Comments on: Lens Announcements before PMA [CR2.5]

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:50:37 +0000

sigh! I have hoped for the EF 14-24mm f2.8 like Nikon’s one. Don’t give a damn on the new lenses.

By: Justin

Justin — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:55:04 +0000

@alan

How is the 135 f/2 long in the tooth? It’s considered by many one of the finest primes canon makes. I guess IS would help, but the current design is among Canon’s best.

By: Alan

Alan — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 03:07:28 +0000

The 35L f1.4 II is starting to look like a [CR4] in my book.
Both the USA & Imported versions are out of stock at B&H.
It only makes sense that the 35L (released in 1998) is next on the update list as a 24L II (2008), the 50 f1.2 (2007) & 85 f1.2 II (2006) have all been recently updated.
To round out the primes, we’ll probably see a EF 135 f2 II within the next 18 months as well.
The EF 135 f2 was released in 1996 and is getting rather long in the tooth.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:17:11 +0000

i think they should make 100-500 f4 IS USM II

By: OH

OH — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:21:13 +0000

What about a new and improved version of the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM?
Have anyone heard anything about this?

By: Vorstellung Canon EF 80-400 f/4-5.6L IS USM | Torben-Irmer.de

Vorstellung Canon EF 80-400 f/4-5.6L IS USM | Torben-Irmer.de — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:24:49 +0000

[...] canonrumors.com geht das GerÃƒÂ¼cht rum, dass Canon schon bald das Canon EF 80-400 f/4-5.6L IS USM als Nachfolger [...]

By: LF

LF — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 05:20:40 +0000

I hope they can make the 35L a bit more compact!

By: 5d mark II

5d mark II — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 03:42:41 +0000

35 L front element is better go for 77mm, the dark corner is too prominent on full frames

By: ms

ms — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:59:04 +0000

+1 Alan

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:44:15 +0000

80-400 will hurt 70-200 sales. A lot of people can only afford one telephoto, and given the option, I think even more would go for the 80-400 if it were around the same price as the 70-200 F4 IS or older 100-400 IS. Also, hopefully Canon proves me wrong, but I can’t see how making the wide end 80mm would IMPROVE image quality when compared to the 100-400mm.
It is exponentially more difficult to keep IQ at satisfactory levels when you expand the zoom range in a lens. It is much easier to keep IQ high in a 200-400mm compared to a 80-400mm.

I would much rather see a 200-400IS F4-5.6 or a 200-500IS F4-5.6 (or even F4.5-6.3) if they keep L build quality, stick in 4-5 stop IS, and weather seal it.

By: jc

jc — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:50:13 +0000

I think most people want the 200-400/4, the Nikon is very popular with the event and sport crowd and likely a great wildlife lens for big/close subjects. They already have a number of other zooms in the less expensive range (100-400, 35-350, etc) Sigma has a bunch of big zoom telephotos in the 5.6 range (120-400, 170-500, 150-500) and I don’t really know how popular they are?

By: ms

ms — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:44:23 +0000

drop the F4 down to F5.6 and you’ve got a winner… if you make either of those lenses f4 then they get huge and vastly more expensive (a 500/4 but as a modern L zoom… do the math)… it needs to be affordable and not like the 400/4 DO… who cares if that thing is smaller… it costs the same as the 500/4 and doesnt deliver the same IQ… need to make sure any higher end zooms dont go the way of the nikon 200-400mm which is another heavy and expensive (way out of my reach) beast

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:43:03 +0000

cfibanez – the current 100-400 is 4.5 – 5.6
This “new” lens is 4 – 5.6
It’s potentially faster.
Sounds like a good option and upgrade to a very good and well respected lens.
Of course, a 200-400 (or 300-500!) f/4 would be nice as well!

By: ms

ms — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:45:15 +0000

80-400? what the heck? are they chasing after nikon? they should be going the other way…make it a 200-400 or 200-500/5.6 and make sure the image quality is out of this world (or at least keep the 100-400)… making the zoom even longer… I have my doubts about any major improvements in the IQ department, which is a shame