A Big Lens Announcement in September? [CR1]

[silvestography]

Just had another thought based on this review (http://www.ronmartblog.com/2013/08/review-canon-ef-200-400mm-f4l-is-usm.html): could we get a 70-200 2.8 IS WITH built in 1.4x TC? The 1.4x in the 200-400 is designed specifically for that lens as to maximize optical performance, so I don't see why they couldn't do the same for a 70-200. It would be big, heavy and expensive, but I'm sure there's a market for it.

 

[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.

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.

well you're opinion is as good as mine . imho Canon has bigger fish to fry than to compete head on with a lens they are already yielding to the after market. All the items in your list except B are fulfilled in the aftermarket today. Maybe Canon can find room to make money in the Budget 70-200 world I don't know ,but if so I think an APS-C offering would have to be sub $1000 to be attractive. The serious "C" body users will buy the $2500 L lens but you're making a good point here that an affordable zoom would be attractive; I just don't know how much room there is between the 55-250 and a $1200 FF compatible Sigma in which they could compete effectively.

To direct and priorotize their available R&D efforts I think they need to update the 100-400 and shore up the UWA zoom arena before trying to enter a mature market in which they have no presence. Sigma is attacking the APS-C UWA market too; Canon needs to remain competitive there, imho and not loose to the after market.

that said, for all I know Canon may be thinking differently. I mean they could market a $1500 long lens that can't be used on a FF; I just don't think they have it in their DNA to to that. The After market has already determined that a lightweight 70-200 f/2.8 north of $1000 will sell, but it must be usable on a FF as well.

 

[JonAustin]

replacement for the version II of the 300, 400, 500, and 600 with built-in 1.4 convertors (like the 200-400). Of course the price would jump by $2,000 per lens (ouch!)

I proposed a 300/4L IS II with built-in 1.4x TC in another thread here a while back, and a couple of folks jumped on me and shouted "heresy!"

My longest reach currently is 70-200/2.8L IS (I) + 1.4x TC II. My desire for something longer is present but not pressing. And swapping my 1.4x TC in and out is a pain.

I'd like to see an update to either the 300/4L IS or the 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS before opening my wallet. Like others here, a 200-400 f/4-5.6 IS would more than satisfy; I don't need the FL range overlap (or the additional size, weight and cost) of reaching down to 100 (or 80) mm.

For me, an updated 300/4L with built-in 1.4x TC, weather sealing, the latest IS, etc. would be a dream come true.

 

[dlleno]

Just had another thought based on this review (http://www.ronmartblog.com/2013/08/review-canon-ef-200-400mm-f4l-is-usm.html): could we get a 70-200 2.8 IS WITH built in 1.4x TC? The 1.4x in the 200-400 is designed specifically for that lens as to maximize optical performance, so I don't see why they couldn't do the same for a 70-200. It would be big, heavy and expensive, but I'm sure there's a market for it.

interesting concept; not for me though. imho the 70-200 f/2.8 IS ii is already heavy and for me the range is just so beautiful with a FF that I want it to remain hand-holdable. If you need 70-300 then get a 70-300 ,but don't mess with the 70-200 which by itself is just soooo awesome. It would surely be a niche/specialty lens, imho, to have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS plus 1.4x.

I do think Canon is onto somethign though -- to build the TCs into the big whites, i.e 300mm f/2.8 with a dedicated 1.4 or even 2x (or both) would be waaaaay cool. whether or not doing that to the 70-200 is another matter ...

 

[PhotographerJim]

A new-and-improved 100-400?

This lens is loooong overdue and would likely sell like hotcakes, as did the current version. I was recently looking at Nikon and they have a new improved version of their 80-400 and the reviews are off-the-charts positive. The improved Canon would need zoom ring instead of push pull and preferably start at 80mm instead of 100mm to match Sigma and Nikon.

I would be very happy with a 100-400 f/4

 

[dlleno]

Yessss. A constant aperture f4 that will take a 1.4x nicely and a 2x in a pinch. 80 vs 100 I don't care it's just a label and the difference is not that important

 

[Kit.]

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:

But 200mm/2.8 is 71mm of the entrance pupil no matter what mount is used at the back of the lens. That's a lot of glass, needing a lot of support. What makes you think that the EF-S version would be considerably cheaper and/or lighter?

 

[sambafan]

You guys. It has to be a new 35/1.4, as I just bought one. You're welcome.

 

[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.

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:

But 200mm/2.8 is 71mm of the entrance pupil no matter what mount is used at the back of the lens. That's a lot of glass, needing a lot of support. What makes you think that the EF-S version would be considerably cheaper and/or lighter?

yea thats the thing. the only way to make it lighter is to use fewer elements and inferior construction materials, neither of these things would amount to a serious contribution in my opinon. Witness the $1250 Sigma, which is only two ounces lighter than the Canon. The "cheaper" aspect might come from lesser build quality and inferrior glass at least in the rear elements, as the the image circle seen by the sensor does not have to be as large as in a FF.

So the expectation of 70-200 that is lighter remains a fiction. one that is cheaper could be acheived, I suppose, but I can't imagine settling for anything less than what is already available in the after market. Canon would have to basically offer a me-too lens competing directly with the current after market, or produce something even lower quality, say at $799 which frankly I can't imagine would be attractive or succesful. In fact, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the market has already established that a low cost 70-200 in the $1k region has to be FF compatible,. ergo, EF-S is'nt going to happen.

so -- what is being asked for here already exists: The Sigma. it isn't lighter but it is cheeper, and sports all the IQ features that are associated with the lower cost, compared to the $2500 canon: inferior AF performance, CA, edge-to-edge sharpness, flare control and build quality. and its FF compatible.

 

[jasonsim]

I will 2nd or 3rd the guess for a new 800mm. Sales of those must be pretty stagnant since the 600mm f/4L IS II came out. I know I sold mine in favor of the new 600mm II. Very few wildlife photogs are going to pay more for an 800mm, when the 600mm + 1.4x III renders more focal length (840mm) and has better image quality. Plus I can put the 2x III on there and have a very usable 1200mm f/8 lens.

Nikon has come out with their new 800mm lens, so Canon must answer.

That's my logic at least...I'd say it would need to be f/4 or be f/5.6 and much lighter in weight than the 600mm II to get some interest.

 

[DzPhotography]

Let it be the 14-24 f2.8 pretty please! ;D

 

[Eimajm]

Yessss. A constant aperture f4 that will take a 1.4x nicely and a 2x in a pinch. 80 vs 100 I don't care it's just a label and the difference is not that important

Its never going to be F4, why do people keep saying this. They have just released a 200-400 @£12K, Canon are not going to release a 100-400 F4 which would compete with their flagship model, and to get a similar quality in a wider zoom range would mean better engineering and therefore higher costs. So you would be looking at again another £12K lens...

 

[Haydn1971]

Given the concept has been proven on the 200-400mm and that the 500 & 600mm have been replaced fairly recently, I'm half expecting a stupidly expensive 800mm with the 1.4x built in extender at some point in the future...

But stand by my earlier post of the "big" announcement being about a "small" lens or lenses - the 22mm & 18-55mm EF-M must be up there in the top 10 for total numbers manufactured, despite been panned by many, the mirror less market isn't going to go away and will be making a small fortune for Canon. Thus, a launch of the 11-22mm in the US along with a 18-1xx or 55-2xx lens or all three !

 

[Marsu42]

You guys. It has to be a new 35/1.4, as I just bought one. You're welcome.

In that case, it has to be the rumored 16-50L/4 that replaces the old 17-40L as I just bought that ... but in each case, the new lens will be much more expensive, at least at first, so having bought the old one is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Gadger]

I'm going with in order of importance (in my opinion )

1) 12/14-24L f/2.8 I want in the future :

2) 100-400L IS f/4.5-5.6 I want (won't be a straight f4, not having just launched the 200-400 f4 x1.4)

3) 16-50L f/4 IS I want

 

[endiendo]

So let's start dreaming...
A 100-400 F4 constant, with build-in 1.4 converter (which keep the f4).. for less than 2500 $.

could go well with a 7d markII

 

[Don Haines]

I will 2nd or 3rd the guess for a new 800mm. Sales of those must be pretty stagnant since the 600mm f/4L IS II came out. I know I sold mine in favor of the new 600mm II. Very few wildlife photogs are going to pay more for an 800mm, when the 600mm + 1.4x III renders more focal length (840mm) and has better image quality. Plus I can put the 2x III on there and have a very usable 1200mm f/8 lens.

Nikon has come out with their new 800mm lens, so Canon must answer.

That's my logic at least...I'd say it would need to be f/4 or be f/5.6 and much lighter in weight than the 600mm II to get some interest.

+1

 

[rs]

So let's start dreaming...
A 100-400 F4 constant, with build-in 1.4 converter (which keep the f4).. for less than 2500 $.

could go well with a 7d markII

Yeah, and it could easily be the same size/weight as a nifty fifty. While they're creating such a technically simple lens, what about making the TC 4x which magically retains the f4 aperture? ???

Or how about just taming down the design by letting the 1.4x TC obey the laws of physics by reduce the f4 aperture to f5.6 when engaged, and for simplicities sake, start at a more conservative 200mm at the wide end. It'll be cheaper, lighter, optically better, and physically possible. And while they're at it, why not call it the EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM Extender 1.4x? :

 

[KyleSTL]

I can't remember how many times we've gone over this on this forum, but I'll present it again:

There is no size advantage for an EF-S telephoto lens

In the telephoto lens design the only two factors that will determine size are -
1) Focal length (e.g. 300mm), or longest focal length in the case of zooms
2) Aperture (e.g. f/4), or aperture at the longest focal length in the case of zooms

A 300mm f/4 lens, regardless of the sensor size for which is was design, will always have an objective (read: front) element of at least 75mm (math: 300/4=75), a 70-200mm f/2.8 will always have an objective of at least 72mm. Now, having said that, they might be able to make some of the internal elements slightly smaller, or the overall length slightly shorter, but you will never decrease the size of the objective element.

Sigma and Tamron made APS-C f/2.8 telephoto zooms, but they have the same effective focal lengths as their full frame equivalents, not the same absolute focal lengths. That is the only thing that gives those lenses a size advantage.

 

[Jim K]

If it's a BIG lens, the 800 II.

If it's the expected sales, the 100-400 II.

If it's not white it's not a Big Lens announcement.