Too good to be true?
A cryptic message today said Canon is developing their first f/2 zoom. The broken english of the email said the lens would be a “short zoom range”. There was no focal length given.
cr
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
wow, F2? is that true?
The 24-70mm f/2L IS?…What, a man can dream can he not? Besides, the only reason I’m hoping for a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS or MkII or what ever is because I’m hoping that it will cause the owners of the non IS to sell them in upgrading to the IS, or MkII, or f/2 or…what ever.
My lens wish list:
24-70mm f2.8L
70-200mm f/2.8L
17-40mm f/4L
35mm f/1.4L
85mm f/1.8 (but much rather the f/1.4 Carl Zeiss)
2x Tele-extender
*sigh* If only…
if true would be awesome.
hopefully it’s in a pretty compact size.
I seriously doubt this. An f/2 zoom would have to be an L lens (you can’t let the consumer-grade lenses out-spec the pro lenses, can you?), and the f/2.8 zooms are big enough and heavy enough already. f/2 would be still bigger and heavier and more expensive. You want f/2, buy primes!
I remember the old (not EOS) FD 35-70 f2.8 fondly.
A new EOS “short zoom range” EF lens like this would fit in nicely between 16-35 and 70-200.
A new EF 35-70mm F2 L IS USM would be great!
depending on how long the zoom range is, if its like a 24-70, then I expect its diameter to be bigger!
my wish list is nikon killer 14-24 f/2
“my wish list is nikon killer 14-24 f/2”
My wish list is no fanbois and meaningless wish lists. What do I care what Nikon does? I have a couples of Canon cameras and I shoot with them using Canon lens.
What does concern me are broken English mangled messages that for some reason even rate a mention and a conversation.
I would buy a $2k 35-70 f2 IS in a heartbeat. And it would rarely leave my camera. Right now I switch a lot between 35 and 85.
I would buy it too.
A 35 – 70 f/2.0 would be again a lens others don’t have and thus it is a must have – the higher the price the more attractive it is.
My new TS-E 17 can do things other lenses simply can’t do – if only I would have more time to use it :-)
But seriously – a standard zoom with f/2.0 would attract me more then IS.
Let’s hope this source is correct – it would be nice though to know the focal length.
(btw – I was never impressed by super zooms from 18 – 250 mm with bad starting aperture)
Yes it is true. Didnt you Get the memo?
The 50 1.2 needs a redesign since ages :
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d
But I suppose this is no more a priority.
Was thinking exactly the same thing.
heavy for sure.
I think it would be more logical to make a EFS f2 lens, although a eg. EF 35-70/2 USM IS2 would also be possible. An other possibility would be a f2 telezoom eg 100-200/f2 ($$$).
To be honest, i think it will more likly be a telephoto lens as 2.8 is more than good enough for the standard zoom lens, with iso capabilities improving all the time.
My guess/hope would be 28-50mm
Very old news for Canon R&D. Now, you really will not pay for 70-2×0 upgrade…….
If EF-S lenses why not…Olympus has 2 such zooms already:
the 14-35m F2 and the 35-100mm F2
if its f2, then it would be a portrait zoom, something like 70-135 because if its even f2, it could be relatively “compact” (for an f2 ZOOM)
This or, 85-135 f/2 would make the most sense. Covering some typical portrait lengths with a f/2 zoom would make sense.
I would love a EF-S 15-50/2.0.
That would be a killer always-on lens for a 7D.
Interesting. I won’t hold my breath.
I’ve wanted something like this for a long, long time.
First, let’s take a look at what’s already in the lineup:
24-70 f/2.8L
17-55 f/2.8 EF-S IS
Now, my wild-ass guesses on this are:
– Low chance that it’s DO. The f/2.8 24-70 is already a lot of glass to drag around and only balances well on a 1-series camera and DO would reduce that weight, but DO has kinda weird bokeh that will be a turn-off to people using it as a portrait or video lens (which will be a lot of the market for it). Not to mention the DO price premium and lower resolution.
– Medium chance that it’s designed as a “standard” FF zoom as an upgrade/compliment for existing/potential 24-70 users. Probably a shorter zoom range. But they won’t want to eat into 24-70 sales unless they completely replace it.
– Good chance that it has IS. The 17-55 has it as does pretty much every zoom lens Canon has released recently (but not any primes below 200mm!). But IS adds cost and weight to what will already be a heavy & expensive lens.
I think that videographers will be a sizable portion of the target market for such a lens. The 5DII was a wake-up call to Canon for a new prosumer market that they didn’t know existed before it was released.
If I had to pinpoint it, I’d guess that they would go for a design that would keep cost & weight relatively low (for an f/2 zoom) avoid retrofocus FF wide-ange and long telephototo lengths, and make a lens that will work well on FF and APS-C. It’s clear that Canon doesn’t seem to think the market is terribly excited about “standard” focal lengths these days (in anything other than ultra-large-aperture primes that would be unfeasable in longer or shorter focal lengths or a zoom).
Now, if it’s an IS telezoom going up to 135mm and as good as the 70-200f/4L I would seriously consider hocking my beloved 135L and 85 1.8. I don’t see it being a whole lot bigger/heavier than the 200 f/2.8L II (just keep it under the magical 1kg limit, eh guys?).
This seems likely as they have 5 short/medium telephoto USM primes (if you count 50mm as short tele on EF-S) that are all aching for IS, and rather than update all of them individually they just release a fast short stabilized telezoom that covers all the focal lengths.
50-135 f/2L IS. Make it teleconverter compatible and weathersealed & I’ll fall in love all over again, Canon :-).
“I seriously doubt this. An f/2 zoom would have to be an L lens (you can’t let the consumer-grade lenses out-spec the pro lenses, can you?)”
You mean like how the 17-55 EF-S has IS and the 24-70L doesn’t?
I am glad you use canon “lenses”. Better use proper English next time. The desire for a 14-24 is to fill a need, but if the mention of it makes you feel uncomfortable about your equipment, then switch tight now!
In any case, eventually, when a replacemnt arrives, 24-70s will be had for less. Of course yoh coulD get one now for around 1050 used if you are dilligent. Still that’s a good 150 more than you could get one this same time last year. 24-70 f/2 is a fine dream indeed.
Good point.
This would be comparable to 2.8 full frame. With the 7D, Canon appears committed to high end APS-C
Ah Yes, the fabled 8-1800mm F2L Zoom for only 99.95.
EFS 50-135 f2 IS makes the most sense, especially with Canon’s commitment to high end APS-C (7D). it would be equivalent to FF 2.8 lens.
I’d buy that one. I am currently using the Tokina 50-135 2.8, which is a nice lens at a good price, but somewhat slow focus and no IS.
35-85 f2 would be ideal for wedding photographers and photojournalists.
Yeah is there is one L prime i wont buy its the 50mm f/1.2.
*If
I own 24mm f/1.4L II, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.2L II, 135 f/2.0L and after testing the 50mm it is the softest wide open.
What?? 100-200 f/2 makes no sense at all. And not many people will be able to buy it because a 200 f/2 is already over $4,000. Think about how much a 100-200 f/2 would be
That’s stupid. 24-105 does have an IS, and anyways, 17-55 is different focal lenght, so you don’t compare this one’s side by side. AND if you wanna do this, 24-70 outperforms 17-55 in many ways.
maybe, but that’s hareder than make a 35-70, i guess
you are a racist! a sick one!
This would be killer, and would sell like crazy.
Every photographer in the world would buy one
EF-S 50-135 f/2 IS
Perfect portrait zoom for the EOS 7D…
I’m torn on this one. I’m keeping my 40D at least until the 60D comes out & we see what that looks like (& 7D is mature & prices drop :-). I don’t own any EF-S as I feel FF lenses are a better investment for the future.
Part of me wants this lens (if it does indeed exist) to be a full-blown weathersealed teleconverter-compatible L that will work well with all Canon users, and part of me wants it to be EF-S so that it will be lighter (and maybe cheaper). Evidently the build quality of the new 15-85 is pretty good, so I think the tradeoff in weight would be acceptable, esp. if the cost was appreciably lower than an equivalent L.
Frankly I’d be happy with either EF-S 50-135 IS or 70-135L IS, and buy either regardless of the mount or weight (as long as it’s under 1kg).
“I would love a EF-S 15-50/2.0”
Interesting speculation. Given that they just replaced the (not-great) EF-S 17-85 with the (much-better) 15-85, perhaps with demand not terribly strong for the 17-55 f/2.8 they’ll release an f/2.0 version in February when the EOS1000D is replaced.
50-135 f/2 L IS? I’d buy one in a heartbeat!
Pretty good for a 5D too.
If this f/2 rumor is true, it’s pretty clear that this lens will be intended as an IS replacement for some chunk of their aging lineup of non-L primes, from 20mm on up. The trick will be determining which chunk.
Note the continued lack of a “standard” EF-S prime in the lineup; perhaps they just expect crop camera users to buy the 20-year-old 35mm f/2 (although I imagine Canon keeps a close eye on Sigma’s 30mm sales). Up ’till now the only EF-S prime has been the 60mm macro. Canon clearly sees any new prime lens designs as “pro” territory. Note also that (with the exception of the 10-22) every EF-S zoom now has IS.
If you take a look at the existing lineup, the 14L and 24L have been upgraded recently, there are “pro” f/1.2L versions of the 50 & 85mm, and every other non-supertele prime is at least a decade old. The 35L is in all likelyhood the next L they’ll upgrade, they probably don’t have enough demand for the 135L to add IS to it, and their response for 200L owners that want IS is “buy the zoom”.
I think they want a “buy the zoom” answer for 50, 85, and 135 users that want IS. There’s not as much need for IS and superfast apertures on the wide side, and it’s pretty clear that they feel that they have the existing sub-50mm market covered.
This lens is affectionately called “little fatty.”
Agreed. I just hope it’s not EF-S.
So your own message concerns you?
“The desire for a 14-24 is to fill a need, ”
One that you feel, do not speak for others. And please do explain how is it a “Nikon killer”, I’d love to know (and so would Canon no doubt) how manufacturing one lens would kill off Nikon.
“I am glad you use canon “lenses”. Better use proper English next time.”
http://www.answers.com/lenses
an F/2 zoom is really something that will sell a lot.
Today’s users are mostly using zooms (besides some marginals like me) and they seem to get used to 3.5-5.6 apertures (for the consumers) or else the standard is 2.8.. Which is not bad at all. The problem with that is when you use these zooms on DX, the 2.8 isn’t as wide…
That’s why I believe we need a f/2 zoom for the crop…
Of course, f/2 zoom working on full frame would be awesome but I think there’s little chance of this.
A portrait zoom 35-135 f/2 for APS-C would be nice.
Or an 24-60mm f2. That would have been awesome!
35 mm is not wide enough to be “ideal for wedding photographers and photojournalists”. They must have at least 28 mm with FF. An “ideal” press / wedding / allround shooting lens for is more 24-60. For a portrait I would use my 85mm 1,2 or 135mm 2 anyway.
Or pretty bad since it’s an EF-S. :-)
yeah no kidding, the 17-55mm is about a 27-88mm, not even close to 24mm.
that would be my next lens
maybe once there’s a large 7D base the faster ef-s lenses will sell better…
What faster EF-S lenses? They need to make some more. I’m disappointed the 15-85 isn’t a f/2.8.
Yes, but Olympus cameras have a 2x crop factor. So those lenses, if made for a Canon, would be EF-S 18-44 and EF-S 44-125. I’m not sure how the 2x crop would affect the aperture. Would it equal F/4?
Many shots I’ve seen with the 17-40 have shown embarassing distortion away from the center. I must admit that I don’t understand the popularity of this lens.
And I do – it’s one of the cheapest “L” lens ]:->
Perhaps its not a ‘L’, not an EF, not even EF-S lens for that matter??
Perhaps its a zoom lens to coincide with the ‘EV-I-L’ development ??
Now, for a camera with a super short focus plane, a f/2 zoom would make wonderful sense wouldn’t it ?? It wouldn’t have to to be a big lens, possibly smaller than the size of a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with an 35mm equivalent 24-60mm focal length instead ?? A 24-60 f/2.0 for the ‘EV-I-L’ camera ??
Match it up with a APS-C sensor like that found on the 7D and you have a total market killer!
Now that would be a real product coup!! (expensive no doubt…)
Read Joseph S Wisniewski’s comments on the 35-100 here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=31614459
Essentially it’s a 70-200 f/2.8 with a built-in wide converter, so you get 35-100 f/2 for the size, weight and price of a 35-100 f/1.4.
The 70-200 f/4 on FF gives identical results (total light, DoF etc.) on FF as the 35-100 f/2 does on 4/3, all while costing about 2/3 less.
To answer your question (comparing to Canon APS-C), equivalent lenses would be f/2.5 at the focal lengths you’ve calculated.
That would be trememdous…
…ly expensive.
Constant f/4 would have been nice, but there you go. When its price eventually settles down it should be fairly reasonably priced.
I bet it is a video lens.
Canon are working on a Compact Flash based video camera, so it could be for this and not for a stills camera at all.
I’m not sure the sensor size for this camera, but it may have a smaller sensor, so a fast zoom would be much easier to make.
Talk about fanboyism…
Unfortunetly Canon is not publishing distorion charts. Only the software has the data inside to correct images. Once I asked Canon support what lens to buy if distorsion should be minimal but they don’t have any answer.
One should buy lenses from Zeiss to get full technical information from the manufacturer.
You’re probably right. Heavy, too.
It’s already dropped from $800 to $720. It’s supposedly a really nice lens, but 3.5-5.6 doesn’t cut it. I wouldn’t mind renting one and trying it out, though.
I think its gonna be under 100mm if not it will be massive… I mean it will be big compared to the rest, but not huge like a 200f/2 IS USM (that mofo is huge)
And heavier.
A racist? Your kidding right?
An uptight jackass maybe, but I don’t know how you get “racist” out of that…
My guess: 24-55, L, IS, F2 $999 and useless below 2.8
Speak for yourself, I shoot weddings and 35 is my widest lens for 99% of the day. I grab just a few ultrawide shots of locations with a 17-40.
I shoot mostly 35/85/135, so if this proposed lens could replace two of those three focal lengths I would shell out some big bucks for it.
…Not to mention that the 17-55 is the biggest over priced P.O.S. canon lens I’ve ever owned!