New f/4L EF Zoom [CR1]

[Grendel]

With such high ISO performance now and obviously improving in the future, is a wideangle zoom at f/2.8 have much of a point anymore?

Yes. 1: you want low ISO, the dark end of the DR shows noise at ISO 100 w/ todays pixel density and 2: DOF.

[Canon Rumors]

With such high ISO performance now and obviously improving in the future, is a wideangle zoom at f/2.8 have much of a point anymore?

Yes. 1: you want low ISO, the dark end of the DR shows noise at ISO 100 w/ todays pixel density and 2: DOF.

1) If they improve DR, that will fix that issue.

2) To me, the DOF at 16mm between 2.8 and 4.0 is so minimal. I'd shoot with a 24 1.4 for that purpose.

3) They should make a Leica influenced 21 f/1.4. That's a fun lens.

[ronderick]

But the amount added can vary from lens to lens:

a) 70-200 f/4 without and with IS: 705 to 760 g
b) 100 f/2.8 macro without and with IS: 600 to 625 g

In the two examples listed above, the increase is very slight (about 4 to 8%).

Don't know about the 70-200 f/4, but in the case of 100 f/2.8, I have experienced the dilimma of choosing between IS or none-IS (Thanks for mentioning this one... I almost forgot about the first H-IS update).

While it may not be that significant in terms of weight, there's a notable jump in filter size (58mm to 67mm) and size (the barrel is considerably thicker). I must admit, the H-IS helps handheld macro shots a lot, but the size expansion is a real factor when your backpack is only so big.

It makes all the difference in deciding whether it's a regular starter or bench role, and in this case I chose size/cost over H-IS/L quality...

And definitely that's one thing I hope won't happen to the assumed 17-40 update (unless Canon markets it as a completely seperate option)

[Woody]

Yes. 1: you want low ISO, the dark end of the DR shows noise at ISO 100 w/ todays pixel density

Hmmm... With today's technology, pixel density hardly has any effect in the shadows at low ISO: 24 MP D3X vs 12 MP D3s, 18 MP 7D vs 12 MP 450D etc etc. At even higher pixel densities, Canon can cheat with the black levels like in Nikon D90. 

[that1guy]

So I have no idea whether or not they will put the H-IS on there, but if it is like the IS on the new 100mm macro (that is what it has, right?), then I will have do disagree with most here and say that it would be good to have on this lens.  My reason?  Video.  I heard and saw in a demonstration (I believe by Vincent Laforet, but can't remember for certain now) that the H-IS on the new macro is much better for video.  There is no typical "snap" and it is a bit smoother.  Not a big deal for still shots, but a huge deal for video.  I could see video people snapping this up.  I know it still isn't enough to make some people give up their old ones, but I think it would have a place.  Just my 2 cents