Comments on: Big White Lenses [CR1]

By: Bart

Bart — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:54:49 +0000

Anybody any idea when the updates will follow, was in the market for an 400 mm 2.8, but maybe it’s better to wait.?

By: Etienne

Etienne — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:29:40 +0000

Unless it was APS-C. I’d buy an APS-C 50-135 f2.0 IS, and I’d pay $2000 for it

By: Stark-Arts

Stark-Arts — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:06:45 +0000

I’d like to see (since this has devolved into what I’d like to see)

20 – 70 2.8 IS or 24-85 IS – both 2.8 the one would mean no need for lots of people to buy the 16 or 17 L zooms since for many it really is a matter of degrees for wideness…the other would make a great wedding lens without switching lenses to get your nice portraits (I prefer the first one for the record)

I’d like to see a 17 or 18 2.8 or faster L prime – the jump between 14 and 24 is too big and the 24 is not quite wide enough for lots of folks (see above)

200-500 4-5.6 to replace the 100-400 or better yet 200-400/4 (actually both lenses would have a great place)

By: Stark-Arts

Stark-Arts — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:56:58 +0000

why?
100 f2 and 135/2 are not that big…
this would be a PHENONMENAL range for portrait shooters

By: Justin

Justin — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:27:14 +0000

That lens would be ridiculously heavy and large.

By: chad

chad — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:39:52 +0000

Scott, an 85 1.8 exists with phenomenal focusing. I don’t see canon dropping more money in this area.

The 100-400 seems to gets wonderful reviews already; an upgrade would include new IS and new coatings, but I don’t see a change in aperture of this lens.

It would be nice if L meant IS… all of the time. Why not put 4 stops of IS in all of these “luxury” lenses?

By: Glass Man

Glass Man — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:28:08 +0000

50-150 F/2L IS :)

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:04:17 +0000

Before Canon upgrades the 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 4.0 and 600 4.0, Canon should update or make the following first:

100-400 4.5-5.6 IS II (still with push/pull with faster apertures even better)
35 1.4 II
50 1.4 II
Make a 85 1.4 (with very fast focusing, not slow like the 1.2)
Make a 135 2.0 IS (or even a 135 1.8 IS)
Make a 200-400 4.0 IS (push/pull)
Make a 14-24 2.8 (even better a 12-24 2.8, either way, it has to be as sharp as the Nikon 14-24 but without Nikon’s parfocal problem)

By: dr.evil

dr.evil — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:01:33 +0000

I I I I ….

By: Publuis

Publuis — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:23:52 +0000

When will we have a 400mm f/5.6L IS?
Better would be a 400mm f/4L IS, but an f/5.6 Is would be handable.

By: Justin

Justin — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:29:35 +0000

You think there is pent up demand for new glass??????

By: Grumpy

Grumpy — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:02:19 +0000

Where are the new 300/f4 IS 400/f5.6 updates?. Would be nice if they added them to the list too.

By: Me, and only me

Me, and only me — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:46:07 +0000

Yep, it’s the glass that’s heavy!

By: The_D

The_D — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:41:44 +0000

Get the 5D mk II. If they do announce a Mark III, it won’t be for a while.