What next?

[stark-arts]

I would join the chorus of voices calling to update the non-l primes. The 5D is an expensive camera line for the average person but it's the least expensive full frame so many people buy it wanting full frame (if they need it or not is a whole other argument) and then they need glass. The can go with the inferior 24-70 (some people love it but mine was soft) or they can pick A single prime (as the L line up consists of lenses that cost as much as the zooms for the most part and often times more). I shoot with the 35 1.4 and the 135/f2 ninety percent of the time because I like those looks but I'd love to have a solid fast focusing 20 or 24 that doesn't break the bank...I think i'm one of many.

I'd really like to see a line up of 300 dollar lenses with the build quality of the nikon 35 1.8 but built for FF - I say again there is NO REASON to have EFS primes other than greed. FF primes actually generally look better on EFS cameras so why cut out all the potential ff buyers?

18, 20, 24, 35, 50, 85, 100, all at f2 or better (except the 18 and 24 i guess - that would make them really expensive) with that nice but no L quality...and you'd sell tons. Add the much wanted 400 and 500 5.6's with IS and 1000-1500 prices and you'd own nikon again...

 

[Justin]

So we're hoping for an ultrawide with IS but are resigned to the standard zoom being without?

If the 24-70 remake is without IS I don't see myself buying it.

 

[Justin]

Haha. I bet.

Talked to a Washington Post photographer who was sporting a 5D Mk 2 at a recent publicity event for SpaceX/Tesla on K Street.

She did mention a rough timeframe -- nine months -- for the 5D Mk 3.

As an aside, she also loved her 5D Mk 2, as it could produce good shots up to ISO 2500. Just sayin'.

she probably got her info from a colleague who reads Canon Rumors ;D

 

[Kuscali]

I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.

 

[Etienne]

I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.

It would probably cost and weigh the same as the present 16-35 2.8 II. The 16-35 would still be the better deal, with an extra stop. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge when the light is very low.

 

[kubelik]

I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.

It would probably cost and weigh the same as the present 16-35 2.8 II. The 16-35 would still be the better deal, with an extra stop. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge when the light is very low.

I'd vote either the 16-35 2.8 L II or the 17-55 2.8 IS on a 7D body.

what is it exactly you need the IS for? if you are using the lens for landscapes, you need to be purchasing and using a tripod. if you are using the lens for a walkaround/general purpose shooting lens, the f/2.8 max aperture and the current ISO ceilings of even crop body cameras means you can get excellent shot in a massive variety of situations.

 

[Etienne]

I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.

It would probably cost and weigh the same as the present 16-35 2.8 II. The 16-35 would still be the better deal, with an extra stop. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge when the light is very low.

I'd vote either the 16-35 2.8 L II or the 17-55 2.8 IS on a 7D body.

what is it exactly you need the IS for? if you are using the lens for landscapes, you need to be purchasing and using a tripod. if you are using the lens for a walkaround/general purpose shooting lens, the f/2.8 max aperture and the current ISO ceilings of even crop body cameras means you can get excellent shot in a massive variety of situations.

Definitely the 17-55 2.8 IS if it's for a crop body. I owned this lens before I moved to the 5DII. The 17-55 is very sharp, very fast focus, and the IS is superb. I'd buy it again for a crop body.

However if you are heading to Full frame, the 16-35 2.8 is a very good ultra-wide, and the 24-105 f4 is a great normal zoom. F4 on FF is roughly the same as f2.8 on crop: FF has about a 1 stop advantage in high iso noise (so you can compensate by increasing the ISO a bit), and a 1.3 stop advantage in creating shallow DOF.

 

[Kuscali]

I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.

It would probably cost and weigh the same as the present 16-35 2.8 II. The 16-35 would still be the better deal, with an extra stop. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge when the light is very low.

I'd vote either the 16-35 2.8 L II or the 17-55 2.8 IS on a 7D body.

what is it exactly you need the IS for? if you are using the lens for landscapes, you need to be purchasing and using a tripod. if you are using the lens for a walkaround/general purpose shooting lens, the f/2.8 max aperture and the current ISO ceilings of even crop body cameras means you can get excellent shot in a massive variety of situations.

How about the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 (this lens would be used for Landscape I know I need a tripod, and also be my normal zoom, I have seen some impressive results from this lens).

 

[dsa1979]

All L lenses.... Sic!

It´s sad that Canon want update the old standard EF-lenses. :'(

 

[Etienne]

I could really use a 17-40mmL IS. As per earlier post I do not have a camera now, and I am in a toss up between Nikon and Canon right now, and the 17-40mmL IS would seal the deal for me.

It would probably cost and weigh the same as the present 16-35 2.8 II. The 16-35 would still be the better deal, with an extra stop. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge when the light is very low.

I'd vote either the 16-35 2.8 L II or the 17-55 2.8 IS on a 7D body.

what is it exactly you need the IS for? if you are using the lens for landscapes, you need to be purchasing and using a tripod. if you are using the lens for a walkaround/general purpose shooting lens, the f/2.8 max aperture and the current ISO ceilings of even crop body cameras means you can get excellent shot in a massive variety of situations.

How about the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 (this lens would be used for Landscape I know I need a tripod, and also be my normal zoom, I have seen some impressive results from this lens).

" I'd pay the extra for the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II because it takes filters, and is much smaller and lighter than this Tokina." - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/16-28mm.htm

Also on that site Ken claims that they are optically similar. But the the Canon you get an extra 7mm reach, which comes in very handy.

Tokina makes some nice lenses (I still own the 50-135 2.8, and I would buy the 11-16 2.8 for crop), but the Canon L's are built like a dream and are a pleasure to use, with full-time manual focus over-ride as well. The zoom and focus rings on Canon L's are smooth as cream.

 

[remy.brooks]

im sick of waiting for a 5d mark iii, a 3d or a 7d mark ii. im also waiting for the IS!!! VERSION of the 24-70. it would be stupid of canon not to include the is. i want a camera with 16-21 megapixels. 6-7 frames per second with a boost with a battery grip( maybe 8-9). between 29 and 56 af points and make it full frame. ( no built in flash, nice iso capabilities and hd video. They could easily do something like this for about $3000.

 

[djjohnr]

What still does keep me with Canon are a few gems in their lens line up (most of which I have) -- and a lot of these gems are actually overdue for some polishing. The problem is that even if they did the polishing, the main part they seem to be doing is polishing Canon's EBIT by adding at least 25 to 50% of the price over that of the predecessor, or even more if they slap a red ring on it in the process, just consider the doubling of the price for the TS-E 24 II, 100L or the near tripling for the 70-300L. So with that strategy they move formerly mid-range lenses firmly into high-end (or at least high-price) territory.

I just switched from Nikon to Canon for the TS-E line due to cost of body and lenses as well as the quality of the 24mm. If you want FF with Nikon you're looking at $3k for 12 mpix or $2k min used for a D700 versus $3k for 21 mpix new for a 5d Mark 2 or $900 for a used Mark 1. On top of that the Nikon PC-Es go for $2k+ new versus $1300 for non-L TS-Es, and you can get the 24mm L Mark 1 as well as the 45mm and 90mm for around $800 used. Additionally Nikon's 24mm PC-E has a major CA problem (worse then the 24mm L Mark 1) that's not easily fixable in post.

I really miss the ergonomics and build quality of my D200 though.

 

[tzalmagor]

I might upgrade one of the ultra-wide zooms, if the price doesn't rise too sharply.

Higher on my buying list is the Sigma 12-24mm II, Sigma 85mm f/1.4, and I wish a good Sigma 135mm