Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]

[roadrunner]

if third party lenses are now being tested with IQ just as good as the "overpriced" canon lenses then why complain about canon's pricing? just go buy the third party lens and be happy.

its as if deep down inside you want the canon lens...but why? if the third party lens is just as good but cheaper....

I agree with this statement completely. Personally, I am extremely interested in the new Sigma 35mm 1.4, and my purchase will depend on how this rumor pans out. I also think the Sigma 50mm F1.4 is an excellent lens, especially considering the price. I don't think anyone is arguing over which lense gives you more for your money.

That's when you need to step back and remember not everyone has the same budget as us. Sure, I can't afford to drop $1500 on a new 50mm lens right now, but that doesn't mean others can't. Just read this thread, one said he would gladly trade in his 16-35 and $3k for a single UWA. Great for him, if he can afford it, and the new lens suits his needs. Just because I can't afford it right now doesn't mean everyone else has to make purchases bsaed on my budget.

If you absolutely need F1.2 and weathersealing, what other options are there? You can complain all you want about it being overpriced (And I agree, to an extent) but that doesn't change the fact that the people that need F1.2 and weathersealing don't have any other choice. We can happily buy the Sigma (Actually, I won't, I'm worried by the focus shift... waiting for the canon 50mm 1.4 replacement) and they can happily purchase the canon version. Everyone wins.

 

[Loswr]

its as if deep down inside you want the canon lens...but why? if the third party lens is just as good but cheaper....

Weather sealing, resale value, compatibility with future Canon bodies, etc...

the 85L was designed with mostly one purpose as far as i can tell.. to get sharp pictures at f/1.2 - does it? yes - and it should.. if you are going to buy that chunk of glass.. you better hell use it at f1.2-f/2.. or you may as well get the f/1.8 you mentioned - the 85L isn´t cheap, but you get for what you payed for, a really "bad-ass" lens you will love to use at f/1.2.. with the 50L you simply don´t get that and if you did.. hell.. charge 2k€ if you will.. people will want to buy a sharp 50/1.2.
as far as the sigma 85mm goes.. sure.. it is half the price, but at least in this case.. you get what you pay for with the Canon.. and that is the only 85mm lens that goes to f/1.2 and is actually sharp when doing so.. and hey.. it´s only 2x the price of the Sigma.. the 50L is 3.5x the price..

Thanks...see, I just knew there was a reason I have the 85L II and not the 50L.

 

[Cfunkexplosion]

I just recently purchased the 35L, though I do not regret it. Really loving that lens, and it compliments the 85L so nicely. I had the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 when I had a crop sensor, and the autofocus was never consistent. It would take a lot for me to consider another Sigma lens, no matter how good the image quality can potentially be. If there is a 35L II about to debut, I doubt it is in response to Sigma, but rather in response to Canon L series owners looking for a refresh. While I'd like weather sealing, I find the current 35L to be a great lens, and I probably won't get too envious of the II.

Now, if it was a 35 f/1.2L...


I'd like a wide angle, and a 14-24 would be intriguing. That is a lens I'd save up and pay for if it is superlative. 16-35 kind of gets "only" good, not great, reviews, though perhaps that is just in comparison to Nikon's 14-24. Was about ready to pull the trigger on the Tokina 16-35, though I might just wait to see if anything happens on January 8th.

 

[sagittariansrock]

So I was wondering: let's say Canon announces a 17-40 f/4 L IS instead of the 14-24 f/2.8
How many of you will be happier (not just happy for Canon or happy in general for humankind- I mean will seriously plan to buy it)?
Nikon did it- can't be out of the question, and will probably cost similar to the 16-35 II
Would you prefer a 17-40 f/4 IS or a 14-24 f/2.8?

 

[Woody]

Would you prefer a 17-40 f/4 IS or a 14-24 f/2.8?

I suspect both will be released, just a matter of time. Personally, I am only interested in the f/4 IS version because it will have front threading and will also be lighter.

Many however find the 14-24 more appealing because of the focal length range.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

I like the idea of the 14-24 range much better than a 17-40. I think between f4 IS and 2.8 it's too close of a call in the UWA range. IS is just not as practical in the UWA range, and 2.8 will be more expensive to produce. I'm sure Canon is considering to market for both. If Canon makes a 14-24 2.8 that performs better than Nikon's I definitely wouldn't mind. It's gonna be expensive as hell though.

 

[Daniel Flather]

its as if deep down inside you want the canon lens...but why? if the third party lens is just as good but cheaper....

Weather sealing, resale value, compatibility with future Canon bodies, etc...

the 85L was designed with mostly one purpose as far as i can tell.. to get sharp pictures at f/1.2 - does it? yes - and it should.. if you are going to buy that chunk of glass.. you better hell use it at f1.2-f/2.. or you may as well get the f/1.8 you mentioned - the 85L isn´t cheap, but you get for what you payed for, a really "bad-ass" lens you will love to use at f/1.2.. with the 50L you simply don´t get that and if you did.. hell.. charge 2k€ if you will.. people will want to buy a sharp 50/1.2.
as far as the sigma 85mm goes.. sure.. it is half the price, but at least in this case.. you get what you pay for with the Canon.. and that is the only 85mm lens that goes to f/1.2 and is actually sharp when doing so.. and hey.. it´s only 2x the price of the Sigma.. the 50L is 3.5x the price..

Thanks...see, I just knew there was a reason I have the 85L II and not the 50L.

I've owned the 50/1.8 Mrk I, the 50 f1.4, and I currently own the 50L. The 50L is worth the cost IMHO. I have real world use of these three lenses. If you want razor sharp 50mm, buy the 50 macro.

Neuro, you have so many lenses I think 50L ownership is just a matter of time for you. You want it —you're looking for validation.

 

[symmar22]

Well, I have the 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro, and my feelings are mixed. It is extremely sharp around f4 in the middle, but you need f8 to get perfect corners. The AF is quite inconsistent, the vignetting is a disaster until f5.6 minimum. But I use it for architecture, and it has no distortion at all, combined to an excellent sharpness until f16, good at f22 (only f32 is really bad). The mechanics are awful too, nasty focus, and it gives only 1:2 macro. The only thing that can't be beaten is the price, I got it for 220 Euro.

This is one lens Canon should update in an emergency. Even the old Nikkor 55mm AIS beats the hell out of it.

I could be interested in the 35 f1.4, depending on the tests, I will wait until I can compare the f2 IS and the 1.4 II though.

For the 14-24mm, I have no urgent need, but I would like to see how it compares to Nikon's, hoping it won't be 3.5k.

 

[Viggo]

Compare a 1,4 to a f2? Well, the 1,4 let's in twice the light, do you want that and shallow dof as a result? The answer to that question gives the lens you want... add weatherseal too..

 

[M.ST]

Some photographers get the EF 14-24 f/2.8 for testing a few weeks ago.

 

[candyman]

Some photographers get the EF 14-24 f/2.8 for testing a few weeks ago.

If it is only a few weeks ago, then we may expect an announcement in Q1 of 2013. But actual availability may be Q3 or Q4. I suspect QC can deliver issues that need to be resolved before the productionproces and final delivery start

 

[Viggo]

Some photographers get the EF 14-24 f/2.8 for testing a few weeks ago.

Does "some" include yourself? So, how is it? 8)

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

There is a fly in the ointment ... Great rouse to stem the sigma tide

I'm considering the Sigma in place of the 35mm f/2 - the price of the mk1 L is far too high for me, and the mk2 L would be even more expensive.

 

[candyman]

Some photographers get the EF 14-24 f/2.8 for testing a few weeks ago.

Does "some" include yourself? So, how is it? 8)

No chance. I once asked M.ST about his experience with the 7D MKII. No reply. Which is understandable since he probably - for sure - signed a NDA

 

[tron]

Some photographers get the EF 14-24 f/2.8 for testing a few weeks ago.

Does "some" include yourself? So, how is it? 8)

No chance. I once asked M.ST about his experience with the 7D MKII. No reply. Which is understandable since he probably - for sure - signed a NDA

This or, there are no such things as 7DMkII and FS14-24 f/2.8L yet! 8)

 

[pedro]

Well, made my decision today. Saving account for the 14-24 F/2.8 is set up. Hope I'm not upset about the price tag!!! :-[ But this is a "once in a lifetime" lens, and worth the wait. Merry Christmas to ya'll. Cheers, Pedro.

 

[agierke]

its as if deep down inside you want the canon lens...but why? if the third party lens is just as good but cheaper....


Weather sealing, resale value, compatibility with future Canon bodies, etc...

lol, yes i know. i was being facetious. i like the direction the new canon lens releases are going including edge to edge sharpness, improved chromatic aberration and all the things you mentioned.

im in your boat as i picked up the 35L this year (i did so knowing a replacement was imminent) so will likely be watching the resale market for the most opportune time to sell it and put that money towards the II.

 

[switters]

If this rumor is indeed true (which we don't know yet), I think it can only be positive that there will be so many good options at 35mm: the new Sigma, the current 35L (aftermarket once the 35L II goes on sale), the 35L II, and for those that need IS, the 35 IS.

I have to say, though, that I would have been happier with an announcement for a 50L II or a 50/1.4 II. That's where I feel the Canon line-up needs more attention.

 

[tron]

Hope I'm not upset about the price tag!!! :-[

You will and you know it! :

 

[Dylan777]

Just another no budget talker. I wonder, what kina lenses do you have?

I'm sure you think 1D X is crappy camera too

28/1.8 and a 50/1.4 - mostly carry it with me on the streets in the bag whilst walking about during my commute in the city where i study.. so yeah.. i don´s have the money for a noctilux..

the 1D X is an excellent camera for sport shooters.. why on earth would i say it were crappy?

As a prev. owner of 28mm f1.8 and 50 f1.4, I know both of these lenses well. None of these lenses can be shot at wide open, especially the 28mm. Both lenses need to stop down at least 1stop before you can see the sharpness.

What is the point of buying a prime with f1.ish and shoot at f2ish. Just FYI...both 35L and 50L are sharp at wide open... and yes, I have real life pictures if you want to see.