There are already too many existing lenses on my wishlist to be too bothered about new releases, but if I were to vote for one, it would be an IS version of the 180mm f/3.5L Macro - as some have suggested elsewhere, maybe taking it to 200mm.
I'm normally excited by the widest apertures possible (there's probably a better way of phrasing that!), but for some reason the 35mm f/2 IS seems more interesting than the 35L. Not that I've used either, it must be said.
+1 with you for the 180mm macro. But what about that age old 50mm macro? that lens has been in Canon lineup since 1987. Canon is lagging behind Nikon in terms of lens releases as well now days.
Not really, not in terms of quality usable lenses, Nikon have caught up some, but as far as a good lens selection they were miles behind anyway. Funny how they are so far behind with the flash stuff now too, one brilliant release, the 600EX-RT, and they were leapfrogged.
Canon is behind in with the UW zooms. Nikons is superior in every way IMO.
Erm? Why because of one lens? The 14-24mm? Their 16-35 f4 is ok, but no better than the Canon 16-35IIL.
Canon's 24-70IIL is superior in every respect to the Nikon version, the TS-e 24L is superior. The TS-e 17L is peerless and without equal. The 16-35IIL has it's issues but it's still the most versatile UW on the market.
The problem with the 14-24mm is that it can't easily take polarisers and ND filters. The front element is very prone to flare and ghosting (compared to the 16-35IIL) and it's very exposed. So while it's a sharp lens, it's not very practical or versatile. The 16-35IIL is just as sharp when stopped down (for landscape work) and very few photographers need very sharp corners at f2.8.