy with the lens additions?



Those who were looking for the lens will be happy those who were looking for another lens that they felt should have been produced will not.


----------



## dhr90 (Nov 13, 2014)

Anyone know the status of the 24mm pancake? Wondering about a release date mainly.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 13, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’ve had a few confirmations that 2014 will be the “year of the lens” for Canon. While Nikon and Sony go into new markets such as full frame mirrorless and retro designs, Canon will apparently stay the course and concentrate on DSLRs and lenses for the EOS lineup.
> 
> What should we expect?
> 
> ...



Reasonable hit rate. Have I missed any?


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 13, 2014)

lintoni said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > We’ve had a few confirmations that 2014 will be the “year of the lens” for Canon. While Nikon and Sony go into new markets such as full frame mirrorless and retro designs, Canon will apparently stay the course and concentrate on DSLRs and lenses for the EOS lineup.
> ...


24-105 STM. That could be the _budget high quality lenses_ togehter with the EF-S 10-18, aren't they?
But quite good hit rate.


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 13, 2014)

lintoni said:


> Reasonable hit rate. Have I missed any?



EF-S 10-18 for budget lenses.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 13, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...


Added, thanks Maximillan and raptor3x!


----------



## tayassu (Nov 16, 2014)

All lenses released so far in 2014:

- 16-35/4
- 10-18/4.5-5.6
- 55-200/4.5-6.3
- 400/4
- 24-105/3.5-5.6
- 24/2.8
- 100-400/4.5-5.6

What will most likely come this year is the 11-24/4.
That makes a total of 8 lenses (the 2 Cinema lenses not included)... 
Now who says CR is not reliable?  Didn't they mention 8 new lenses for 2014? 

And if you can't call that a year of the lens, I don't know what a year of the lens is for you...


----------

