List of rumored lenses

time123

EOS M50
Feb 22, 2015
26
0
I certainly do hope Canon makes a 24-70L 2.8 IS and gives it a reasonable price. I am having a difficult time with the idea of leaving crop bodies because I really do not want to give up my 17-55 IS 2.8. I already own a 70-200L 2.8 IS II and instead of looking at getting the 5D Mark III or upcoming IV I am actually looking at upgrading to a 7D Mark II so I can keep my almost complete range of 17-200 mm 2.8 image stabilized. IS is not always necessary at the wider end but it can really come in handy. I really would like to go full frame one of these days but 27.2-88mm (17-55mm on my crop) is one of my most common shooting ranges and with as expensive as the 24-70L 2.8 II is without IS it makes the upgrade that much harder to justify especially considering the additional cost taken on by the new camera body.

Along with many others, I would also like to see an updated 50mm 1.4, and preferably with IS because I'm a huge fan of Canon's IS system. With an original release date of June 1993 it has had a pretty incredible run but they have released some excellent new lens technologies since then. Heck, the original 100-400L was released in September of 1998 and even that lens was able to get an update.

Anyways, rumor-mill - wish-list - whatever - thanks for listening Canon, I know you read these boards too :)
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,967
1,179
119
time123 said:
I certainly do hope Canon makes a 24-70L 2.8 IS and gives it a reasonable price. I am having a difficult time with the idea of leaving crop bodies because I really do not want to give up my 17-55 IS 2.8. I already own a 70-200L 2.8 IS II and instead of looking at getting the 5D Mark III or upcoming IV I am actually looking at upgrading to a 7D Mark II so I can keep my almost complete range of 17-200 mm 2.8 image stabilized. IS is not always necessary at the wider end but it can really come in handy. I really would like to go full frame one of these days but 27.2-88mm (17-55mm on my crop) is one of my most common shooting ranges and with as expensive as the 24-70L 2.8 II is without IS it makes the upgrade that much harder to justify especially considering the additional cost taken on by the new camera body.

Along with many others, I would also like to see an updated 50mm 1.4, and preferably with IS because I'm a huge fan of Canon's IS system. With an original release date of June 1993 it has had a pretty incredible run but they have released some excellent new lens technologies since then. Heck, the original 100-400L was released in September of 1998 and even that lens was able to get an update.

Anyways, rumor-mill - wish-list - whatever - thanks for listening Canon, I know you read these boards too :)
To all intents and purposes the 17-55 f2.8 IS is a 24-105 f4 IS on a FF camera (technically its ff equivalent is 27mm-88mm f4.48), the difference is that f4 on a ff camera has narrower dof, a greater zoom range and is cheaper. And before anybody says "but I need the light gathering power of f2.8 for shutter speeds", well if you use 400iso @ f2.8 for 1/500 sec on your crop camera you can use 800iso @ f4 for 1/500 sec, you actually get less noise, narrower dof, the same shutter speed and, believe it or not, less motion blur! How is that? Well you are enlarging the same motion blur less with the ff enlargement.

All in all the 24-105 f4 IS out performs the 17-55 f2.8IS in every metric, this is a perfect example of why, when people move to ff, they say there is a difference but they just don't know why, there are small but noticeable improvements in everything even with, on the face of it, more modest lenses.

Addendum: Joey, read this link, http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
 

e_honda

EOS T7i
Jul 28, 2013
73
0
time123 said:
I certainly do hope Canon makes a 24-70L 2.8 IS and gives it a reasonable price.
You'll probably have to wait awhile and the price (using the 24-70 ii and 100-400 II as examples) will most likely be anything but reasonable. No doubt they had prototypes of this thing when designing the 24-70 II, but probably decided to go with a non IS version due to the fact that they couldn't get an IS version with the same IQ and/or it would've been to big/heavy.

I think they were set on going with something that had IS (seeing as they put IS in the 24-70 f4 and 16-35 f4), but along the way they seemed to find the magical optical formula with something that didn't have IS. Remember, adding IS isn't as simple as just dropping in the mechanism. It changes the optical formula.
 

Finn M

EOS M50
Mar 3, 2015
31
0
Maximilian59 said:
What will be the kit lens for the coming high megapixel body, if not an updated 24-105/4?
Canon now have five very sharp "kit" lenses which can justify a 50Mpix sensor (three of them are in my camera bag):

- EF 24-70/2,8L II
- EF 16-35/4L IS
- EF 70-200/2,8L IS II
- EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS II
And the new EF 11-24/4L

Canon also have lots of sharp L tele lenses plus the 14/2,8L and 24/1,4L II.

What they need to do is to update their L primes: 50/1,2L and 35/1,4L.
And maybe also add a 18/2L.

In the coming years I think we also will see some new and more compact telephoto lenses based on the improved DO technology which can reduce the size/weight with up to 50%:

- EF 300/4L DO IS to replace the EF 300/4L IS which was introduced in back in 1997 (Nikon just launched a lens like this)
- EF 200/2L DO IS (the ultimate lens for portraits)
- EF 600/5,6 DO IS (perfect for bird photographers)
 

time123

EOS M50
Feb 22, 2015
26
0
e_honda said:
time123 said:
I certainly do hope Canon makes a 24-70L 2.8 IS and gives it a reasonable price.
You'll probably have to wait awhile and the price (using the 24-70 ii and 100-400 II as examples) will most likely be anything but reasonable. No doubt they had prototypes of this thing when designing the 24-70 II, but probably decided to go with a non IS version due to the fact that they couldn't get an IS version with the same IQ and/or it would've been to big/heavy.

I think they were set on going with something that had IS (seeing as they put IS in the 24-70 f4 and 16-35 f4), but along the way they seemed to find the magical optical formula with something that didn't have IS. Remember, adding IS isn't as simple as just dropping in the mechanism. It changes the optical formula.
Yep, it probably will be a while since it was about 10 years from v1 to v2 but this was also a wishlist! During this upgrade in which Canon also decided to jump the MSRP from $1349 to $2099 (a whopping 55% increase) so at this rate it seems likely that it will be expensive as well. Although Canon somehow managed to add a more reasonable 15% increase of $300 to the MSRP of the 70-200 IS 2.8 from v1 to v2 and has been able to pull IS off with that lens since 2001. I must say I do find it kind of odd that Canon doesn't have any other f/2.8 zoom lenses with IS other than the 70-200 and the 17-55.

I have a hard time buying the weight/size problem because using a premium zoom and shooting with an already weighty upper-end DSLR (likely the kind that a photographer would use with a 24-70 f/2.8 ) in the first place probably isn't the best plan to go with if weight/size is a concern unless you want to use a tripod in which case size/weight shouldn't matter too much. I see sports/action photographers running around with their 70-200 II IS, myself included, which weighs almost twice as much as the 24-70 II at 3.28 lb vs 1.77 lb. And just for a point of note v1 of the 24-70 was 5 ounces heavier than v2.

Of course everything in this thread and our discussion is speculation, but many companies operate as follows, so my guess is that their marketing or whatever department simply ran the numbers and determined that v2 would still sell quite well even with the 10 year separation, 55% price increase, and not adding in IS. Nikon didn't include IS when they released their 24-70 f/2.8 in 2007 at a considerably higher price than the Canon v1 that was out at the time so why would Canon feel the need to have IS or a reasonable price especially since people are already generally heavily invested in their systems when they are looking at lenses in this range.

I am just really challenged to believe that Canon could not come up with something considering all of the other technical feats they have pulled off over the years with imaging - cross industry, not just photography. I know adding IS isn't just tacking on an extra chip but I am certainly not going to be imagining up defensive hypotheses or repeating unfounded rumors as to why a company worth billions and billions of dollars with massive amounts of resources couldn't possibly come up with a reasonable solution for IS on a 24-70 f/2.8 especially at its' current price and even more so in the price comparison to v1. Don't get me wrong as I do like my Canon gear but what can I say, I guess I'm a bit of a skeptic.
 

time123

EOS M50
Feb 22, 2015
26
0
privatebydesign said:
...

Addendum: Joey, read this link, http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
Fascinating link. Super comprehensive and all that technical data that was put together is incredible. Just an FYI but my name is not Joey, although I suppose it never hurts to guess (I know you weren't talking to me but I couldn't find any sarcasm tags).
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,967
1,179
119
time123 said:
privatebydesign said:
...

Addendum: Joey, read this link, http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
Fascinating link. Super comprehensive and all that technical data that was put together is incredible. Just an FYI but my name is not Joey, although I suppose it never hurts to guess (I know you weren't talking to me but I couldn't find any sarcasm tags).
I was talking to Joey, but he removed his comment. Here it is copied from my email notification.

Glad you liked the link though :)
 

Attachments

Joey

EOS 7D mkII
Nov 7, 2014
84
0
63
Westcountry, UK
Hmm, interesting...

I'm the Joey to which the comment was addressed - and I did read the article with interest.

I posted the comment copied above and then immediately withdrew it - didn't expect anyone to see it at all (didn't realise CR would e-mail PrivatebyDesign to alert him that I'd replied to his comment). I'd decided my comment was overly snarky, and a bit contentious too, and I didn't want to get into that discussion. I'm rather sorry it got out despite my efforts at withdrawing it.

Having read the article, it is my view that the statement that an f/2.8 lens on a crop body is 'the equivalent' of an f/4.48 lens on a full frame cannot stand on its own without explanatory support. When I read 'f/2.8' or any other maximum aperture as part of the description of a lens, I'm thinking of the brightness of the image it throws on the sensor (or film) - and therefore the exposure settings I'll be using. Those things don't change with sensor size. Yes, I know that depth of field and some other things change but the image brightness, defined by the aperture of the lens relative to its focal length, does not change. Therefore I'd rather make the statement that a 50mm f/2 lens on a crop body 'is equivalent to' an 80mm f/2 lens on a full frame, though the depth of field (and perspective) will be different if the lens is used in such a way as to give the same field of view. I've since commented on the subject in another thread.

I shudder to think how discussions like this may confuse a newbie, which is why I will not be contributing further on this matter. My apologies to anyone who has suffered at my hands...
 

Rocky

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 30, 2010
918
32
Joey said:
Hmm, interesting...

I'm the Joey to which the comment was addressed - and I did read with article with interest.

I posted the comment copied above and then immediately withdrew it - didn't expect anyone to see it at all (didn't realise CR would e-mail PrivatebyDesign to alert him that I'd replied to his comment). I'd decided my comment was overly snarky, and a bit contentious too, and I didn't want to get into that discussion. I'm rather sorry it got out despite my efforts at withdrawing it.

Having the read the article, it is my view that the statement that an f/2.8 lens on a crop body is 'the equivalent' of an f/4.48 lens on a full frame cannot stand on its own without explanatory support. When I read 'f/2.8' or any other maximum aperture as part of the description of a lens, I'm thinking of the brightness of the image it throws on the sensor (or film) - and therefore the exposure settings I'll be using. Those things don't change with sensor size. Yes, I know that depth of field and some other things change but the image brightness, defined by the aperture of the lens relative to its focal length, does not change. Therefore I'd rather make the statement that a 50mm f/2 lens on a crop body 'is equivalent to' an 80mm f/2 lens on a full frame, though the depth of field (and perspective) will be different if the lens is used in such a way as to give the same field of view. I've since commented on the subject in another thread.

I shudder to think how discussions like this may confuse a newbie, which is why I will not be contributing further on this matter. My apologies to anyone who has suffered at my hands...
Well said. A f2.8 lens is a f 2.8 lens in ANY format and size of sensor. "an f/2.8 lens on a crop body is 'the equivalent' of an f/4.48 lens on a full frame" should only be refer to the DOF only. for whatever reason, a lot of poster do not mention about DOF equivalent and just use the term equivalent". One poster in the other tread insist that the EF-M 22mm f2.0 IS NOT a 22mm f2.0 but a 35mm f3.5 even used on the EOS-M. That is B.S.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,621
317
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
Rocky said:
Joey said:
Hmm, interesting...

I'm the Joey to which the comment was addressed - and I did read with article with interest.

I posted the comment copied above and then immediately withdrew it - didn't expect anyone to see it at all (didn't realise CR would e-mail PrivatebyDesign to alert him that I'd replied to his comment). I'd decided my comment was overly snarky, and a bit contentious too, and I didn't want to get into that discussion. I'm rather sorry it got out despite my efforts at withdrawing it.

Having the read the article, it is my view that the statement that an f/2.8 lens on a crop body is 'the equivalent' of an f/4.48 lens on a full frame cannot stand on its own without explanatory support. When I read 'f/2.8' or any other maximum aperture as part of the description of a lens, I'm thinking of the brightness of the image it throws on the sensor (or film) - and therefore the exposure settings I'll be using. Those things don't change with sensor size. Yes, I know that depth of field and some other things change but the image brightness, defined by the aperture of the lens relative to its focal length, does not change. Therefore I'd rather make the statement that a 50mm f/2 lens on a crop body 'is equivalent to' an 80mm f/2 lens on a full frame, though the depth of field (and perspective) will be different if the lens is used in such a way as to give the same field of view. I've since commented on the subject in another thread.

I shudder to think how discussions like this may confuse a newbie, which is why I will not be contributing further on this matter. My apologies to anyone who has suffered at my hands...
Well said. A f2.8 lens is a f 2.8 lens in ANY format and size of sensor. "an f/2.8 lens on a crop body is 'the equivalent' of an f/4.48 lens on a full frame" should only be refer to the DOF only. for whatever reason, a lot of poster do not mention about DOF equivalent and just use the term equivalent". One poster in the other tread insist that the EF-M 22mm f2.0 IS NOT a 22mm f2.0 but a 35mm f3.5 even used on the EOS-M. That is B.S.
It interesting that a crop sensor, generally, is one stop less efficient at handling higher ISO noise than a full frame sensor of the same generation. The crop sensor, generally, looses a stop of DOF to the full frame sensor too. So take a 70-200 f2.8 on a full frame sensor, it does effectively become a 100-300 f4 on the crop sensor camera if all the rest of the variables are held constant. It does make one wonder.
My 400mm f2.8 LIS becomes (effectively) a 640mm f4 LIS on a 7DII, sure it's still and f2.8 lens and it's still a 400mm lens, but effectively it is.
 

Rocky

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 30, 2010
918
32
GMCPhotographics said:
It interesting that a crop sensor, generally, is one stop less efficient at handling higher ISO noise than a full frame sensor of the same generation. The crop sensor, generally, looses a stop of DOF to the full frame sensor too. So take a 70-200 f2.8 on a full frame sensor, it does effectively become a 100-300 f4 on the crop sensor camera if all the rest of the variables are held constant. It does make one wonder.
My 400mm f2.8 LIS becomes (effectively) a 640mm f4 LIS on a 7DII, sure it's still and f2.8 lens and it's still a 400mm lens, but effectively it is.
May be you should re-phrase to be "My 400mm f2.8 LIS becomes (effectively) a 640mm with DOF of f4 LIS on a 7DII, sure it's still and f2.8 lens and it's still a 400mm lens in focal length with light gathering power of f2.8"
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,967
1,179
119
Joey said:
Hmm, interesting...

I'm the Joey to which the comment was addressed - and I did read the article with interest.

I posted the comment copied above and then immediately withdrew it - didn't expect anyone to see it at all (didn't realise CR would e-mail PrivatebyDesign to alert him that I'd replied to his comment). I'd decided my comment was overly snarky, and a bit contentious too, and I didn't want to get into that discussion. I'm rather sorry it got out despite my efforts at withdrawing it.

Having read the article, it is my view that the statement that an f/2.8 lens on a crop body is 'the equivalent' of an f/4.48 lens on a full frame cannot stand on its own without explanatory support. When I read 'f/2.8' or any other maximum aperture as part of the description of a lens, I'm thinking of the brightness of the image it throws on the sensor (or film) - and therefore the exposure settings I'll be using. Those things don't change with sensor size. Yes, I know that depth of field and some other things change but the image brightness, defined by the aperture of the lens relative to its focal length, does not change. Therefore I'd rather make the statement that a 50mm f/2 lens on a crop body 'is equivalent to' an 80mm f/2 lens on a full frame, though the depth of field (and perspective) will be different if the lens is used in such a way as to give the same field of view. I've since commented on the subject in another thread.

I shudder to think how discussions like this may confuse a newbie, which is why I will not be contributing further on this matter. My apologies to anyone who has suffered at my hands...
Look, my original comment was in reply to time123 who decried the lack of a FF version of the 17-55 f2.8 IS. Well my reply was the 24-105 f4 IS is that lens, it is the FF equivalent, and it is.

If two people stand next to each other, one with a 7D MkII and a 17-55 f2.8 IS and they take a shot at f2.8, 17mm, iso 100 and 1/30 sec, the other with a 5D MkIII and 24-105 f4 IS, takes the same framed shot at f4, 27mm, iso 200 and 1/30 sec they both have, essentially, the same image. They have the same framing, the same dof and the same noise, in actual fact the ff camera still has a slight noise advantage and a subject movement advantage but they are technicalities.

The two lenses are equivalents, that is what equivalent means, well the 24-105 has a longer zoom range but that is moot. Anybody that uses a 17-55 on a crop camera and wants exactly the same images and functionality on a ff camera can do so by using a 24-105 f4 IS.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,967
1,179
119
Rocky said:
Joey said:
Hmm, interesting...

I'm the Joey to which the comment was addressed - and I did read with article with interest.

I posted the comment copied above and then immediately withdrew it - didn't expect anyone to see it at all (didn't realise CR would e-mail PrivatebyDesign to alert him that I'd replied to his comment). I'd decided my comment was overly snarky, and a bit contentious too, and I didn't want to get into that discussion. I'm rather sorry it got out despite my efforts at withdrawing it.

Having the read the article, it is my view that the statement that an f/2.8 lens on a crop body is 'the equivalent' of an f/4.48 lens on a full frame cannot stand on its own without explanatory support. When I read 'f/2.8' or any other maximum aperture as part of the description of a lens, I'm thinking of the brightness of the image it throws on the sensor (or film) - and therefore the exposure settings I'll be using. Those things don't change with sensor size. Yes, I know that depth of field and some other things change but the image brightness, defined by the aperture of the lens relative to its focal length, does not change. Therefore I'd rather make the statement that a 50mm f/2 lens on a crop body 'is equivalent to' an 80mm f/2 lens on a full frame, though the depth of field (and perspective) will be different if the lens is used in such a way as to give the same field of view. I've since commented on the subject in another thread.

I shudder to think how discussions like this may confuse a newbie, which is why I will not be contributing further on this matter. My apologies to anyone who has suffered at my hands...
Well said. A f2.8 lens is a f 2.8 lens in ANY format and size of sensor. "an f/2.8 lens on a crop body is 'the equivalent' of an f/4.48 lens on a full frame" should only be refer to the DOF only. for whatever reason, a lot of poster do not mention about DOF equivalent and just use the term equivalent". One poster in the other tread insist that the EF-M 22mm f2.0 IS NOT a 22mm f2.0 but a 35mm f3.5 even used on the EOS-M. That is B.S.
I agree, an f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens. A 400mm lens is a 400mm lens. But if you start throwing the word equivalent about, which is what is being done, then you can't say a 300mm f2.8 is 'a 480mm f2.8 on a 7D MkII', it isn't, it is a 300mm f2.8 that gives the equivalent fov and dof as a 480mm f4 on a ff camera.
 

Rocky

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 30, 2010
918
32
privatebydesign said:
I agree, an f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens. A 400mm lens is a 400mm lens. But if you start throwing the word equivalent about, which is what is being done, then you can't say a 300mm f2.8 is 'a 480mm f2.8 on a 7D MkII', it isn't, it is a 300mm f2.8 that gives the equivalent fov and dof as a 480mm f4 on a ff camera.
I agree to that also. You said it in a very clear and precise way.
 

LonelyBoy

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 18, 2015
745
0
Mitch.Conner said:
Probably the 24-70 f/4L IS.

I am hopeful though that a 24-70 f/2.8L IS is around the corner. Not as a kit lens though.
Or the 24-105 STM. I'm sure they'd love to make people go buy the red ring at retail.
 

falcnr

1DX & 5DSR Canon glass
May 3, 2015
52
1
Re: Canon 800mm F5.6 MKII

Sorry if this has been raised before but I could not find anything in search engine. Does anyone know if Canon is bringing our a Mark II of their 800mm F5.6 lens? With so many other L series telephoto lens's having changed materials, IS mechanism and other features it makes sense they would ..but when ? Trying to decide to sell one of my kids and buy a version 1 or wait for version 2.
 

jhpeterson

EOS RP
Feb 7, 2011
239
15
Re: Canon 800mm F5.6 MKII

falcnr said:
Sorry if this has been raised before but I could not find anything in search engine. Does anyone know if Canon is bringing our a Mark II of their 800mm F5.6 lens? With so many other L series telephoto lens's having changed materials, IS mechanism and other features it makes sense they would ..but when ? Trying to decide to sell one of my kids and buy a version 1 or wait for version 2.
I suppose it all depends on how quickly you want to sell one of your kids.
 

aceflibble

EOS RP
May 8, 2015
296
62
Don't know if it's been mentioned before, but Canon are discontinuing the 24-105 f/4L which has long been the 'kit' lens for 5D bodies. With the 5D4, 6D2 and 1DX2 on the way, I would think that points to a new 24-105 being made? A 24-105 f/4L IIS II on the way? Or could the 24-70 f/2.8L IS be the new kit lens?