# Two Lenses Coming for CP+? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 15, 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=15218"></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=15218">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>CP+ 2014 Camera & Photo Imaging Show


</strong>We’re told that Canon could possibly announce and show two new lenses at the CP+ 2014 show in Tokyo, Japan. The show runs from February 13, 2014 until February 16, 2014.</p>
<p>They will not be Cinema EOS lenses. New lenses for videographers will be held for NAB 2014 in Las Vegas, along with some new Cinema EOS camera(s).</p>
<p>It’s speculated that one lens will be an “L” and the other a consumer non-L prime. As with all lens announcements, things are very loose and rarely have a media event attached to them.</p>
<p>There is also a possibility of a development announcement on a camera body we’re told.</p>
<p>Hope to hear more soon…</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Viggo (Dec 15, 2013)

35 L II and the 50 f1.8 IS 8)


----------



## Ricku (Dec 15, 2013)

I think Im going to puke if one of those lenses aren't a tack sharp UWA-zoom lens.

16-35L III or 14-24L

Bring it.


----------



## Zv (Dec 15, 2013)

And 7DII!!


----------



## Ruined (Dec 15, 2013)

Viggo said:


> 35 L II and the 50 f1.8 IS 8)



+1

Could also be update of 135L, but 35L is in more need IMO.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 15, 2013)

300-600 with teleconverter, 1200F5.6, and the high megapixel FF 1 series body..... and the introduction of the Canon MasterCard....

Seriously though, I'm hoping for the 400F5.6II and the 7DII.


----------



## Ricku (Dec 15, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > 35 L II and the 50 f1.8 IS 8)
> ...


No need. Sigma took care of that.

I've owned both. The Siggy really is the 35L II.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 15, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > 35 L II and the 50 f1.8 IS 8)
> ...



+1 again 8) These 35 and 50 mm lenses are direly needed to upgrade Canon's lens line-up.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 15, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



True but the 35L II fills a niche for Canon-only buyers and 'professionals'.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Dec 15, 2013)

I'd really lime an UWA prime, maybe 18mm would be fun. There was also talk about a 16-50L a couple of months ago. That would be awesome.

For now I am only thinking about how to be able to fit the 24-70 Mkii in to the budget.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Dec 15, 2013)

Arctic Photo said:


> I'd really lime an UWA prime, maybe 18mm would be fun. There was also talk about a 16-50L a couple of months ago. That would be awesome.
> 
> For now I am only thinking about how to be able to fit the 24-70 Mkii in to the budget.


Like, not lime...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 15, 2013)

Arctic Photo said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > I'd really lime an UWA prime, maybe 18mm would be fun. There was also talk about a 16-50L a couple of months ago. That would be awesome.
> ...



You know, you can 'Modify' your posts. I know I do when I've gotten confused with my keyboard


----------



## Arctic Photo (Dec 15, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Photo said:
> ...


I know, thanks. I'm using a tablet now and I don't care much for the 'keyboard'. Next time, I'll edit :


----------



## SPL (Dec 15, 2013)

+1 on the 35L, a new UW zoom L would be cool though!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 15, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > 35 L II and the 50 f1.8 IS 8)
> ...



Really? I use my 35L day in day out for professional weddings and it's an amazing performer. Sure it could do with a warm over but it's not going to make a huge difference over the current model. Sure, better AF in lower light, newer coatings and weather sealing would be nice...but don't be fooled, it's one of the finest picture taking optics in Canon's catalogue.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Really. If I need f/1.4 for creative (DoF) reasons, I reach for the 35L...for everything else, the 24-70/2.8L II is better. 



Ricku said:


> I think Im going to puke if one of those lenses aren't a tack sharp UWA-zoom lens.



Keep a bucket handy...


----------



## ewg963 (Dec 15, 2013)

Good to hear. I'm a photograher not a videographer.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Dec 15, 2013)

i hope for a new 100-400mm.

will buy one as soon as it´s out (and when it´s not over 2500 euro :).


----------



## tron (Dec 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...


I believe that the truth for 35 1.4 is somewhere in between. It is a good lens but for the performance at the edges. In addition it has lots of coma although the latter bothers only the astrophotographers. It is a pitty that Canon ultra bright wide (35mm 1.4L and 24mm 1.4L II) fast lenses have lots of coma...
+1 on that ... bucket ... ;D (I too would love one of the two but I am not optimistic...)


----------



## Marauder (Dec 15, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> i hope for a new 100-400mm.
> 
> will buy one as soon as it´s out (and when it´s not over 2500 euro :).



Yeah, I'm anxious for the 100-400L II as well. I love my 100-400L, but it's an old design and a new one with greatly improved IQ is high on my list of "want that!"


----------



## Arctic Photo (Dec 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



That sounds very mechanical. The 35L has a certain feel, a certain love. When you go with it, you know it's a special moment and it's going to give you something special back.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 15, 2013)

Development Announcements usually don't make sense. The only practical use for them is to hurt other companies sales, for example, a 300-600mmL might put a damper on the Tamron lens sales.

Far too often, development announcements hurt your own sales, and if something goes wrong, you look incompetent.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 15, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



I'm in agreement here. These are both holes that need quick plugging, particularly considering that the Sigma is ending up in a lot of bags, and, for others of us, the new 35mm f/2 IS is actually in many ways superior to the current 35L. It is my most recent addition.

Count me in for wanting the new 50mm. I don't have an AF 50mm in my kit right now because I was never blown away by the (non L) 50mm choices. I have owned and then sold two copies each of the 50mm f/1.8 and 1.4. I have never bought the 50L because of both its own shortcomings and high price. I make do with some vintage options (Takumar and Helios), and really enjoy those lenses. But for a lot of work AF is really needed.


----------



## rbr (Dec 15, 2013)

I also want a high quality ultra-wide prime. No more ultra-wide zooms, please, unless they're great at the wide end. Zooms are always going to compromise somewhere somehow, and if Canon came up with something really incredible there will an incredibly high price tag on it. A nice compact and affordable prime between 16 and 20mm with edge to edge razor sharpness, little distortion, and manageable light falloff at normal landscape apertures would be very welcome in my camera bag. A lens like that is also a gaping hole in Canon's lens line up.


----------



## Artifex (Dec 15, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1 

Although I never use AF, I am also waiting for a great modern fast 50mm. The 50L is too expensive for me, and the 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 are too weak in term of build quality and handling IMO. The Zeiss 50mm 1.4 wide apertures performance aren't good enough for the price, although stopped down, there's nothing to complain about. The 55mm, although spectacular, is really out of my budget. The Sigma 50 1.4 seems to be the best value in term of sharpness, but the handling isn't great and the focus ring is too stiff for pleasant MF. The best option would be the Voigtländer 58mm 1.4, but it doesn't exist in EF mount. I personally can't justify buying a 500$ lens in the wrong mount, especially if the mount isn't a m42. 

I hope rumors are true and 2014 is the year of the 50mm : Canon IS 50mm + Samyang 50mm 1.2 + Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 (although this one seems to be more of a speculation than a rumor).


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 15, 2013)

I really like it when a CR2 rumour appears. Though I even get more excited to see a CR3! 

I have been in the market for a new Canon 50mm for a number of years. As I’ve written in a number of CR threads previously, each of the current Canon 50mm lenses has their strengths, but also their notable weaknesses. I really appreciate what Sigma (& Tamron) have been doing with many of their recent lenses, however to ensure forward compatibility (and most accurate critical AF) – I prefer Canon, as even the Sigma 18-35mm (as superbly sharp and ground-breaking a lens as it is) has been noted to have some AF niggles – which really takes the wind out of its sails for me.

A new EF Canon 50mm lens between f/1.4 and f/2 would fill the only ‘gap’ that I really have in my set of lenses. Ideally (for me) a Canon 50 mm would have very good IQ wide open (sharp, lots of general & micro contrast, low CA) - would have absolutely awesome IQ 1 stop down, FTM USM and close MFD. IS would be a (much appreciated) bonus. 

As for what the other lens – I don’t ‘need’ anything else, though I know various people are looking for a new Canon UWA prime or zoom (eg 14-24mm), or a telephoto zoom (eg 100-400mm ‘mkII’). I can’t see Canon updating any of it’s current “II” lenses, nor updating any of their L focal length primes for which they have recently brought out a non-L prime (so I actually doubt a new 35mm L will be on the cards).

If there are 2 lenses coming out, maybe a new non-L 85mm prime, as the current 85mm is good, but could be a little improved upon, and the 85mm L II is not that ‘new’. Or, actually I’m thinking a new TS-E … at a new focal length.

Regards

Paul 8)


----------



## Viggo (Dec 15, 2013)

Artifex said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



Look into the Zeiss 50 f2, although far from the 1.2 aperture, but you mentioned the 50 f1.8. The Zeiss f2 is superb and really makes the Zeiss 1.4 look really bad... I love the 1:2 macro as a bonus to crop your portraits as close as you want with fantastic sharpness at f2. love the 50 perspective compared to a 100mm macro for example.


----------



## jrista (Dec 15, 2013)

Ricku said:


> I think Im going to puke if one of those lenses aren't a tack sharp UWA-zoom lens.
> 
> 16-35L III or 14-24L
> 
> Bring it.



Ditto! I'd love a 14-24L with stellar corner performance. Bring it!


----------



## jrista (Dec 15, 2013)

Arctic Photo said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Photo said:
> ...



I'm just waiting for reliable dictation to hit the tablet scene...

"I'd really lime an ['strike that twice'] like an UWA prime..." ;D


----------



## jrista (Dec 15, 2013)

Marauder said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > i hope for a new 100-400mm.
> ...



I suspect there would be more fanfare around a 100-400L II release. That has been one of Canon's best selling and most popular lenses for well over a decade. Any replacement should be made well known. I'd certainly be happy to sell my current one and buy the Mark II if it was released...but it just doesn't feel like CP+ is the time or the place for it for some reason...


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 16, 2013)

I've decided to not buy any more non-IS lenses, and am waiting for IS-equipped updates to the following lenses: 50mm, 85mm, 24-70/2.8. I'm also waiting for a 100-400 II, although I might settle for a 400/5.6 IS. I would also be "casually" interested in an IS-equipped UWA zoom to replace my 17-40.


----------



## Artifex (Dec 16, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Artifex said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Thanks for the suggestion. It is true that the Zeiss 50mm f2 looks astonishing; the sharpness is ridiculous, like the build quality, colors, micro-contrast and, I guess, the reselling values (30 years old CZ 50mm 1.4 still sell at 450-550$ on eBay!). Also, the 1:2 macro looks really nice; you can even have 1,86:1 easily with extension tubes. However, at 1283 USD (source: B&H), it is pretty expensive for such a "slow" prime. 
Is it worth it? I have no doubt! However, it is still a lot of money.
Personally, I am waiting for 2014 before buying anything, in case there is a "game-changer" such as the Sigma Art 35mm (which is even better than the Zeiss 35mm 1.4 for half the price!). Still, I am saving money for if this doesn't happen (1283 USD to be precise!)


----------



## BozillaNZ (Dec 16, 2013)

A 14-24 with bobble front element is only good for pixel peepers. No filters? that's a big NO for landscapes, especially for Canon's *cough* DR *cough*.

In comparsion, Canon's 16-35 is a all purpose performer. Adding a UV for harsh conditions, putting all sorts of filters like rectangular GND for landscapes, then as a good reportage lens solely because of the focal range. It is a better choice than a bobble 14-24.

Nikon's 14-24 might be a sharpness marvel but many people bought it and afraid to use because the unable to be protected front element gets scratched easily, also you either can't use GND filters or have to break down to buy some novelty solutions. I personally don't like a lens like this.

I'm all for a new 50mm!


----------



## tron (Dec 16, 2013)

BozillaNZ said:


> A 14-24 with bobble front element is only good for pixel peepers. No filters? that's a big NO for landscapes, especially for Canon's *cough* DR *cough*.
> 
> In comparsion, Canon's 16-35 is a all purpose performer. Adding a UV for harsh conditions, putting all sorts of filters like rectangular GND for landscapes, then as a good reportage lens solely because of the focal range. It is a better choice than a bobble 14-24.
> 
> ...


I would love a 16-35 2.8L III but I would bet that there will be none.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 16, 2013)

BozillaNZ said:


> A 14-24 with bobble front element is only good for pixel peepers. No filters? that's a big NO for landscapes, especially for Canon's *cough* DR *cough*.
> 
> In comparsion, Canon's 16-35 is a all purpose performer. Adding a UV for harsh conditions, putting all sorts of filters like rectangular GND for landscapes, then as a good reportage lens solely because of the focal range. It is a better choice than a bobble 14-24.
> 
> ...



What a misguided comment. Nobody who bought the 14-24 had any illusions about the front element, same with the 17ts-e that has singlehandedly taken several niches by storm. Besides, there is more than one very high quality filter options for both lenses, I know I own and use one.


----------



## WillT (Dec 16, 2013)

Another vote for an ultra wide zoom that is sharp at the corners. Don't get me wrong I like my 16-35 but it leaves a lot to be desired in the corners.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 16, 2013)

All micromotor lenses they plan on keeping should get the full Ring treatment starting with the 50. The 20 could use a refresh too but I'm not holding my breath. Why is it the only good primes under 24mm that are not L series are all utter crap or ManFocus?


----------



## tron (Dec 16, 2013)

WillT said:


> Another vote for an ultra wide zoom that is sharp at the corners. Don't get me wrong I like my 16-35 but it leaves a lot to be desired in the corners.


+1 I sold 16-35 2.8 L version I since I used my TS-E 17mm f/4L more and more. (So that lately I have ordered a custom filter holder for the100mm Lee Filter System...)


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 16, 2013)

tron said:


> WillT said:
> 
> 
> > Another vote for an ultra wide zoom that is sharp at the corners. Don't get me wrong I like my 16-35 but it leaves a lot to be desired in the corners.
> ...



If you don't already have a selection of the Lee filters look at the Fotodiox Wonderpana system for the 17. It is very well made and allows much more movement than the Lee system, even full shift with zero vignetteing.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 16, 2013)

WillT said:


> Another vote for an ultra wide zoom that is sharp at the corners. Don't get me wrong I like my 16-35 but it leaves a lot to be desired in the corners.



Given the minimal improvement between the 16-35 I and 16-35 II despite many years passing and increasing of front element to 82mm filter thread, I think the only way a UWA Zoom will be sharp at corners is with a bulbous element w/o filter support.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 16, 2013)

Ruined said:


> WillT said:
> 
> 
> > Another vote for an ultra wide zoom that is sharp at the corners. Don't get me wrong I like my 16-35 but it leaves a lot to be desired in the corners.
> ...



Again, bulbous elements have very good filter support..............


----------



## Daniel Flather (Dec 16, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > WillT said:
> ...



All in vain.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 16, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > WillT said:
> ...



You mean like this?
http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system#sw-150

I guess, if you don't mind the front of the lens being the size of your head... Might work for tripod landscape photography but it would be too awkward for anything else.


----------



## Jerm (Dec 16, 2013)

Id like to toss a vote in for an UWA zoom or prime


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 16, 2013)

Ruined said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



No, though that is one option. I use this http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,16813.15.html , much better design and build, very usable in the field hand held too. Size? Well I don't bitch about the size of a 300 f2.8 hood so why worry about a 145mm filter? You need the tools to do the job.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 16, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> No, though that is one option. I use this http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,16813.15.html , much better design and build, very usable in the field hand held too. Size? Well I don't bitch about the size of a 300 f2.8 hood so why worry about a 145mm filter? You need the tools to do the job.



Because, I don't use the 16-35 II for tripod landscape.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 16, 2013)

Ruined said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > No, though that is one option. I use this http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,16813.15.html , much better design and build, very usable in the field hand held too. Size? Well I don't bitch about the size of a 300 f2.8 hood so why worry about a 145mm filter? You need the tools to do the job.
> ...



Sorry, what part of _"very usable in the field hand held too"_ did you not understand? I don't use a 300 f2.8 for tripod landscapes either, as a rule.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Dec 16, 2013)

Please please please give me the 50 1.8 IS!!!! I sold my 50 and I think I really want another one to fill that void! Takes too long an a siggy will be in my bag very soon.. A 35L II would be sooo welcome.. b/c that would probably help lower the cost of the 35 f2?? XD Gah, make my GAS a reality Canon!!


----------



## Ruined (Dec 16, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Well, regardless of our difference of opinion, I don't think the 16-35 II is quite cheap enough yet to indicate imminent replacement. Perhaps a 14-24 w/ bulbous element which would serve a different segment, though. Or, maybe a 17-40 f/4 IS. But, I don't think we are at 16-35 III yet.

The 17-40L, 35L, 135L, 50 1.8, and 70-300 non-L are all dirt cheap, and the 135 2.8 was discontinued, so I am guessing they will be up first for replacement.


----------



## RohamR (Dec 16, 2013)

Oh PLEASE dear *Canon*, give me something wide. Like 15mm f2.8 fisheye / 17-40L IS :-\ 

BTW hello to all you wonderful camera friends. I've been here and sneak peeked in many months and now my first post 8) Have a awesome day


Roham From Oslo/Norway


----------



## Zv (Dec 16, 2013)

RohamR said:


> Oh PLEASE dear *Canon*, give me something wide. Like 15mm f2.8 fisheye / 17-40L IS :-\
> 
> BTW hello to all you wonderful camera friends. I've been here and sneak peeked in many months and now my first post 8) Have a awesome day
> 
> ...



Welcome to CR RohamR! There are a lot of people here wanting some wide angle action next year! Me included! I really hope we see that rumored 16-50 f/4 IS. That would be perfect!


----------



## scyrene (Dec 16, 2013)

There are already too many existing lenses on my wishlist to be too bothered about new releases, but if I were to vote for one, it would be an IS version of the 180mm f/3.5L Macro - as some have suggested elsewhere, maybe taking it to 200mm.

I'm normally excited by the widest apertures possible (there's probably a better way of phrasing that!), but for some reason the 35mm f/2 IS seems more interesting than the 35L. Not that I've used either, it must be said.


----------



## eiretv (Dec 16, 2013)

Never mind the lenses.....what about the bit about new Canon EOS Cinema Cameras??

Please elaborate and Speculate.

I am waiting until NAB to see what if anything new camerawise comes along before making my next purchase decision.


----------



## dstppy (Dec 16, 2013)

Dear Canon:

With regard to 'development announcement's: Please Don't.

Take a note (as should the entire electronics industry) from Apple's playbook and aim for week-1 availability.

We're tired of hearing about nice things that we're not allowed to play with.

Thanks.


----------



## rs (Dec 16, 2013)

dstppy said:


> Dear Canon:
> 
> With regard to 'development announcement's: Please Don't.
> 
> ...


You're forgetting about the Mac Pro.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 16, 2013)

More than likely it will be an EF-s lens and an L lens we didn't ask for like the 24-70 F4L.


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (Dec 16, 2013)

RohamR said:


> Oh PLEASE dear *Canon*, give me something wide. Like 15mm f2.8 fisheye / 17-40L IS :-\



+1 for the 17-40L IS


----------



## Eldar (Dec 16, 2013)

14-24L and 85 1.2L IS


----------



## scyrene (Dec 16, 2013)

Eldar said:


> 14-24L and 85 1.2L IS



I dread to think how unwieldy (or expensive) an 85mm f/1.2 IS would be! Though I would love to see one, in a dream world.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 16, 2013)

scyrene said:


> There are already too many existing lenses on my wishlist to be too bothered about new releases, but if I were to vote for one, it would be an IS version of the 180mm f/3.5L Macro - as some have suggested elsewhere, maybe taking it to 200mm.
> 
> I'm normally excited by the widest apertures possible (there's probably a better way of phrasing that!), but for some reason the 35mm f/2 IS seems more interesting than the 35L. Not that I've used either, it must be said.



+1 with you for the 180mm macro. But what about that age old 50mm macro? that lens has been in Canon lineup since 1987. Canon is lagging behind Nikon in terms of lens releases as well now days.


----------



## dstppy (Dec 16, 2013)

rs said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Canon:
> ...


I remember it; the announcement was a bad break in a good policy.

I also said "aim", meaning supply constraints etc. 

Personally, the only one that affects me is getting excited over something that doesn't exist yet. Being a gear head, I've had to watch as the electronics industry promise and not deliver time and time again. It's 2013 and I still have to get a living creature to bring me a cold drink from the refrigerator. The OmniBot 2000 promised me that YEARS ago!


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 16, 2013)

Chaitanya said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > There are already too many existing lenses on my wishlist to be too bothered about new releases, but if I were to vote for one, it would be an IS version of the 180mm f/3.5L Macro - as some have suggested elsewhere, maybe taking it to 200mm.
> ...



Not really, not in terms of quality usable lenses, Nikon have caught up some, but as far as a good lens selection they were miles behind anyway. Funny how they are so far behind with the flash stuff now too, one brilliant release, the 600EX-RT, and they were leapfrogged.


----------



## WillT (Dec 16, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Canon is behind in with the UW zooms. Nikons is superior in every way IMO.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 16, 2013)

WillT said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...



That is one lens. 

Nikon don't have a lens that is in the same league as the 17mm TS-E, or the MP-E 65, their 24 PC-E is a hunk of junk, let alone compared to the Canon TS-E 24 MkII which truly embarrass' it. They can't best Canon in the 24-70 or 70-200 f2.8 categories either, have you shot with the Nikon 24-120 f4 VR? Canon's 24-105 f4 IS is worth twice the money yet can be bought for a little over half. The Nikon 80-400 does put the Canon 100-400 in its place, but at nearly twice the cost. No 8-15 fisheye zoom either. None of the Canon MkII superteles are in the same league as the Nikon versions, indeed over 200mm the only Nikon lens worth looking at compared to a Canon one is the 800, at $18,000. Nikon don't have an 85 f1.2 or a 50 f1.2, until recently they didn't have any modern AF fast primes or a selection of quality f4 zooms....... I could go on and on, but why bother, if you want Nikon glass get a Nikon.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 16, 2013)

Chaitanya said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > There are already too many existing lenses on my wishlist to be too bothered about new releases, but if I were to vote for one, it would be an IS version of the 180mm f/3.5L Macro - as some have suggested elsewhere, maybe taking it to 200mm.
> ...



Ah, that's a good point, but I have the 100L macro and the MP-E, so the 50mm macro is superfluous (and indeed I use the 85L + extension tubes for some stuff too).


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 16, 2013)

Chaitanya said:


> ... But what about that age old 50mm macro? that lens has been in Canon lineup since 1987.



I own the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, and it's so good at what it does that I'm in no hurry to replace it. (I also have the 100mm f/2.8L IS macro.) I would still like to see (and buy) a new 50mm with true ring USM and IS. But even if that comes to pass, I will keep my 50CM; I think it serves its niche very well.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 16, 2013)

WillT said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...



Nikon is behind in Tilt-Shifts.
Nikon is behind in Macros.
Nikon is behind in Standard Zooms.
Nikon is behind in Super Tele's.
Nikon is behind in Super High Speed Primes
Nikon is behind in Auto-Focus systems.
Nikon is behind in Speedlite Flash.
Nikon is behind in Customer Service.
Nikon is behind in Professional Services.
Nikon is behind in Sales.

Nikon is over-rated IMO.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 17, 2013)

scyrene said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...




I had both Mp-e 65 and 100L untill recently, I photograph snakes, butterflies and spiders a lot. 100mm L was too short for venomous snakes and bugs so I replaced that lens with Sigma 150mm OS recently. But for me in some situations 150mm is too long so I still need a 50mm/60mm macro in my bag. 
Here are some photos that I took using 100mm L, 28mm and 50mm reversed with my old 450D.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 17, 2013)

WillT said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...



Erm? Why because of one lens? The 14-24mm? Their 16-35 f4 is ok, but no better than the Canon 16-35IIL. 
Canon's 24-70IIL is superior in every respect to the Nikon version, the TS-e 24L is superior. The TS-e 17L is peerless and without equal. The 16-35IIL has it's issues but it's still the most versatile UW on the market. 

The problem with the 14-24mm is that it can't easily take polarisers and ND filters. The front element is very prone to flare and ghosting (compared to the 16-35IIL) and it's very exposed. So while it's a sharp lens, it's not very practical or versatile. The 16-35IIL is just as sharp when stopped down (for landscape work) and very few photographers need very sharp corners at f2.8.


----------



## jrbdmb (Dec 17, 2013)

Arctic Photo said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...


Now I'm going to puke.  

I expect Canon to update the 35L very soon because I'm sure they are not happy that every objective review says the Siggy 35 is better.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Dec 17, 2013)

jrbdmb said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I still love mine. Is that OK? 

There will always be a better lens or better sensor. I bet many of the guys prowling internet forums wouldn't know what to do with the best in a real world situation anyway. Test charts makes for boring pictures.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 18, 2013)

These days it may seem anathema, but I have been so unimpressed with the Sigma's bokeh (a pretty huge deal in a wide aperture prime) that I went with the Canon 35mm f/2 IS instead, despite a slight sharpness downgrade from the Sigma. I certainly think that Canon can improve on the Sigma design by offering a properly weather sealed prime that has both great sharpness, much more accurate AF, and smoother bokeh transition.

Where Canon has a problem is the price department. If they aren't a bit more competitive with the pricing it will be very hard to market an only marginally better lens at a price point that could easily be more than double that of the Sigma. I saw a sale on the Siggy yesterday for $699, so the price is certainly already dropping. That's a tough sell for Canon.

The 24-70II is optically fantastic, but its very steep MSRP has meant that a LOT of people have opted for the almost as good but much cheaper + VC Tamron. This a trend that Canon can't afford to keep repeating.


----------



## Zv (Dec 18, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> These days it may seem anathema, but I have been so unimpressed with the Sigma's bokeh (a pretty huge deal in a wide aperture prime) that I went with the Canon 35mm f/2 IS instead, despite a slight sharpness downgrade from the Sigma. I certainly think that Canon can improve on the Sigma design by offering a properly weather sealed prime that has both great sharpness, much more accurate AF, and smoother bokeh transition.
> 
> Where Canon has a problem is the price department. If they aren't a bit more competitive with the pricing it will be very hard to market an only marginally better lens at a price point that could easily be more than double that of the Sigma. I saw a sale on the Siggy yesterday for $699, so the price is certainly already dropping. That's a tough sell for Canon.
> 
> The 24-70II is optically fantastic, but its very steep MSRP has meant that a LOT of people have opted for the almost as good but much cheaper + VC Tamron. This a trend that Canon can't afford to keep repeating.



It would be nice if the 35L was dropped in price too! It's one that I want but damn that thing is still going for $1500 or more these days. Seems to have gone up in price! I don't get how the 135L can be so cheap and the 35L so expensive? If the drop the price to $1000 even I'd buy it over the Sigma. And then Canon could release the 35LII at the same price as the 35L is now? 

Same with the 50L. I'd value that at $900. At that price I'd buy it. You can't seriously charge people $1500 for that when the 24-70L II is $1699 with rebate! I mean I'd rather fork out the extra and say screw the 24L, 35L and 50L! 

But even then I still want a prime. I feel like I'm done with zooms.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 18, 2013)

Zv said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > These days it may seem anathema, but I have been so unimpressed with the Sigma's bokeh (a pretty huge deal in a wide aperture prime) that I went with the Canon 35mm f/2 IS instead, despite a slight sharpness downgrade from the Sigma. I certainly think that Canon can improve on the Sigma design by offering a properly weather sealed prime that has both great sharpness, much more accurate AF, and smoother bokeh transition.
> ...



Check this one then:

https://foto.no/cgi-bin/bruktmarked/visAnnonse.cgi?id=210639

6000,- nok is 984 usd. It's a 2007 model..


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2013)

Zv said:


> I don't get how the 135L can be so cheap and the 35L so expensive?



It is the difference in designs. A 35mm lens on a 44mm flange distance is a retrofocus design, that is it has to bend the light multiple times to get it to focus on the sensor, telephoto lenses, in contrast, are very simple lenses to design and build, it is a straight shot through to the sensor and additional elements are just for correcting aberrations.

The TS-E 17mm was the lens that made me realise all Canon lenses are exactly as designed, and the compromises in them are there for specific reasons, cost, quality tradeoffs, etc. Look at the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII compared to the MkI, sports shooters love it because it is sharper and focuses faster, meanwhile portrait shooters are not so keen because of the slightly harsher bokeh, all trade offs, but all built in at the design stage. Anybody that can make a 17 mm lens with zero distortion is very clever, anybody that can make a 17mm lens to work on a 44mm registry distance is comfortably smarter than that, but to then drive home the total dominance of lens design and build capability by making it a tilt shift lens is, quite simple, showing off.

Canon make the lenses they do for marketing reasons, they come with the limitations and characteristics they do to meet the brief for that lens. It seems the brief can be top quality at any cost and we will sell them for what we can get, the prestige thing, like the 17TS-E and the 200 f1.8, it was said that Canon made a loss on every 200 f1.8 they sold; or the brief can be how cheap can we make it to get people into a system, the 50 f1.8 and many kit zooms spring to mind.

Another consideration is that the needs of film and digital sensors is quite different, most of these lenses core layouts were designed long before digital and the need for perpendicular, or as close as possible, light rays, another major consideration for wide angle and retrofcus designs. Certainly any new wide angle designs will take that into consideration.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 18, 2013)

Chaitanya said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...



Those are lovely shots. I would say (although I've not used it), the 180L macro lens would be better for all but the spider. I don't know how close reptiles let you get, but it's the best choice for larger subjects at a distance (butterflies are a classic example). You could try a 200mm lens with extension tubes as a cheaper alternative, maybe (but then you hit the maximum focus distance problem).

I've actually combined the 24-105L with extenders and extension tubes out of curiosity; it produces similar, if inferior results (large magnification without needing to get too close).


----------



## Zv (Dec 18, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Does it include shipping to Japan?? Why is it more expensive in the country it's made in??


----------



## Zv (Dec 18, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get how the 135L can be so cheap and the 35L so expensive?
> ...



Ah I didn't realize the 35 was a retrofocus design. I guess that makes sense now. Thanks!


----------



## Viggo (Dec 18, 2013)

Zv said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



It's a Norwegian site and shipping is not included no, the used sales value in Norway is often lower than other countries even if the brand new price is of the most expensive in the world ..


----------



## Renaissance (Jan 1, 2014)

I just hope the 50mm with image stabilization comes out in January!!


----------

