A Random Roadmap: Lenses & Bodies [CR1]

[distant.star]

Pretty much my thought too.

I can't imagine what they could do to make this better. Adding IS may be a feature that will generate some sales, but the IS would be just a luxury and not something you really need.

I'll be using mine later today, and damn glad I have it.

Surprised to hear about a new 135/2. I assume they're thinking of adding IS? I can't see any way to improve this gem. My absolute favorite lens.

[madvette]

So should i just buy the 135L I had been planning on buying for a few months now? Or wait for the II?

[CR Backup Admin]

So should i just buy the 135L I had been planning on buying for a few months now? Or wait for the II?

Mine is wonderful, Adding IS will hwlp with slow shutter speeds, but it will likely end up like the 100mmL which is slightly less sharp than the non-IS version.  One point here is that I use the lenses handheld, and if ou use a lens that way, the IS can help tou get sharper appearing images due to the lak of blur from shake.  clamp them to a sturdy tripod, and the L is just a hair worse.

[Flake]

It's deeply dissapointing to find no wide angle on the list.  Telephotos which perform are relatively easy to produce, wide angles much more difficult.  This is proved by the performance of Canons current wide angle zooms.  The 17 - 40mm f/4 L should surely be a candidate for a refresh as its performance at the wide end is not good at all.

[distant.star]

What you should do is find a good, used one today, and buy it. New is $1000 to $1100. I got a great used one for $700. This is not a lens a lot of people use a lot, so there are many, many used that probably haven't been on a camera 10 times.

Wait for the new one, and it will probably have IS, and they'll bump the price to $1500.

You can start taking magnificent pictures today, or you can waste a lot of time and six months or a year from now spend a lot more money to take magnificent pictures -- and I'll bet you won't see 10 cents worth of difference between the new and old lens.

...for what it's worth, which is just about nothing!

So should i just buy the 135L I had been planning on buying for a few months now? Or wait for the II?

[DJL329]

I wish Canon would update the 50 f 1.4.

+1  Couldn't agree more.  That "micro" USM has to go.

[DJL329]

I have $ allocated if they release a 24-70 II IS!

It's looking like the 24-70mm II won't have IS.  I didn't think it would even before seeing this (it's too short a focal length):

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,897.msg12095/topicseen.html#new

[alipaulphotography]

I have $ allocated if they release a 24-70 II IS!

It's looking like the 24-70mm II won't have IS.  I didn't think it would even before seeing this (it's too short a focal length):

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,897.msg12095/topicseen.html#new

Not 'too short' a focal length as such. The EF-S 17-55mm is the closest crop version featuring IS and can shoot as low as 1/2 a second at f/2.8! This could be really beneficial in an 'all rounder' such as this.

[Mike Ca]

24-70 f/2.8L II Apparently 5 versions of this lens exist. A few even have IS. It is slated for a 2011 announcement. The patent we’ve seen says no IS

I cannot imagine Canon would bother releasing a new 24-70 F/2.8 without IS. All the other Canon zooms anywhere close to this focal range already have IS. Even the EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit zoom lens now has IS.

[autochrome]

I wish Canon would update the 50 f 1.4.

I Wish canon would launch ef-s 15 f2.8 compact...

And a 50mm 1.2L II while we're at it.

What happened to the f1.0? Was it really worth it? I had the pleasure of having a M6 and a 0.95 Noctilux loaned for a week some years ago and that's something that left me a good impression (i was using HP5+ and getting decent photos in literally candle light, today i'm not sure if there's much meaning to it, one can boost the ISO up and still have noise that pales in comparision to the grain of HP5+ on Microphen and resolution that surpasses everything from the film days, even with extreme measures such as Contax RTSIII's vacuum pressure plate to hold the emulsion perfectly flat, and this coupled with *T lenses). Anyone here had hands on experience on the Canon 50mm f1.0 and insights that want to share?

[CR Backup Admin]

Anyone here had hands on experience on the Canon 50mm f1.0 and insights that want to share?

You should check fredmiranda.com.  petcal has one, and is very good about answering questions about lenses.  He is a very active poster, so he is checking every day.  He loves his.

[autochrome]

Anyone here had hands on experience on the Canon 50mm f1.0 and insights that want to share?

You should check fredmiranda.com.  petcal has one, and is very good about answering questions about lenses.  He is a very active poster, so he is checking every day.  He loves his.

Thank you for the reference scaleusa, i wans't familiar with that website.

[ronderick]

Or, aim to carry a heavier wallet after buying a new lens...

Personally, instead of a refreshed 300/4 IS, I'd vastly prefer a 400mm f/5.6L with IS for under $2K, or better yet a 500mm f/5.6L IS for $2.5K.

400mm f/5.6 with IS and weather-sealed would be nice. However, I somehow doubt Canon would introduce such a thing w/o a deep bite into our wallets...

[Sdiver2489]

So should i just buy the 135L I had been planning on buying for a few months now? Or wait for the II?

Mine is wonderful, Adding IS will hwlp with slow shutter speeds, but it will likely end up like the 100mmL which is slightly less sharp than the non-IS version.  One point here is that I use the lenses handheld, and if ou use a lens that way, the IS can help tou get sharper appearing images due to the lak of blur from shake.  clamp them to a sturdy tripod, and the L is just a hair worse.

All the reviews I've seen show the 100L is just a bit sharper. Check out www.slrgear.com

[John Smith]

I wish Canon would update the 50 f 1.4.

+1  Couldn't agree more.  That "micro" USM has to go.

Ditto for 35mm f/2