We’re told that there are two wide angle zoom lenses coming from Canon. One we’re told would be an 11-24 f/4, though it wasn’t mentioned whether or not this would be a full frame or APS-C only lens. Though the source did say the lens would be expensive, which leads me to believe it would be full frame compatible. The same source also says a new 16-35 f/4 wide angle with IS is also on tap and would be quite pricey. However, if they perform in the corners, people will pay nearly anything for a great wide angle Canon offering. I do find it a bit odd that neither of the mentioned lenses are f/2.8, but perhaps that’s coming down the road.
There was another mention of a new Canon 100-400 being priced in the $3000 range also coming.
This info is not coming from known sources, so treat it accordingly. More to come…
cr
QuoteThere was another mention of a new Canon 100-400 being priced in the $3000 range also coming.The high price bit was tacked on to lend legitimacy to this rumor of the unicorn lens.
We’re told that there are two wide angle zoom lenses coming from Canon. One we’re told would be an 11-24 f/4, though it wasn’t mentioned whether or not this would be a full frame or APS-C only lens. Though the source did say the lens would be expensive, which leads me to believe it would be full frame compatible. The same source also says a new 16-35 f/4 wide angle with IS is also on tap and would be quite pricey.
However, if they perform in the corners, people will pay nearly anything for a great wide angle Canon offering.
...the source did say the lens would be expensive...a new 16-35 f/4 wide angle with IS is also on tap and would be quite pricey...a new Canon 100-400 being priced in the $3000 range also coming.
I believe Canon should introduce a 16-35 f/2.8L III, a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 14-24 f/2.8L. Then we would be OK as far as UWA FF zooms are concerned (before asking for an IS version of 16-35 2.8L with IS that is) Is that too much to ask ? P.S OK feel free to add other variations, price ranges, APS-C UWA zoom ranges, etc... After all it is a rumor site
Quote from: tron on May 06, 2014, 10:31:13 AMI believe Canon should introduce a 16-35 f/2.8L III, a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 14-24 f/2.8L. Then we would be OK as far as UWA FF zooms are concerned (before asking for an IS version of 16-35 2.8L with IS that is) Is that too much to ask ? P.S OK feel free to add other variations, price ranges, APS-C UWA zoom ranges, etc... After all it is a rumor site yes!And what would be the speculated prices for:- 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII = ?- 16-35 f/4 IS = ?- 14-24 f/2.8 = ?Who give up the 16-35 f/2.8 MKII for a 16-35 f/4 IS?
Quote from: candyman on May 06, 2014, 10:39:46 AMQuote from: tron on May 06, 2014, 10:31:13 AMI believe Canon should introduce a 16-35 f/2.8L III, a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 14-24 f/2.8L. Then we would be OK as far as UWA FF zooms are concerned (before asking for an IS version of 16-35 2.8L with IS that is) Is that too much to ask ? P.S OK feel free to add other variations, price ranges, APS-C UWA zoom ranges, etc... After all it is a rumor site yes!And what would be the speculated prices for:- 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII = ?- 16-35 f/4 IS = ?- 14-24 f/2.8 = ?Who give up the 16-35 f/2.8 MKII for a 16-35 f/4 IS?- 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII = 2300- 16-35 f/4 IS = 1500- 14-24 f/2.8 = 2300Prices randomly speculated of course. I based them somehow on 24-70 2.8 II to 24-70 4L IS price comparisons and I wanted to create confusion between the 16-35 f/2.8 MKIII and 14-24 f/2.8 models P.S I do not say I would like these prices, it is just a speculation which is different...
