A Big Lens Announcement in September? [CR1]

[ajfotofilmagem]

Here is my guess:

EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 IS $1499 - similar to the EF version in quality but smaller in size w/o weather sealing.

...to compliment an imminent 7D MKII announcement!

Might sound crazy, but it is the one major gap in the EF-S lens series and would be a huge seller w/ the 7D MKII and 70D.

Wouldn't you think an EF-S 70-300mm IS F4 would be more likely?

Yes, I wish it was. But, according to statement of Neuro:

"for a telephoto design, the size of the image circle isn't limiting, the limiting parameter is filling the entrance pupil with light, and the entrance pupil is effectively at the front element."

So it seems 300mm does not allow a great advantage of EF-S in size and weight compared to EF.

 

[Ripley]

The 40mm was a pretty big hit, how about another EF pancake of some sort?

A big small lens announcement ???

 

[Ewinter]

The 14-24 would be typical as I've just bought a 16-35

 

[Ruined]

Here is my guess:

EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 IS $1499 - similar to the EF version in quality but smaller in size w/o weather sealing.

...to compliment an imminent 7D MKII announcement!

Might sound crazy, but it is the one major gap in the EF-S lens series and would be a huge seller w/ the 7D MKII and 70D.

Wouldn't you think an EF-S 70-300mm IS F4 would be more likely?

The only problem with that is that APS-C really needs F/2.8 for optimal quality in low light due to its smaller sensor and the noise seen in higher ISOs. Thus, a F/2.8 IS EF-S telephoto zoom with L-lens quality (on par with the 17-55 & 10-22) would really fit the bill, and it would be a cool option if it was a bit lighter and smaller than the EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS II, perhaps by having polycarbonate body (but metal mount) instead of metal body and utilizing advantages of EF-S for a bit smaller size/weight.

It shouldn't be Canon's marketing strategy to get people to dump 1.6 crop for full frame. It should be their strategy to market that each are better at different things (which is actually true) and get people to buy into BOTH.

 

[docsmith]

A new big white for the masses please. This could be a couple of different forms---100-400L, 400 mm f/5.6 IS or a 500 mm f/5.6 IS (that one may cost, say $3-5k, but with great optics, I'd buy it)

 

[dlleno]

Here is my guess:

EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 IS $1499 - similar to the EF version in quality but smaller in size w/o weather sealing.

...to compliment an imminent 7D MKII announcement!

Might sound crazy, but it is the one major gap in the EF-S lens series and would be a huge seller w/ the 7D MKII and 70D.

Wouldn't you think an EF-S 70-300mm IS F4 would be more likely?

The only problem with that is that APS-C really needs F/2.8 for optimal quality in low light due to its smaller sensor and the noise seen in higher ISOs. Thus, a F/2.8 IS EF-S telephoto zoom with L-lens quality (on par with the 17-55 & 10-22) would really fit the bill, and it would be a cool option if it was a bit lighter and smaller than the EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS II, perhaps by having polycarbonate body (but metal mount) instead of metal body and utilizing advantages of EF-S for a bit smaller size/weight.

it seems to me that with the recent 55-250mm IS STM announcement, that Canon is showing their roadmap in this focal length range for the EF-S mount. Indeed, f/2.8 in this focal length range is wonderful, but apparently, Canon expects that those who value that capability enough to make a sizable investment will purchase the real deal.

It shouldn't be Canon's marketing strategy to get people to dump 1.6 crop for full frame. It should be their strategy to market that each are better at different things (which is actually true) and get people to buy into BOTH.

Well, a lot of folks put the whites on EF-S bodies , and the use of the real deal on both bodies may be the Canon expectation. Anyway, this is a rumor site so any and all opinions are both valid and welcome; The suggestion is compelling, to be sure. For some reason I just don't see Canon investing in a budget version of what can arguably be considered a flagship achievement, not to mention the marketing value of the '70-200' label itself.

 

[xps]

100-400 4.0 L @ 5000-6000€
100-400 4,5-5.6 II @ 3000 €-3500€

Announcement in September, sold in CPS stores 4-5 month from announcement. price like announced, no rebates.
Delivery on massmarket after another 4 month. Then rebates are possible on online stores like we are used to see..


Just kidding?
No. This was an price winning scenario to "optmize" the profit some years ago ....

 

[jasonsim]

Who is going to pay for a $1500 70-200 EF-S lens that is plastic, no weather sealing, no hood included, and may or may not have fluorite elements?

I know I would not! It will still have a lot of glass and only be marginally lighter.

 

[xps]

Maybe an wideangle L lens to fight the Sigma 1.8 Art lenses.
I own one. It is an great lens...
If Canon would produce it, the price would have benn doubled.

 

[Ruined]

Who is going to pay for a $1500 70-200 EF-S lens that is plastic, no weather sealing, no hood included, and may or may not have fluorite elements?

I know I would not! It will still have a lot of glass and only be marginally lighter.

$1000 less is a lot of money The f/2.8 70-200mm IS II is simply out of the price range for some people.

And, I would bet a lot of people would opt for a plastic, non-weather sealed EF-S f/2.8 70-200mm over an equivalent focal length f/4 metal EF lens. Because although it would not be as solid in build, it would be lighter both physically and on the pocket - and you'd likely get better low light pics due to the f/2.8 aperature.

 

[dlleno]

The after market already has $1500 70-200 f/2.8 offerings. I don't see the motivation for Canon to compete in that arena.

 

[dlleno]

Who is going to pay for a $1500 70-200 EF-S lens that is plastic, no weather sealing, no hood included, and may or may not have fluorite elements?

I know I would not! It will still have a lot of glass and only be marginally lighter.

Sigma and Tamron both think there is a market for such a lens, and appear to be filling this particular niche. I havent used either of these but compared to the Canon I'm guessing you will give up things like AF performance, distortion, CA, flare control, edge sharpness, build quality. Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 ii is a flagship and I don't think they are willing to compromise the "70-200" branding either. It seems they appear to be perfectly happy yielding to the after market in this category.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892851-REG/Tamron_20_200mm_F_2_8_DI_VC.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689577-REG/Sigma_589101_70_200mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-70-200mm-f-2.8-DG-OS-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[xROELOFx]

If they say big and white, my guess is a new 800mm. Probably for the price of around EUR 14.000,-.

 

[cellomaster27]

well the latest buzz is on focused on the sigma 18-35 1.8.. Wouldn't be surprised if Canon dishes out one of theirs. I'm gonna cash in on a big aperture zoom. with IS?

 

[Frage]

I hope a cheap 35mm f/1,8 is coming

 

[9VIII]

Here is my guess:

EF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 IS $1499 - similar to the EF version in quality but smaller in size w/o weather sealing.

...to compliment an imminent 7D MKII announcement!

Might sound crazy, but it is the one major gap in the EF-S lens series and would be a huge seller w/ the 7D MKII and 70D.

Wouldn't you think an EF-S 70-300mm IS F4 would be more likely?

Yes, I wish it was. But, according to statement of Neuro:

"for a telephoto design, the size of the image circle isn't limiting, the limiting parameter is filling the entrance pupil with light, and the entrance pupil is effectively at the front element."

So it seems 300mm does not allow a great advantage of EF-S in size and weight compared to EF.

Remember that the F number is just the focal length divided by the diameter of the opening (a 50mm lens with a 50mm aperture is f1, 50mm with a 25mm aperture is f2, etc...).
300mm f4 basically just tells you the dimensions of the lens. 300 millimeters long with a 75mm front opening.
The advantage you get when applying a crop sensor to your lens is that you get the equivalent Field Of View of a much longer lens. When I use my $1K 400mm lens with a crop sensor it gives the same FOV as a $12K 640mm behemoth, which is nice, but once you're in the lower focal length range, getting the equivalent FOV of a 50mm lens out of a 35mm lens really doesn't save me any money. Rather the opposite actually, making a lens shorter than the flange distance requires added complexity in the lens design, to then zoom in on that with a too-small sensor is just counter-productive.
Now that the Metabones Speed Booster is out I know for sure that they could be making EF-S lenses that give the same FOV and light gathering capability as regular 35mm lenses on 35mm cameras. Canon just seems to have no interest in doing that. What really confuses me is that even the dedicated crop systems (MFT, Fuji) seem to like toting their small sensors as a focal length modifier rather than trying to give people equivalent wide angle/low light capabilities. It's like there's some pact that no-one anywhere (other than Metabones) is allowed to try something like that.
The unfortunate reality is probably just that companies are too afraid to try something new.

 

[silvestography]

Since this won't be "just a lens", I wonder if canon will announce a USB dock similar to Sigma's offering or a new "genre" of optical formula like the DO lenses.

 

[Ruined]

The after market already has $1500 70-200 f/2.8 offerings. I don't see the motivation for Canon to compete in that arena.

One of the main issues a lot of people have with the current 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is that it is too heavy to comfortably carry through the day, and it costs $2500.

By adding a EF-S F/2.8 70-200 or EF-S f/2.8 55-250 IS etc, Canon does a few things:
A) Further legitimizes EF-S/crop mount making 7D MKII and 70D easier sells.
B) Competes with third parties that are likely stealing sales away from them for people who simply cannot afford a lens that costs $2500.
C) Does little to impact sales of EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II because EF-S does not work on a full frame camera, and the EF version would be metal and weather sealed unlike the EF-S version.
D) Provides a lighter weight plastic F/2.8 lens w/ metal mount - Canon appears to be positioning crop for wildlife photographers who may not want to go hiking with a 3.3lb lens. While it may not be massively lighter, I am sure they could cut down the weight and size a bit if more plastic was used and the lens was optimized for EF-S.

Canon can very easily convince people it is worth buying both a high quality EF-S telezoom and also the current EF 70-200. Don't forget many currently have both the F2.8 *and* F/4 70-200 simply because the former is too heavy for some applications. The EF-S would be another alternative that is cheaper and of lesser build but similar optical quality, better for crop than the f/4L.

This is of course all conjecture, but I think it would be a great idea to get people to buy into the idea of owning both APS and APS-C sets for different situations.

 

[9VIII]

I'm hoping the announcement is an updated 100-400f5.6. Really for all I care it could be a 200-400f5.6, everything I've pointed my 400mm at so far hasn't filled the frame anyway, and if they could make it zoom internally as well then I wouldn't have to worry about sucking in dust.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

The after market already has $1500 70-200 f/2.8 offerings. I don't see the motivation for Canon to compete in that arena.

One of the main issues a lot of people have with the current 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is that it is too heavy to comfortably carry through the day, and it costs $2500.
By adding a EF-S F/2.8 70-200 or EF-S f/2.8 55-250 IS etc, Canon does a few things:
A) Further legitimizes EF-S/crop mount making 7D MKII and 70D easier sells.
B) Competes with third parties that are likely stealing sales away from them for people who simply cannot afford a lens that costs $2500.
C) Does little to impact sales of EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II because EF-S does not work on a full frame camera, and the EF version would be metal and weather sealed unlike the EF-S version.
D) Provides a lighter weight plastic F/2.8 lens w/ metal mount - Canon appears to be positioning crop for wildlife photographers who may not want to go hiking with a 3.3lb lens. While it may not be massively lighter, I am sure they could cut down the weight and size a bit if more plastic was used and the lens was optimized for EF-S.
Canon can very easily convince people it is worth buying both a high quality EF-S telezoom and also the current EF 70-200. Don't forget many currently have both the F2.8 *and* F/4 70-200 simply because the former is too heavy for some applications. The EF-S would be another alternative that is cheaper and of lesser build but similar optical quality, better for crop than the f/4L.
This is of course all conjecture, but I think it would be a great idea to get people to buy into the idea of owning both APS and APS-C sets for different situations.

I agree. Not all owners 7D and 70D can pay $ 2500 in a 70-200 F2.8. If Canon makes an EF-S 70-200 F2.8 IS, or EF-S 55-200 F2.8 IS, can sell like hotcakes, even if it costs $ 1500. This strategy does not cannibalize sales of L series lenses.