October 23, 2014, 03:25:55 PM

Author Topic: Lenses Lenses Lenses  (Read 16916 times)

Canon Rumors

  • Administrator
  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
    • View Profile
    • Canon Rumors
Lenses Lenses Lenses
« on: August 18, 2010, 11:13:10 AM »

From EOS-Numerique

A thread has shown up on the EOS Numerique forum about what’s coming shortly. I will talk about what’s posted there.


http://www.eos-numerique.com/forums/f11/les-nouveautes-canon-pour-la-rentree-153805/


Here’s what I know so far

As I wrote yesterday, 2 of the big white lenses are going to be replaced. The above link says all 4, however I’m still told it’ll just be 2 at a time.


300 f/2.8L IS II

400 f/2.8L IS II


[CR3] on at least 2 big white lenses getting replacements.


Zooms

The above link points to a 100-300L. I’ve heard a bit about this over the last few weeks.


If I had to guess, it could be an EF 100-300 f/4L IS.  It wouldn’t be 2.8 and I highly doubt it would be variable aperture.


A wide angle zoom is also coming, I’ve heard 16-50 f/4L IS. It may be something different, but I do not see a 2.8 replacement of the 16-35 f/2.8 II.


The 8mm-12mm mentioned in the forum post I’ve heard nothing about.


Like we’ve said in the past, there are 3-4 lenses coming this fall.


I will [CR2] this.


The Bad News

I have heard NOTHING about the following desired lenses.


24-70 f/2.8L IS

If it’s coming, it’s been very well hidden. Not a single source has mentioned anything about it.


50 f/1.4 II

Nothing has come my way in a long time.


August 19 Announcements

The above thread also says there will be announcements tomorrow. To be honest, I’ve received an equal number of yays & nays for camera stuff being announced tomorrow.


More soon


cr


canonrumors.com

canon rumors FORUM

Lenses Lenses Lenses
« on: August 18, 2010, 11:13:10 AM »

Justin

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2010, 11:57:19 AM »
Very interesting. Wallet feeling loose.

A 100-300L doesn't seem that appealing. 300mm isn't very long for f/4. A new lighter 300 2.8 would work though because we can pop a 2x on there for 600mm.

Anyhow will have to wait to see how it all pans out.

muteteh

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2010, 12:00:05 PM »
The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens. My guess is Canon thinks sales would gain more from giving new photographers an advanced feature than giving other photographers a needed feature.

An EF 100-300 f/4 IS ? Between the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6, and existing EF 100-400mm, I don't see how this caters photographers' needs better than an upgraded EF 100-400mm.

An EF-S 8mm-12mm ? I think Canon needs to invest in it's wide angle lenses, but that an APS-C diagonal fisheye would sell better ?

[Why ? The Canon fisheye is a very good seller on Amazon, and practically every Canon body - including APS-C bodies ! - has a DxO module for the EF 15mm fishseye lens. The only lenses I am likely to buy from Canon in the next one to two years are ultra wide for FF, e.g. circular fisheye and EF 14mm-whatever f/4 or f/2.8]

funkboy

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 422
  • 6D & a bunch of crazy primes
    • View Profile
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2010, 12:17:40 PM »
A 100-300 f/4L IS would suit my needs perfectly.

Certainly better optically than the existing 100-400, plus no trombone zoom.

I'd much rather have a smaller/lighter 100-300 f/4 and add my 1.4x TC when I need it.  A little more reach at f/5.6, great wide-open, and still retains AF without tape.

Of course, this would mean that I wouldn't be buying that 70-200 f/4L I've been wanting...
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 12:24:40 PM by funkboy »

hmmm

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2010, 12:44:25 PM »
+1 to Funkboys comments.   That was almost word for word what I was going to say.   :o

This is a great option for those who have been waiting for either a 300 f4L IS update or a 100-400 5.6L IS update.   

For ef-s shooters: with a 1.4x, the efl would be 670mm @ f 5.6 with current gen IS.    Nice.

deeznuts

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2010, 01:39:27 PM »
16-50 looks good. not sure IS is needed but oh well.  That's EF and not EFS?  I would buy that pretty quickly

ronderick

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2010, 01:48:08 PM »
I think the 2 new f/4 lenses would strengthen the travel/outdoor gear package and compliment the 24-105 really nicely.

So instead of the old set (17-40mm f/4 + 24-105mm f/4 + 100-400mm f/4-5.6), we get the new power-up version (16-50mm f/4 + 24-105mm f/4 + 100-300mm f/4).

Like everyone else, I really hope that there's no more pull/push zoom on the white lens... it's such a royal pain when rain sets in...

However, I am a bit worried about the weight, size, and especially the $$$ of these new L lenses... :'(
Canon EOS 1D MKIV, EF 24-105mm F/4L, EF 70-200mm F/2.8L, TS-E 17mm F/4L, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
FujiFilm FinePix X100

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2010, 01:48:08 PM »

Justin

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2010, 02:01:36 PM »
We're all worried friend. The way the 70-200 f/2.8 went up from 1799 street to 2499 is not encouraging for the future upgrades. 25% plus increases are unwelcome. The only thing they do preserve is the resale value on the previous versions--which I suppose is a good thing for some folks.

I think the 2 new f/4 lenses would strengthen the travel/outdoor gear package and compliment the 24-105 really nicely.

So instead of the old set (17-40mm f/4 + 24-105mm f/4 + 100-400mm f/4-5.6), we get the new power-up version (16-50mm f/4 + 24-105mm f/4 + 100-300mm f/4).

Like everyone else, I really hope that there's no more pull/push zoom on the white lens... it's such a royal pain when rain sets in...

However, I am a bit worried about the weight, size, and especially the $$$ of these new L lenses... :'(

max

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2010, 02:19:36 PM »
I just bought a Sigma 100-300mm f/4... because the 70-200 was too short, and 100-400 with its push pull and the non constant aperture sold me. And the possibility of using a TC without loosing AF.

I would definetly change it for a canon version.

My 100-300 is not really that large in size and weight.

kubelik

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
    • a teatray in the sky
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2010, 02:42:05 PM »
I agree with muteteh and Justin's sentiments about a 100-300 f/4; namely, it doesn't really do much for you that canon's current lineup doesn't already do.  I hate comparing against nikon but I do think they had the right idea in going to a 200-400 f/4. 

I'd love to see the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS replaced by a 200-400mm f/4-5.6 IS that uses a conventional zoom ring, weathersealing, and newer IS.  would I pay a 25% markup from the Dust Buster's price for a lens like that?  a resounding heck yes. 

16-50 f/4 would be a great landscape walkaround lens to replace the 17-40, the extra bit of range on both ends makes a lot of sense.  agree with CR guy that replacing the 16-35 II makes little sense for canon at the moment

Sebastian

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2010, 02:59:35 PM »
The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens.

I'm totally with you here. But remember that we've enough freaks in this very forum would happily cram an IS even in a fisheye.  ;)

An EF 100-300 f/4 IS ? Between the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6, and existing EF 100-400mm, I don't see how this caters photographers' needs better than an upgraded EF 100-400mm.

Again, I fully have to concur. Owning both a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 100-400, I definitely wouldn't have a need for a 100-300 f/4 in between. (A f/2.8 would be a different thing. ;)) And personally, I really like the long end of my 100-400, so I also wouldn't replace it with a 100-300.

However, if a 100-300 f/4 would have a better built and image quality over the 100-400, people who haven't already got a lens that range could well choose the 100-300.


Regards,

Sebastian

match14

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2010, 03:16:19 PM »
I would trade my 70-200 f/4L IS for a 100-300 f/4L IS

coldstone

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2010, 03:52:02 PM »
100-300 is a bad choice in my opinion
after buying a 70-200 4 IS thats even more frustrating (because this is one of my best lenses) since its almost the same range with a 1,5tc (with very little loss in image quality) ...
a 200-400 4-5,6 IS would be a better solution
the 16-50 is a good choice in my opinion since the 16-35 I/II were really bad in the corners
and you had no other choice if you wanted a lens that can use filters (and yes that is important)
and is sharp (at least in the center)

16-50 70-200 200-400 would be just wonderful maybe with some HIS-macros at 100 (already there) and 200
16-35 24-70... would be ok too
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 03:53:44 PM by coldstone »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2010, 03:52:02 PM »

Lee Jay

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #13 on: August 18, 2010, 04:16:31 PM »
<p><strong>From EOS-Numerique<br />
<span style=\"font-weight: normal;\">The above link points to a 100-300L. I’ve heard a bit about this over the last few weeks.</span></strong></p>
<p>If I had to guess, it could be an EF 100-300 f/4L IS. Â It wouldn’t be 2.8...

Why not?  Sigma makes the pretty-solid 120-300/2.8.  A 100-300/2.8 would compete well with the Sigma and the Nikon 200-400/4 (100-300/2.8 + 1.4 = 140-420/4).  If they replaced the 300/2.8 with that, I think that would be great.  Of course, I doubt they will but I see no reason they couldn't.

martijn

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #14 on: August 18, 2010, 05:12:06 PM »
It would be very nice if the new batch would include some reasonably priced models (below 2500 euros)...even the least expensive of those new tele-primes would be well over 5 grand I guess.

Actually I was hoping for an upgraded 100-400 but a 100-300/4 would be a reasonable alternative, with that one stop advantage.

A 100-300/2.8 would almost certainly be too heavy and expensive...

I was also thinking of getting the 300/4 prime, but now I'll wait and see if that 100-300/4 actually does emerge in the short term...with the latest technology that Canon has (like the 70-200/2.8 IS II), it may turn out to be at least as good or perhaps even better than the prime too (better IS, coatings etc.)...
I'd expect to pay something in the region of 1500-2000 euros for one, at least once the early premium has worn off a bit.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #14 on: August 18, 2010, 05:12:06 PM »