What next?

[fman]

I will hold back with any investments in my hobby for now ( I admit that I am lusting for the 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I will manage to keep that urge under control) and wait what this year brings. If the D800 becomes what people expect from Nikon and if the 5DMk.III ends up being the luke-warm lets-not-canibalize-our-valuable-1D(s)-line "upgrade" that people have started to expect from Canon, I am gone.

I couldn't have said it any better myself.
This will be a decisive year for both Canon and for Canon users.
It's just not possible to endlessly introduce premium price new lens variants while offering inferior bodies in order not cannibalize the flagship product.

[grauniad]

All this talk of new L lenses is well and good, but amateurs with smaller budgets wish some other lenses would be improved or provided, e.g, a new version of the 50mm f/1.4 , a new EF-S 35mm f/1.8 (comparable to Nikon's model), and a new version of any (or all) of 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 28mm f/1.8, or 35mm f/2, all very old models.

[docsmith]

As Canon makes its announcements leading up to major events, what are the up coming events?

[fman]

LOL. You both, as hobbyists, have high demands when you claim that Canon produces inferior products. I bet you want 10.000,- $$$ IQ but only want to pay 100,- $$$. You're not even making (much?) money since you are not professional. If you are complaining about IQ, I would invest in a workshop to learn and take better pictures. Strange that top photographers never complain about equipment and just take amazing pictures.

As owning couple of L lens + a few others not particularly cheap (like EF-S 15-85) I've already spent a lot more on Canon stuff than you think (I'm nevertheless happy to report that people who actually have seen my pictures did not see the need to enroll me some photography course).

Please note that I was not complaining on IQ (in particular not those new lenses that I have like EF 100 2.8L IS which is in my view outstanding) but no matter how I look the recently introduced 60D is clearly inferior compared to D7000. Both IQ wise and from handling point of view. Not to mention features like dual SD slot that allows separating RAW or JPG or pictures from video.
Have you ever checked how WB, flash exposure correction or middle AF point setting can be done using 60D?

So having good but maybe a bit overpriced lenses is just one side of the story.

[Canon 14-24]

I still have hopes for a Canon equivalent of a 14-24 zoom!

[stark-arts]

I would join the chorus of voices calling to update the non-l primes. The 5D is an expensive camera line for the average person but it's the least expensive full frame so many people buy it wanting full frame (if they need it or not is a whole other argument) and then they need glass. The can go with the inferior 24-70 (some people love it but mine was soft) or they can pick A single prime (as the L line up consists of lenses that cost as much as the zooms for the most part and often times more). I shoot with the 35 1.4 and the 135/f2 ninety percent of the time because I like those looks but I'd love to have a solid fast focusing 20 or 24 that doesn't break the bank...I think i'm one of many.

I'd really like to see a line up of 300 dollar lenses with the build quality of the nikon 35 1.8 but built for FF - I say again there is NO REASON to have EFS primes other than greed. FF primes actually generally look better on EFS cameras so why cut out all the potential ff buyers?

18, 20, 24, 35, 50, 85, 100, all at f2 or better (except the 18 and 24 i guess - that would make them really expensive) with that nice but no L quality...and you'd sell tons. Add the much wanted 400 and 500 5.6's with IS and 1000-1500 prices and you'd own nikon again...

[Justin]

So we're hoping for an ultrawide with IS but are resigned to the standard zoom being without?

If the 24-70 remake is without IS I don't see myself buying it.

[Justin]

Haha. I bet.

Talked to a Washington Post photographer who was sporting a 5D Mk 2 at a recent publicity event for SpaceX/Tesla on K Street.

She did mention a rough timeframe -- nine months -- for the 5D Mk 3.

As an aside, she also loved her 5D Mk 2, as it could produce good shots up to ISO 2500. Just sayin'.

she probably got her info from a colleague who reads Canon Rumors 

[Kuscali]

I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.

[Etienne]

I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.

It would probably cost and weigh the same as the present 16-35 2.8 II. The 16-35 would still be the better deal, with an extra stop. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge when the light is very low.

[kubelik]

I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.

It would probably cost and weigh the same as the present 16-35 2.8 II. The 16-35 would still be the better deal, with an extra stop. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge when the light is very low.

I'd vote either the 16-35 2.8 L II or the 17-55 2.8 IS on a 7D body.

what is it exactly you need the IS for?  if you are using the lens for landscapes, you need to be purchasing and using a tripod.  if you are using the lens for a walkaround/general purpose shooting lens, the f/2.8 max aperture and the current ISO ceilings of even crop body cameras means you can get excellent shot in a massive variety of situations.

[Etienne]

I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.

It would probably cost and weigh the same as the present 16-35 2.8 II. The 16-35 would still be the better deal, with an extra stop. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge when the light is very low.

I'd vote either the 16-35 2.8 L II or the 17-55 2.8 IS on a 7D body.

what is it exactly you need the IS for?  if you are using the lens for landscapes, you need to be purchasing and using a tripod.  if you are using the lens for a walkaround/general purpose shooting lens, the f/2.8 max aperture and the current ISO ceilings of even crop body cameras means you can get excellent shot in a massive variety of situations.

Definitely the 17-55 2.8 IS if it's for a crop body. I owned this lens before I moved to the 5DII. The 17-55 is very sharp, very fast focus, and the IS is superb. I'd buy it again for a crop body.

However if you are heading to Full frame, the 16-35 2.8 is a very good ultra-wide, and the 24-105 f4 is a great normal zoom. F4 on FF is roughly the same as f2.8 on crop: FF has about a 1 stop advantage in high iso noise (so you can compensate by increasing the ISO a bit), and a 1.3 stop advantage in creating shallow DOF.

[Kuscali]

I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.

It would probably cost and weigh the same as the present 16-35 2.8 II. The 16-35 would still be the better deal, with an extra stop. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge when the light is very low.

I'd vote either the 16-35 2.8 L II or the 17-55 2.8 IS on a 7D body.

what is it exactly you need the IS for?  if you are using the lens for landscapes, you need to be purchasing and using a tripod.  if you are using the lens for a walkaround/general purpose shooting lens, the f/2.8 max aperture and the current ISO ceilings of even crop body cameras means you can get excellent shot in a massive variety of situations.

How about the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 (this lens would be used for Landscape I know I need a tripod, and also be my normal zoom, I have seen some impressive results from this lens).

[dsa1979]

All L lenses.... Sic!

It´s sad that Canon want update the old standard EF-lenses. 

[Etienne]

I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.

It would probably cost and weigh the same as the present 16-35 2.8 II. The 16-35 would still be the better deal, with an extra stop. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge when the light is very low.

I'd vote either the 16-35 2.8 L II or the 17-55 2.8 IS on a 7D body.

what is it exactly you need the IS for?  if you are using the lens for landscapes, you need to be purchasing and using a tripod.  if you are using the lens for a walkaround/general purpose shooting lens, the f/2.8 max aperture and the current ISO ceilings of even crop body cameras means you can get excellent shot in a massive variety of situations.

How about the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 (this lens would be used for Landscape I know I need a tripod, and also be my normal zoom, I have seen some impressive results from this lens).

" I'd pay the extra for the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II because it takes filters, and is much smaller and lighter than this Tokina." - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/16-28mm.htm

Also on that site Ken claims that they are optically similar. But the the Canon you get an extra 7mm reach, which comes in very handy.

Tokina makes some nice lenses (I still own the 50-135 2.8, and I would buy the 11-16 2.8 for crop), but the Canon L's are built like a dream and are a pleasure to use, with full-time manual focus over-ride as well. The zoom and focus rings on Canon L's are smooth as cream.