List of rumored lenses

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,832
183
aceflibble said:
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?
Where exactly did you hear that?

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000AZ57M6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435243001&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+24-105mm+f+4l+is+usm+af+lens

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=canon+ef+24-105mm+f%2F4l+is+usm+lens&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,517
204
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
Wow...now that the two mythical unicorns have been released into the wild (100-400 LIS and 35L replacements)...I wonder what else Canon will turn their hand to?
16-35mm f2.8 III L?
24-105 f4 II LIS?
180mm f3.5 Macro L?
50mm f1.2 L?
135mm f2 L?

There's not a lot left to re-vamp!
 

Sibir Lupus

EOS M2 + EOS M10
Feb 4, 2015
80
25
35
GMCPhotographics said:
Wow...now that the two mythical unicorns have been released into the wild (100-400 LIS and 35L replacements)...I wonder what else Canon will turn their hand to?
16-35mm f2.8 III L?
24-105 f4 II LIS?
180mm f3.5 Macro L?
50mm f1.2 L?
135mm f2 L?

There's not a lot left to re-vamp!
Don't forget!
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8

:)
 

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
1,975
106
29
34109
www.facebook.com
Film-era L lenses. Year cut off is 2004

Primes
1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM

Zooms
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

We are now in the era where in old lenses will show their design flaws on high pixel density cameras like the 5DS & 5DS R

I am keen on the 135 replacement.
 

kubelik

EOS 6D MK II
Aug 11, 2010
824
0
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.
http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-800mm-f5-6-do-is-in-development-cr2/

falcnr, this what you're looking for?
 
Sep 8, 2015
5
0
Hello there,

I am looking for some help here and would appreciate your input.

I have been debating between two lenses that are made by Canon. Both are good lenses: however, i need to make my choice tomorrow. I mainly photograph kids and families, i have canon 5d mk3, 70-200 F2.8 L II, 135 f2 L, and now i am in the process of debating between canon 24-70 F2.8 and canon 24-70 F4 IS L.
They seem interesting, however since i haven't used either one of them, i'd like to get some advice whether IS on F4 lens is a lot more important than F2.8 non-IS? I need a lens mainly for 60% indoor 40% outdoor shots.

P.S. How about sigma 35 1.4 art, sigma 50 1.4 art?

Thank you in advance!
 

rs

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 29, 2012
1,024
0
UK
xtreme777 said:
Hello there,

I am looking for some help here and would appreciate your input.

I have been debating between two lenses that are made by Canon. Both are good lenses: however, i need to make my choice tomorrow. I mainly photograph kids and families, i have canon 5d mk3, 70-200 F2.8 L II, 135 f2 L, and now i am in the process of debating between canon 24-70 F2.8 and canon 24-70 F4 IS L.
They seem interesting, however since i haven't used either one of them, i'd like to get some advice whether IS on F4 lens is a lot more important than F2.8 non-IS? I need a lens mainly for 60% indoor 40% outdoor shots.

P.S. How about sigma 35 1.4 art, sigma 50 1.4 art?

Thank you in advance!
Wrong thread, but I'll answer anyway.

What are you photographing? Moving subjects or stationary subject? Moving - get the 2.8. Stationary, the slower IS lens could be better. If, however, you don't mind potential AF issues or the time taken to change lenses, the Sigma primes could be worth getting.
 
Sep 8, 2015
5
0
I am a new member and the forum doesn't allow to make a new post. Since this post was about lenses, I thought it wouldn't be too much of a harm to post here. :-[

I photograph kids mainly. Most of the time I have good light, sometimes I don't. I just don't know if $1000 can be justified for the extra f-stop, or I am OK with the F4+IS.

Thank you.

P.S. And if it's sigma - what's the preference? 35 or 50? I find 35 is sharper, but 50 has a nicer focal length.
 
Mar 14, 2012
2,225
123
xtreme777 said:
I am a new member and the forum doesn't allow to make a new post. Since this post was about lenses, I thought it wouldn't be too much of a harm to post here. :-[

I photograph kids mainly. Most of the time I have good light, sometimes I don't. I just don't know if $1000 can be justified for the extra f-stop, or I am OK with the F4+IS.

Thank you.

P.S. And if it's sigma - what's the preference? 35 or 50? I find 35 is sharper, but 50 has a nicer focal length.
That is one of the better reasons to be off topic, lol.

If you're dealing with more than one person as the subject, then you'll need a flash to compensate for stopping down the lens. For a single person, you can opt for a larger aperture. I'd opt for the f/2.8 rather than the f/4 IS if you can afford it. For people shots, IS is not very useful and can be a detriment because you need to let it stabilize before taking the shot. The 24-70 f/2.8 II focuses quickly and I've used it in servo for indoor volleyball and indoor basketball.

There seem to be more anecdotal evidence that the 35A has fewer AF issues than the 50A, but it really comes down which focal length you prefer. In either case, the AF won't be as responsive as the Canons especially in servo.

My 24-70 f/2.8 II gets more use than either my 35 or 50mm primes, so I'd suggest putting the money in something that you'd use more. With the 35 f/1.4 II coming out soon, that might put more downward pressure on the 35A. You might be able to find a better deal (used) once the 35L II comes out.
 
Sep 8, 2015
5
0
;) Thanks for all your responces, and I apologize for the off-topic! Hope others find this useful as well.

I went to the camera store last night and spent over an hour trying to get a feel for 24-70 F2.8, F4, Sigma 50 art 1.4 and sigma 35 art 1.4.

What I felt was that 24-70 F2.8 is by far superrior than 24-70 F4. That extra F stop did make a difference and IS on F4 wasn't of a much of a benefit. I also compared sigmas 35 and 50 and I put 50 away immediately, as at 1.4 it is not as sharp as 35mm. So, I'm down to 2 lenses now: 24-70 F2.8 and sigma 35. I love bukeh of sigma, however... considering many factors of a canon lens on a canon body...something is pushing me towards 24-70 f2.8. The only thing that bothers me about Sigma is that is has no weather sealing. I am paranoid about my gear and keep it all clean. I wouldn't want to start cleaning the sensor because sigma lets the dust in.

Some say, 24-70 covers 35mm anyway, but it's not about that. 35mm has a different style and it's 1.4.
Was looking at Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR, but I am not seeing good reviews on that lens. Tamron 35 and 45mm (coming soon) is supposed to be great, but again, I am not sure how good tamron is.

I have to make a decision by Friday to get the lens.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,832
183
xtreme777 said:
;) Thanks for all your responces, and I apologize for the off-topic! Hope others find this useful as well.

I went to the camera store last night and spent over an hour trying to get a feel for 24-70 F2.8, F4, Sigma 50 art 1.4 and sigma 35 art 1.4.

What I felt was that 24-70 F2.8 is by far superrior than 24-70 F4. That extra F stop did make a difference and IS on F4 wasn't of a much of a benefit. I also compared sigmas 35 and 50 and I put 50 away immediately, as at 1.4 it is not as sharp as 35mm. So, I'm down to 2 lenses now: 24-70 F2.8 and sigma 35. I love bukeh of sigma, however... considering many factors of a canon lens on a canon body...something is pushing me towards 24-70 f2.8. The only thing that bothers me about Sigma is that is has no weather sealing. I am paranoid about my gear and keep it all clean. I wouldn't want to start cleaning the sensor because sigma lets the dust in.

Some say, 24-70 covers 35mm anyway, but it's not about that. 35mm has a different style and it's 1.4.
Was looking at Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR, but I am not seeing good reviews on that lens. Tamron 35 and 45mm (coming soon) is supposed to be great, but again, I am not sure how good tamron is.

I have to make a decision by Friday to get the lens.
Friday is an excellent day to get one of Canon's best zooms ever :) (24-70 2.8 II)
 
Sep 8, 2015
5
0
Thank you all for making me spend an extra $1000 :D
I'm going with 24-70 F2.8. Later, I may still get Sigma 35 Art. I like what it can do, but I think I need flexibility of a zoom lens at low light to work indoor with kids.

Thank you all again!
 

Hjalmarg1

Photo Hobbyist
Oct 8, 2013
767
2
48
Doha, Qatar
xtreme777 said:
Thank you all for making me spend an extra $1000 :D
I'm going with 24-70 F2.8. Later, I may still get Sigma 35 Art. I like what it can do, but I think I need flexibility of a zoom lens at low light to work indoor with kids.

Thank you all again!
You won't be disappointed, that's one the best Canon lenses overal. I sold it in an urgent need for cash and now I regret it.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,517
204
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
xtreme777 said:
;) Thanks for all your responces, and I apologize for the off-topic! Hope others find this useful as well.

I went to the camera store last night and spent over an hour trying to get a feel for 24-70 F2.8, F4, Sigma 50 art 1.4 and sigma 35 art 1.4.

What I felt was that 24-70 F2.8 is by far superrior than 24-70 F4. That extra F stop did make a difference and IS on F4 wasn't of a much of a benefit. I also compared sigmas 35 and 50 and I put 50 away immediately, as at 1.4 it is not as sharp as 35mm. So, I'm down to 2 lenses now: 24-70 F2.8 and sigma 35. I love bukeh of sigma, however... considering many factors of a canon lens on a canon body...something is pushing me towards 24-70 f2.8. The only thing that bothers me about Sigma is that is has no weather sealing. I am paranoid about my gear and keep it all clean. I wouldn't want to start cleaning the sensor because sigma lets the dust in.

Some say, 24-70 covers 35mm anyway, but it's not about that. 35mm has a different style and it's 1.4.
Was looking at Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR, but I am not seeing good reviews on that lens. Tamron 35 and 45mm (coming soon) is supposed to be great, but again, I am not sure how good tamron is.

I have to make a decision by Friday to get the lens.
I would wager that you will never see the difference in sharpness between the f2.8 and f4 versions of the 24-70L in real world use. I use a stellar copy of the mkI 24-70L and it's less sharp than both the newer mkII and the f4...but I get great images out of it. In some ways I prefer the look I get from my current lens than I did with he rental mkII and f4 versions I tried. I liked them all, but the old version had a few features I really like.
But it's your money and your wants....so please buy what you really like. They are both great optics and will give you many years of hard use.
Which brings me nearly on to the Sigma and Tamron lenes. They look great in spec sheets and generally offer great features and optics...many times rivaling Canon. But be under no illusion....they are NOT the same in terms of reliability, build, AF speed, AF accuracy, coatings and finally resale price. With a well looked after L lens, you always get back most of what you paid for it (some times a bit more). I can't say that for Sigma or Tamron. Each time I've sold one of those lenses I seem to take a hefty hit.
My oldest EF lens is an original 50mm f1.8 from 1987, the first year of the EOS mount. It's no L....but it's still going strong.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,832
183
GMCPhotographics said:
xtreme777 said:
;) Thanks for all your responces, and I apologize for the off-topic! Hope others find this useful as well.

I went to the camera store last night and spent over an hour trying to get a feel for 24-70 F2.8, F4, Sigma 50 art 1.4 and sigma 35 art 1.4.

What I felt was that 24-70 F2.8 is by far superrior than 24-70 F4. That extra F stop did make a difference and IS on F4 wasn't of a much of a benefit. I also compared sigmas 35 and 50 and I put 50 away immediately, as at 1.4 it is not as sharp as 35mm. So, I'm down to 2 lenses now: 24-70 F2.8 and sigma 35. I love bukeh of sigma, however... considering many factors of a canon lens on a canon body...something is pushing me towards 24-70 f2.8. The only thing that bothers me about Sigma is that is has no weather sealing. I am paranoid about my gear and keep it all clean. I wouldn't want to start cleaning the sensor because sigma lets the dust in.

Some say, 24-70 covers 35mm anyway, but it's not about that. 35mm has a different style and it's 1.4.
Was looking at Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR, but I am not seeing good reviews on that lens. Tamron 35 and 45mm (coming soon) is supposed to be great, but again, I am not sure how good tamron is.

I have to make a decision by Friday to get the lens.
I would wager that you will never see the difference in sharpness between the f2.8 and f4 versions of the 24-70L in real world use. I use a stellar copy of the mkI 24-70L and it's less sharp than both the newer mkII and the f4...but I get great images out of it. In some ways I prefer the look I get from my current lens than I did with he rental mkII and f4 versions I tried. I liked them all, but the old version had a few features I really like.
But it's your money and your wants....so please buy what you really like. They are both great optics and will give you many years of hard use.
Which brings me nearly on to the Sigma and Tamron lenes. They look great in spec sheets and generally offer great features and optics...many times rivaling Canon. But be under no illusion....they are NOT the same in terms of reliability, build, AF speed, AF accuracy, coatings and finally resale price. With a well looked after L lens, you always get back most of what you paid for it (some times a bit more). I can't say that for Sigma or Tamron. Each time I've sold one of those lenses I seem to take a hefty hit.
My oldest EF lens is an original 50mm f1.8 from 1987, the first year of the EOS mount. It's no L....but it's still going strong.
+1 for both your opinion on 3rd party lenses and 50 1.8. It is my second oldest lens, first being EF35-105 f/3.5-4.5 I have kept it for sentimental reasons. Actually it was thanks to a Sigma zoom lens that I switched to Canon. OK nothing wrong about Sigma. The story is sigma 70-200 was the first addition to my first SLR a Konica Autoreflex TC with a 40mm 1.8 lens. I didn't have a camera bag by then. I had put the Sigma in its hard case in a hand bag (the supermarket type). I had the camera on my shoulder. I was harrying to get to a bus and someone told me that I had dropped a bag and an old lady had taken it (without knowing the content) and running away! Then a colleague at work suggested to switch to Canon. So I got the fresh new EOS 620 with 35-105 3.5-4.5 100-300 5.6 and 420EZ. I still have all but the 100-300 which I have sold it.
 
Jul 8, 2016
4
0
I want to buy canon 1.2L.
Yet I don't know if I should wait for the new 1.2 or 1.4?
What do you think? Will we get a new 50mm lens anytime soon?