Basic Information on Lenses Coming in 2016 [CR2]

[YuengLinger]

Dear Canon,
A viable 50mm 1.2 that focuses reasonably fast and very accurately, one without the worst focus shift of any 50mm on the market...That would be a surprise, because I've almost given up hope.

Almost.

It would be more of a surprise than a 20 year old lens being updated with blue goo.

Thank you.

YL

 

[Cali Capture]

I would a L 50mm with Blue glue would have to be in the mix. The only thing I could see slowing a new 50L lens would be 35L f/1.4II sales performing below forecast. I would be surprised by a 135 f/2 with Image stabilization!

 

[j-nord]

I am still stuck on my EF-S15-85 for good all-around travel lens.
I would like a 60mm to 75mm (fixed focal length) f/2.8 full frame 1:2 or 1:1 macro to replace the venerable 50mm macro.
If the 400 f/5.6L could get high level IS and high level performance without too much weight gain, I might regretfully retire my 400 f/5.6L no-IS.
My interests are in trying out some existing lenses - the TS-E 24 vII, for instance.

That's a good point, I could also see canon updating their 400 5.6L to include IS.

I think its unlikely since they have the 100-400ii. What would a 400 5.6L IS bring to the table over the zoom? I doubt there is much room for optical improvement or size/weight here. A 300L f4 IS II or 500L f5.6 IS would bring more options to the table and could conceivably be paired with a 100-400ii rather than an "or" scenario between 400 zoom and 400 prime.

We hear this a lot, yet back when it was the 100-400 version 1 and the 400F5.6, a lot of people preferred the 400F5.6 and although the sales were not as good as the zoom, it's 20+ years in the Canon lineup remains as proof that there was sufficient demand for it.

Fast forward to the present and we have a newer 100-400 with greatly improved optics...yet it's image quality is only approaching (some say equal) to that 20 year old 400F5.6. Come out with a newer version of the 400F5.6 that includes the same advances in optic design, materials, coatings, and manufacturing precision, and you will have a lens that should be significantly better than the zoom..... and with a constant length it will be easier to seal and you will not be pumping dust and moisture through it like an extending zoom design such as the 100-400II zoom lens.

There is a market for both. Both co-existed in the Canon lineup with old tech... both can co-exist with new tech.

Why not 500 instead? Clearly there is demand for 500/5.6 and 600/6.3. Like I said it seems unlikely people would own both the 400 zoom and 400 prime where as a 500 prime would nicely compliment the 400 zoom. Also the 100-400 mkI was optically crap... by most accounts the 100-400ii is on par with the 400 f5.6 prime. Adding IS and making it sharper is going to add size, weight and cost. This would negate the benefits seen with the version I. This said, I'd definitely consider buying a 400 f5.6 L IS if thats the route canon goes, I'd just rather see a 500 f5.6 L IS.

 

[wsmith96]

I am still stuck on my EF-S15-85 for good all-around travel lens.
I would like a 60mm to 75mm (fixed focal length) f/2.8 full frame 1:2 or 1:1 macro to replace the venerable 50mm macro.
If the 400 f/5.6L could get high level IS and high level performance without too much weight gain, I might regretfully retire my 400 f/5.6L no-IS.
My interests are in trying out some existing lenses - the TS-E 24 vII, for instance.

That's a good point, I could also see canon updating their 400 5.6L to include IS.

I think its unlikely since they have the 100-400ii. What would a 400 5.6L IS bring to the table over the zoom? I doubt there is much room for optical improvement or size/weight here. A 300L f4 IS II or 500L f5.6 IS would bring more options to the table and could conceivably be paired with a 100-400ii rather than an "or" scenario between 400 zoom and 400 prime.

A 300 f4L II would be interesting too. If it were on par with the 2.8 optics I could see this being a great seller as camera ISO performance has increased. It would make a great lightweight and economic (compared to the f2.8 version) sports alternative.

 

[Sabaki]

As personal opinions go, my take is that a 500mm f/5.6 L IS would be the perfect partner to the 100-400ii.

Birders are always looking for that extra bit of reach and a 400mm can be considered a bit short when shooting birds in a true nature reserve. Heck, even a 500mm may be a tad short.

I personally would put both a 100-400mm L IS ii and a 500mm L IS into my bag. Would I put both a 100-400mm and 400mm L IS into one bag? I doubt it...

 

[In-The-Dark]

We’re also told there are multiple Canon lenses that will get “direct replacements”, and a few would “surprise you”. Though we haven’t been able to publish what those lenses would be.</p>

Yes Canon, please do surprise us!

I'm in the camp of those who are wishing/hoping for a replacement for the 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 (or 100mm 2.0) . . . . . may Canon surprise us with IS, quick USM AF, great IQ wide-open, compact (but durable) build, and reasonable price ;D.

 

[Sabaki]

My personal lens choice would be a successor to the 16-35 f/2.8 L ii

I'm not going to put forward that more millimetres on the short side would be fantastic (it would ) but I'd love image quality to best that of the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 AND shoot stars like a champion.

I'm dreaming of no aberrations when shooting trees and other foliage

 

[ahsanford]

My personal lens choice would be a successor to the 16-35 f/2.8 L ii

I'm not going to put forward that more millimetres on the short side would be fantastic (it would ) but I'd love image quality to best that of the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 AND shoot stars like a champion.

I'd be surprised if Canon went down to 14mm instead of 16mm -- that would (likely) eliminate the front filter threads. I think the ultra-ultrawide L zoom ship has sailed for the foreseeable future with the 11-24 f/4L USM, but hey, one can dream. Here's hoping it happens for you.

- A

 

[traveller]

I can see a 24-70 f/2.8 L IS happening soon, as Canon is so Nikon focused.

I would love to see a 300mm f/4 DO IS that plays nicely with a 1.4x teleconverter, as I generally carry a 70-200 f/2.8 and would like something lightweight for when a bit more reach is required. The 100-400 II is lovely, but I'm not about to carry that much extra weight in my bag alongside the 70-200.

The 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 could also do with updates, as could the 28mm f/1.8. Nikon now has quite a strong lineup of f/1.8 primes from 20mm through to 85mm; Canon has quite a few gaps to plug if they want to match these.

Despite my full frame centric wish-list, I still think that we get the most love from Canon. APS-C shooters still have a pretty raw deal:
-no fast wide primes (the 24mm is good value at the low end, but neither as fast nor as wide as most XXD or 7D users would want);
-a pretty long in the tooth 17-55mm f/2.8 that could do with being a couple of millimetres wider;
-no fast telezoom -okay, you can use the 70-200 f/2.8s, but I find the loss of the 70-112mm range a problem, which is one of the reasons that I went full frame. YMMV, of course, but it would be nice for people to have the choice of a 50-135 f/2.8.
You could argue that this is part of Canon's strategy to push "serious shooters" to full frame. The danger is that it ends up pushing them to Fuji or m4/3rds instead.

 

[great9]

New EF 16-35mm f/2.8L? Yes please. This might just be my first L lense.

 

[hendrik-sg]

We’re now being told that the non-L 200-600 super zoom we’ve been talking about is likely an early 2017 lens and will not be announced for Photokina in September as originally planned.

So now the CR rumor agrees with comments from Rick Wagoneer.

And now it's formal? The lens with a ~ 107mm front element will be a non-L offering?

- A

It was sait that it would be a f8 EF-M lens.... so no 107mm front element. This sounds plausible. and if not, maybe from now on all bodies will be f8 capable, then it would make sense in EF mount as well, at least as a consumer lens.

BUT F8 is quite close to the difraction limit on a 24MP APS-C sensor (, or more precisely wrtitten in the region where diffraction will already reduce image quality), so the real value may be questionable, even if the optic is fantastic. In my expierience with the 7diii and the 100-400 ii lens, it's difficult to get any benefit from the 1.4 extender over cropping, and this is a really good lens, but yes, different situation on the 5diii

So in my opinion, this lens would make sense mainly for full frame bodies (except 5ds)

Just

 

[nicksotgiu]

Maybe a fast non-L 85mm?
Like a f/1.4

I know there's a new 50mm f1.4 in the works...

We shall see, at NAB xD

 

[d]

35mm 1.4L BR III - now that'd be a surprise!

d.

 

[jeffa4444]

That's a good point, I could also see canon updating their 400 5.6L to include IS.

I think its unlikely since they have the 100-400ii. What would a 400 5.6L IS bring to the table over the zoom? I doubt there is much room for optical improvement or size/weight here. A 300L f4 IS II or 500L f5.6 IS would bring more options to the table and could conceivably be paired with a 100-400ii rather than an "or" scenario between 400 zoom and 400 prime.

The 400mm f/5.6L USM is a legendary 'starter L' from a value perspective -- if you don't need the IS, you get a sharp 400mm prime for an unheard of $1,149. Nikon famously does not offer such a lens.

Further, the 100-400 II is a good 20 years newer than the 400 f/5.6L, so I should hope it's sharper. A modern redesign of the 400 f/5.6L would outresolve the 100-400 II, one would think.

- A

You can get the 100-400 II for $1800 during sales now, I doubt an updated 400 f/5.6 IS would come in much below that.

I think a 500 f/5.6 would be pretty awesome, I would consider that.

The EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM II is truly an awsome lens better into the corners than the MK1 version and although slightly heavier still hand-holdable in certain situations.

 

[jeffa4444]

The EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM lens is a great all round lens but it does suffer from cromatic abberations and distortions. A reworked version of this maybe even pushed to f2.8 would be a dream lens for a lot of people. Couple this with the EF 100-400mm f4.5 - 5.6L IS USM II and you have everything you need for travel & most game photography.

Ive both the EF24-70mm f4L IS USM and the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM and prefer the latter for its better longer reach but the former is better optically.

 

[j-nord]

The EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM lens is a great all round lens but it does suffer from cromatic abberations and distortions. A reworked version of this maybe even pushed to f2.8 would be a dream lens for a lot of people. Couple this with the EF 100-400mm f4.5 - 5.6L IS USM II and you have everything you need for travel & most game photography.

Ive both the EF24-70mm f4L IS USM and the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM and prefer the latter for its better longer reach but the former is better optically.

I agree the 24-105L definitely needs and update. The sigma ART version is significantly sharper. I went with the 24-70L f4 IS because of the 77mm filter size and macro mode. I end up shooting more landscapes at 70 than 24 so the extra reach would go a long way. I still might switch the sigma 24-105 Art at some point. I don't use the macro mode on the 24-70L f4IS much anymore now that I have the 50f1.8STM and 300F4IS both with good MFD.

 

[JonAustin]

Fast forward to the present and we have a newer 100-400 with greatly improved optics everything ...

 

[JonAustin]

The EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM lens is a great all round lens but it does suffer from cromatic abberations and distortions. A reworked version of this maybe even pushed to f2.8 would be a dream lens for a lot of people. Couple this with the EF 100-400mm f4.5 - 5.6L IS USM II and you have everything you need for travel & most game photography.

Ive both the EF24-70mm f4L IS USM and the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM and prefer the latter for its better longer reach but the former is better optically.

+1

The 24-105 + 100-400 II is my favorite hiking combo. (Sometimes, I'll replace the 24-105 with the 16-35/4 and a 50mm prime.)

I have often contemplated replacing the 24-105 with a 24-70/4, but hold off because I don't want to give up the extra reach. I have no illusions (delusions?) of a 2.8 version, but would very much like to see a 24-105 f/4L IS USM II.

 

[Luds34]

So the 24, 28, and 35 primes got IS replacements as a group, but none of those had USM before. Maybe the USM non-L primes (or at least a few of them) are getting IS replacements as a group. Candidates include the 100 f/2, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 28 f/1.8, and 20 f/2.8.

Out of those, the ones I think need an update the most are the 50 and the 20...

[truncated]

You are referring to the long-awaited 'Middle' column of the chart that could sorely use an update (see attached). The 50 and 85 on that list simply must come first due to their usefulness, IMHO, but I understand your comments on the 20mm.

- A

I agree on the 50mm.

Disagree on the 85mm. The 85mm f/1.8 is a very solid lens. It's light, fast aperture, fast focusing, renders excellent bokeh, and is quite strong optically, especially stopped down (CA is it's weakness). In fact, if you don't need faster then f/1.8 it's a better choice then the 85mm f/1.2L.

The 85/100 consumer primes are oldies but goodies from Canon and while I wouldn't be surprised if they released updates, I think they probably have higher priorities, better opportunities in their lens design department.

 

[Luds34]

As personal opinions go, my take is that a 500mm f/5.6 L IS would be the perfect partner to the 100-400ii.

Birders are always looking for that extra bit of reach and a 400mm can be considered a bit short when shooting birds in a true nature reserve. Heck, even a 500mm may be a tad short.

I personally would put both a 100-400mm L IS ii and a 500mm L IS into my bag. Would I put both a 100-400mm and 400mm L IS into one bag? I doubt it...

For a tele prime, my personal choice would be a 400mm f/4L IS that does well with teleconverters.