A Canon First? [CR1]

wow, F2? is that true?

if true would be awesome.
hopefully it’s in a pretty compact size.

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!

my wish list is nikon killer 14-24 f/2

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.

Yes it is true. Didnt you Get the memo?

Was thinking exactly the same thing.

heavy for sure.

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.

Very old news for Canon R&D. Now, you really will not pay for 70-2×0 upgrade…….

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)

I would love a EF-S 15-50/2.0.
That would be a killer always-on lens for a 7D.

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 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!

Good point.

This would be comparable to 2.8 full frame. With the 7D, Canon appears committed to high end APS-C

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.

Yeah is there is one L prime i wont buy its the 50mm f/1.2.

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

maybe, but that’s hareder than make a 35-70, i guess

This would be killer, and would sell like crazy.

Every photographer in the world would buy one

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).

50-135 f/2 L IS? I’d buy one in a heartbeat!

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.”

So your own message concerns you?

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.

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.

yeah no kidding, the 17-55mm is about a 27-88mm, not even close to 24mm.

maybe once there’s a large 7D base the faster ef-s lenses will sell better…

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?

And I do – it’s one of the cheapest “L” lens ]:->

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.

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.

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.

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)

A racist? Your kidding right?

An uptight jackass maybe, but I don’t know how you get “racist” out of that…

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.