# Lens Announcement [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 26, 2011)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; margin: 70px 0 0 0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=7600"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 -50px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=7600" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=7600"></a></div>
<strong>Lenses coming soon?

</strong>Received some information today that pointed to possible lens announcements in January, possibly on the 3rd.</p>
<p>This is plausible, because CES/PMA starts on January 10, 2012. This would also go in line with the staggered lens/body announcements weâ€™ve seen in the past with pro bodies. The 1D Mark IV was announced in October, and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II came at the beginning of the following January.</p>
<p>Lenses mentioned were the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x, 24-70 f/2.8L II and 35 f/1.4L II.</p>
<p>A few other pieces of information have said Canon will be updating a lot of current lenses in the next 24 months, Iâ€™d rank this as pretty tentative for the moment. Lenses are always difficult to predict and Iâ€™m not sure we really know the whole story about Canonâ€™s production abilities in Japan.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## x-vision (Oct 26, 2011)

Good to know. I'm wondering if there are any bodies planned for PMA @ CES, though.

Historically, Canon has announced many cameras at PMA over the years. 
Will this PMA be an exception?


----------



## ianhar (Oct 26, 2011)

Nice! There are updating the 35. The current lens is wonderful but it is getting old. Looking forward to the announcement


----------



## EYEONE (Oct 26, 2011)

The 35mm f1.4L does need an update. There are a ton of lenses I'd rather see updated but the 35mm has some terrible color fringing (at least my rented copy did).

I'd love to get a hold of the 200-400mm (as if I could ever afford it anyway).


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Oct 26, 2011)

Glad to see lenses back in the spotlight.


----------



## ianhar (Oct 26, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> The 35mm f1.4L does need an update. There are a ton of lenses I'd rather see updated but the 35mm has some terrible color fringing (at least my rented copy did).
> 
> I'd love to get a hold of the 200-400mm (as if I could ever afford it anyway).



Is the color fringe that obvious because mine is quite clean or maybe i need to crop in and see further.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Oct 26, 2011)

It figures, I JUST BOUGHT A 24-70 f/2.8L TWO WEEKS AGO!!! 

At least I didn't make the same mistake with a camera, I'm renting* my brothers until the EOS 1D X hits the street. I Had been up in the air about a 1DMk4, or 5DMk2, and absolutely couldn't justify the 5DMk2 because of it's subpar auto-focus. I didn't want to blow the money on the 1DMk4 because I wanted a full frame sensor, and with the rumor mills churning that a 5DMk3 was imminent, I wanted to see how it measured up to the 1DMk4 before I decided between the two.

The 1D X took me by surprise, I really thought we'd see a 5DMk3 first. Now I don't have to choose, the 1DX will be my next Camera... unless its ISO and autofocus are actually worse than the 5DMk2. I'll probably pick up the 5DMk3 as a backup when it becomes available.


*(Otherwise I'd be shooting film with my T90, 25 years and going strong 8) )


----------



## photogaz (Oct 26, 2011)

If Canon release a 5D 3, 35L II and a 24-70 II then I'm going to be seriously broke!


----------



## ianhar (Oct 26, 2011)

photogaz said:


> If Canon release a 5D 3, 35L II and a 24-70 II then I'm going to be seriously broke!



Do you really need to buy all of he new things that come out?


----------



## J. McCabe (Oct 26, 2011)

Wrathwilde said:


> It figures, I JUST BOUGHT A 24-70 f/2.8L TWO WEEKS AGO!!!



This is a rumor, which might not come true. The 24-70mm f/2.8L upgrade is rumored for a very long time.

If it's true, the lens would take three months to be announced, and probably 3+ months for sales to start, so you would have to wait 6+ months to buy one.

Then you use the lens until the mk2's price drops a little, and then sell the lens to finance the new len. You'll lose some money, but would the loss be greater than the price of, say, renting the lens during that period ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> The 35mm f1.4L does need an update. There are a ton of lenses I'd rather see updated but the 35mm has some terrible color fringing (at least my rented copy did).



I've never had an issue with CA or other types of 'fringing' on my 35L. The only issues that I see with the 35L are a bit of corner softness and the lack of weather sealing. I do hope it gets a MkII update, especially for the weather sealing. I think it's due - as I've pointed out before, every L-series prime of 100mm or less, _except_ the 35L, has been either updated or newly released in the last 5 years.


----------



## Rob (Oct 26, 2011)

What about a Lens with a new or slightly expanded focal length, like say a 20-70mm 2.8IS or a 24-90mm 2.8IS. The 20-70 focal lenth might not be possable though? dont know the technical in's and outs of developing such a lens??


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 26, 2011)

Howabout 24-105 f2.8.

24-105 is a good reach on both aps-c and ff - f/2.8 would be the icing


----------



## EYEONE (Oct 26, 2011)

Wrathwilde said:


> It figures, I JUST BOUGHT A 24-70 f/2.8L TWO WEEKS AGO!!!



No worries, I just got one about 5-6 months ago. I'm extremely pleased with it. I could see it getting an update because it's fairly old but there is nothing really wrong with the Mk I. Enjoy it, it is a great lens.


----------



## JR (Oct 26, 2011)

I was just about to buy the 35 1.4L, I guess i will wait till after Xmas and get another lens to augment my lens collection for now. Will likely go with the 135L instead....I just need to add longer reach and wider lens to my 50 and 85...I guess I will go longer first!


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 26, 2011)

The 135 F/2L is a super lens. Bokeh is terrific and on a APS-C body it is just stunning.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Howabout 24-105 f2.8.
> 
> 24-105 is a good reach on both aps-c and ff - f/2.8 would be the icing



Icing, indeed...about 4 pounds of icing to carry around.


----------



## dstppy (Oct 26, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Howabout 24-105 f2.8.



Would you like that announced at the annual faeries and unicorns convention?  (I kid, but it'll not happen)

I say 24-70 f/2.8L II. Big money! No WHammies! C'mon 24-70 f/2.8L II! ;D


----------



## ianhar (Oct 26, 2011)

dilbert said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Howabout 24-105 f2.8.
> ...



Why do you want a f/2.8 lens?


----------



## photophreek (Oct 26, 2011)

I remember a rumor posted here about a 14-24mm to compete with Nikon as well as a 17-55mm replacement similar to the 15-85mm that replaced the 17-85mm. Keep in mind that there are far more Rebel users than pros/prosumer cameras. An updated 17-55mm would sell very well. 

I'm certainly not discounting the 24-70mm replacement, but for me personally to purchase the ver II of this lens, it would have to be reasonably priced and significantly better than ver I as I am very pleased with my 24-70mm and what comes out of it. I wouldn't pay upwards of $500 extra for just IS and lighter. 

As far as the 35L is concerned, I am very happy with mine and have decided that I would get the 24L II instead and wait on the 35L II until I see reviews and tests.


----------



## DJL329 (Oct 26, 2011)

[quote author=Canon Rumors]A few other pieces of information have said Canon will be updating a lot of current lenses in the next 24 months...[/quote]

Many of the "L" lenses have been updated/replaced, so I'm (still) hoping for a 50mm f/1.4 II!


----------



## seanmcr6 (Oct 26, 2011)

Anyone else see the 200-400 at the world series the other night? They were showing clips of the park staff setting up, vendors, people streaming in, and then there was 2 second shot of a photographer in a pit somewhere...he was clearly using the 200-400 1.4x. It's not as big as I thought it would be.


----------



## ianhar (Oct 26, 2011)

photophreek said:


> I remember a rumor posted here about a 14-24mm to compete with Nikon as well as a 17-55mm replacement similar to the 15-85mm that replaced the 17-85mm. Keep in mind that there are far more Rebel users than pros/prosumer cameras. An updated 17-55mm would sell very well.
> 
> I'm certainly not discounting the 24-70mm replacement, but for me personally to purchase the ver II of this lens, it would have to be reasonably priced and significantly better than ver I as I am very pleased with my 24-70mm and what comes out of it. I wouldn't pay upwards of $500 extra for just IS and lighter.
> 
> As far as the 35L is concerned, I am very happy with mine and have decided that I would get the 24L II instead and wait on the 35L II until I see reviews and tests.



Cant argue that there are more rebel user than pros bodies, but how many of the rebel user actually bought any other lens other than the kit lens


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 26, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Howabout 24-105 f2.8.
> 
> 24-105 is a good reach on both aps-c and ff - f/2.8 would be the icing



It could be built, apparently Canon does not feel there is a big enough market for a large, heavy, and expensive lens. 

I'd like to see them keep a few lower cost lenses, if you can call the 24-105mm L a low cost lens. Due to the small market for a f/2.8, prices would likely be $3,000.


----------



## photogaz (Oct 26, 2011)

ianhar said:


> photogaz said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon release a 5D 3, 35L II and a 24-70 II then I'm going to be seriously broke!
> ...



Ofcourse not but I've been eyeing up the 35L for a while, but if there's a replacement coming then I'll hold off. As for the 24-70L II, my Sigma has been letting me down so I guess I do need that replacement. I almost had it in my mindset to replace the 5D Mark II for the newer camera and that the lenses weren't coming. However, it's difficult to steer away from that once you've decided.


----------



## CarebbianTraveler (Oct 26, 2011)

ianhar said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



For a 5x travel zoom, a f/4 indeed makes more sense. A f/2.8 would be heavy and either very expensive or low IQ.
I for my part am waiting for a "Nikon grade" 14-24mm f/2.8
And I wouldn't mind if it's a f/4, as long as the corners are sharp


----------



## Meh (Oct 26, 2011)

ianhar said:


> photogaz said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon release a 5D 3, 35L II and a 24-70 II then I'm going to be seriously broke!
> ...



I convince myself that I need the things I want. It's a personal failing but one that I enjoy from time to time.


----------



## ecka (Oct 26, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > The 35mm f1.4L does need an update. There are a ton of lenses I'd rather see updated but the 35mm has some terrible color fringing (at least my rented copy did).
> ...


There are some CA, but nothing terrible. Do you think it is possible that Canon would make f/1.2 version instead of f/1.4 MkII?
Any thoughts about 135mm f/1.8L ? (even Sony has one  )


----------



## Haydn1971 (Oct 26, 2011)

ecka said:


> There are some CA, but nothing terrible. Do you think it is possible that Canon would make f/1.2 version instead of f/1.4 MkII? Any thoughts about 135mm f/1.8L ? (even Sony has one  )



Controversial perhaps, but I'm not expecting the entry level primes nor the slower selling L primes being updated ever. The quality of zooms has improved to a level approaching many L lenses, times have moved on with digital tech to push the ISO performance to greater levels than ever... In all seriousness, how much better is a 135mm f2 than a 70-200mm f2.8 IS II when considering the flexibility of the zoom.

What primes sell well ? I don't know for sure, but pop a circa 1995 entry level film camera with a cheaper f1.4-1.8 prime against a modern entry level digital with a modern zoom and better ISO and I suspect most users would shrug their shoulders and say can't tell the difference, which leads into the next gen zoom and sensor tech... Why have dozens of zooms and primes that overlap, surely that's bad for getting production costs down... Yeah sure, some primes are special, which is why canon can charge small car prices for them.

My feeling is that over the nex 10 years we shall see the lens range order into entry and midrange EF-S zooms, a f2.8/4.0 L range, plus a few select primes that sell well and a few specialist superteles, tilts and macros. I fear the EF non L prime is dead and will slowly disappear, the the current range of L primes will start reducing in range choice and that we may also see a merge of some specialised lenses... 100-180mm zoom macro ? 45-90mm zoom tilt shift ? 24-35mm L f1.4 zoom ? 50-85mm f1.4 L zoom ? Does anyone really need f1.2 DOF ?


----------



## photogaz (Oct 26, 2011)

Meh said:


> ianhar said:
> 
> 
> > photogaz said:
> ...



Exactly. Nobody ever says I'm happy with what I've got and I don't want any more. 

It's the reason we all are where we are now, because of our drive to do better (even if that means buying better things)


----------



## JakiChan (Oct 27, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> Wrathwilde said:
> 
> 
> > It figures, I JUST BOUGHT A 24-70 f/2.8L TWO WEEKS AGO!!!
> ...



I'm in the same boat (the 3 to 4 month timeframe). Unless the new one is amazing in some unexpected way I don't forsee upgrading. I mean sometimes the new lens is pure win - the 70-200 2.8L IS2 was a big upgrade. So it's possible. It also depends on how expensive it is. If they do add IS it's a huge upgrade...and we'll pay for it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> I'm not expecting the entry level primes nor the slower selling L primes being updated ever. The quality of zooms has improved to a level approaching many L lenses, times have moved on with digital tech to push the ISO performance to greater levels than ever... In all seriousness, how much better is a 135mm f2 than a 70-200mm f2.8 IS II when considering the flexibility of the zoom.
> 
> What primes sell well?
> 
> Does anyone really need f1.2 DOF ?



I agree on the entry level primes. But would you call the 85L a fast selling lens? It was updated on 2006. Since then, every other L prime at 100mm and under - except the 35L - has been updated or is a new release. I'm pretty sure we'll see a 35L II at some point. 

The 70-200/2.8L IS II is an amazing and versatile lens, and it's my second most used lens on my 5DII. But, my 135/2L is better - and also the only option - when I need f/2 for either the background blur or the extra stop of shutter speed. 

I do frequently shoot at f/1.2 on my 85/1.2L II.


----------



## ecka (Oct 27, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > There are some CA, but nothing terrible. Do you think it is possible that Canon would make f/1.2 version instead of f/1.4 MkII? Any thoughts about 135mm f/1.8L ? (even Sony has one  )
> ...


So, you like zooms, but you can't really compare them with primes. They are different animals. The main advantage of the prime lens is it's wide aperture. You can't compensate it with IS or high ISO numbers, because those are just for exposure manipulation. Besides, some new crop bodies can be set to ISO12800 or even 25600 but the usable limit is the same old ISO3200.



Haydn1971 said:


> What primes sell well ? I don't know for sure, but pop a circa 1995 entry level film camera with a cheaper f1.4-1.8 prime against a modern entry level digital with a modern zoom and better ISO and I suspect most users would shrug their shoulders and say can't tell the difference, which leads into the next gen zoom and sensor tech... Why have dozens of zooms and primes that overlap, surely that's bad for getting production costs down... Yeah sure, some primes are special, which is why canon can charge small car prices for them.


You already answered your own question here. Primes are for those who actually see the difference. If you don't - buy a zoom. Or, maybe you need the zoom flexibility for the job. Most professionals are mainly using zoom lenses, because they need to work fast and there is no time for lens swapping. Some are using primes only and there are 5 L primes and 3 5D2 bodies in their bag. Nothing is wrong with that.
It's your choice.



Haydn1971 said:


> My feeling is that over the nex 10 years we shall see the lens range order into entry and midrange EF-S zooms, a f2.8/4.0 L range, plus a few select primes that sell well and a few specialist superteles, tilts and macros. I fear the EF non L prime is dead and will slowly disappear, the the current range of L primes will start reducing in range choice and that we may also see a merge of some specialised lenses... 100-180mm zoom macro ? 45-90mm zoom tilt shift ? 24-35mm L f1.4 zoom ? 50-85mm f1.4 L zoom ? Does anyone really need f1.2 DOF ?


I agree that in the future there will be only L and EF-S lenses. Some of the non-L primes should be updated with EF-S primes (like EF-S 28/1.8USM). However, reducing the L prime range is an absolute nonsense to me . I doubt that you would want to buy a f/1.4 zoom, because it would be too big, too heavy, too expensive and the IQ would be not so good.


----------

