anyway at least they do have superb options now, even if at great cost, so that is a positive

IMO the 24-70, 17-40 and some slow, high quality wide to 50mm primes are badly in need of an update; my guess is canon is not touching the latter, at least not for a long while, which is a shame

but it has been wished and rumoured for some many years now and always a false promise

but maybe it is time

maybe for august:

24-70 IS with better optics, especially at wide end

180 IS L macro

35 1.4 Mk II L (although this one was already pretty good at Mk I and maybe not the most urgent need, then again they redid the 24 and TS-E and they seem to refuse to update the non0L primes, which is a shame, as a landscape 24mm f/2.8 with equal or better IQ than the 1.4 L MkII could be done for a LOT less, so maybe this makes sense to next on line, but only if they did the 24-70 IS so maybe yes the 24-70 IS!)

maybe one new EF-S, but four lenses sounds like a lot

and a few new super-tele with much modern IS for olympics time, at least on trial basis

There is no proof, no indication about replacements for “L” lenses. The only hint was a stupid sales rep of one mailorder house who turned a backorder of the f2.8 70-200 IS into a discontinuation, followed by an excuse for this error.

The only thing I can see are people who WANT this or that lens to be better. If I have it my way, I want a better 100-400 lens. But I see no hint that this is going to be available within the next 12 months.

“Why should Canon replace lenses that sell like hot cakes?

Why should Canon add a new IS for macro work in telephoto zooms?

Why should Canon “replace” a lens? That would look like a minor upgrade. The big money is with a completely new design.

Why should Canon use the new “macro IS” in professional lenses that are already quite expensive and have a good IS? ”
rule #1 if your product is as good or better than the competition you don’t sit back and enjoy the view for long… because your competition is hard at work to beat you to market with their new innovation.

from Canon press release:
“The new Hybrid IS technology incorporates an angular velocity sensor that detects the extent of angular camera shake which is found in all previous optical Image Stabilizer mechanisms, as well as a new acceleration sensor that determines the amount of shift-based camera shake. Hybrid IS also employs a newly developed algorithm that combines the output of the two sensors and moves the lens elements to compensate for both types of movement. Hybrid IS dramatically enhances the effects of Image Stabilizer especially during macro shooting, which is difficult for conventional image stabilisation technologies.”

does not say ‘Hybrid IS’ is only useful for macro, just has a greater impact on macro shooting due to the new sensor.(it now has 2 sensors)

with a new design, they have larger R&D costs. I’d rather get minor upgrades than no upgrades at all. also you are assuming they are only changing the ‘IS’ what about the new lens coating?

also if your view was Canons/and other manufactures view, we wouldn’t have metering, motor drive for film advance, auto focus, I.S., nor digital cameras.

Maybe to keep them selling that way? Actually, who here has seen mad sales of pancakes?

>Why should Canon add a new IS for macro work in telephoto zooms?

Because MFD’s are laughable on the current lenses? My crusty old G6 is better in this respect than anything I have for my 5D2.

>Why should Canon “replace” a lens? That would look like a minor upgrade.
>The big money is with a completely new design.

Slapping “New & Improved!” on an item is a time-honored way to goose sales, even if the only change is to put less product in the same size box. In the Canon lens arena, if you don’t want them to replace an existing lens, what hole do you see in their lineup that they could fill instead? Something to compete with the Bigmos?

>Why should Canon use the new “macro IS” in professional lenses that are already quite expensive
>and have a good IS?

Aren’t the customers who buy those the ones who’ll be most likely to buy something new like this?

>They canot charge much more for those lenses.
Nikon somehow gets away with it, not to mention Sony.

>Instead of that, they they can just double the price for a consumer lens by adding that IS.
They wouldn’t get many sales that way.

>Why should a professional photographer want a macro-IS? For serious macro
>photography he uses a tripod and mirror lockup in most cases, and he knows that wind and the
>complete lack of depth of field are the problems that he cannot overcome with a better IS.
You know that for a fact before the thing even ships?

Why should Canon add a new IS for macro work in telephoto zooms?

Why should Canon “replace” a lens? That would look like a minor upgrade. The big money is with a completely new design.

Why should Canon use the new “macro IS” in professional lenses that are already quite expensive and have a good IS? They canot charge much more for those lenses. Instead of that, they they can just double the price for a consumer lens by adding that IS.

Why should a professional photographer want a macro-IS? For serious macro photography he uses a tripod and mirror lockup in most cases, and he knows that wind and the complete lack of depth of field are the problems that he cannot overcome with a better IS.

I say: it will be a consumer lens, for people that don’t want to use a tripod or mirror lockup. It will be a lens for general use, not only macro, probably a zoom, a ‘normal to medium tele’.