Basic Information on Lenses Coming in 2016 [CR2]

[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...

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

Either way, I'm sure we will have some excellent options.

The 100-400ii is so good, many owners of the 200-400 are saying that had the two been released simultaneously, they would possibly have gone for the 100-400ii.

What I'm imagining is the zoom on the 100-400 for larger birds and birds come near at hides and a 500mm for reach.

 

[boogaloo]

Hope the 'no new lenses' thing doesn't apply to the EOS-M lenses too...

 

[traveller]

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.

Longitudinal chromatic aberration can be a problem on the 85mm f/1.8, even if the Canon is typical of this class of lens. I would like to think that the technology is there to correct for this in a more modern lens design. The question is could Canon do this without bumping up the price to 'L' or Zeiss Milvus money? It would also be nice to see a slight bump in off-centre resolution; I know that some say it's not an issue on a portrait lens, because the depth of field wide open hides the softness anyway, but when did you last compose a photo with the subject dead centre? If you want to see what's possible, try this comparison:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=106&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1000&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=ISO30

Okay, it's not fair to compare a £240 lens to a £1240 lens (just like f/1.8 vs f/1.4 isn't fair either), but it shows what is possible with modern optics. Out of fun, compare the improvement of the Zeiss Milvus over its predecessor.... You pay a near 50% premium for the Milvus over the old ZE 85 f/1.4 T* and it looks to be worth every penny. I'd be willing to pay more than double for a similarly improved 85mm f/1.8 II, but I suspect that this will have to wait for the 85mm f/1.2 L III at >£2000 and >1.3kg

 

[kaptainkatsu]

16-35 f2.8 IS please! I have the f4 but will get the 2.8 in a heartbeat especially if it has IS

 

[Don Haines]

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

Quite true.....

The improvements in machining accuracy has put a beating on copy to copy variation.......

 

[ahsanford]

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

Quite true.....

The improvements in machining accuracy has put a beating on copy to copy variation.......

I don't know that particular lens well, but there may be more going on than you think. It's really, really expensive to cut all the tolerances in a design by 50%. Give the designing engineer some credit!

I have little doubt the design did incorporate tighter tolerances in very strategic places, but the design itself may have allowed/facilitated small but hugely important mechanical adjustments in the factory that could eliminate the 'slop' in the tolerance stack between elements.

- A

 

[insanitybeard]

Not likely to happen but I'll repeat myself here- I'd quite like to see a compact 10mm EF-S prime, as a more compact option to the zoom with potentially higher IQ- the 10-22 is a great lens but I've always found the corners a bit mushy with it paired with the 7D when used for landscapes. I'm using a 16-35L IS as my walkaround now on the 7D so a compact ultrawide prime would complement the 16-35 nicely when something wider than 16mm was required.

As said though, I'm in a minority here so it's probably a non-starter.

 

[drs]

The 16-35 had a long time sitting in my cases before it was used more often. It was pretty much one of my workhorses over many years, if I could use it on its sweet-spots, which are fairly small. I have replaced it with Sigma Art Primes, (apples and Oranges, I know) and there is currently no way back, except with a v3 version.

The only thing that bothered me [v2] is the CA and the strong flare, and nope I do not fix CA in post, as it is not a fix, it is a fake for hobbyists, at least in any app I had my fingers on so far.

So, I look forward to the v3 of this one, and hopefully it has the flare suppression of the e.g., Sigma 24mm as well the CA of it (or better!), at least at comparable settings.
I guess we will see a price-point at 2K+, I hope Canon delivers accordingly. Fingers crossed.

 

[Big_Ant_TV_Media]

im guessing theres a new 70-200mm F2.8 IS III coming
and yet another 24-105mm USM/STM variant as well

 

[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.

Longitudinal chromatic aberration can be a problem on the 85mm f/1.8, even if the Canon is typical of this class of lens. I would like to think that the technology is there to correct for this in a more modern lens design. The question is could Canon do this without bumping up the price to 'L' or Zeiss Milvus money? It would also be nice to see a slight bump in off-centre resolution; I know that some say it's not an issue on a portrait lens, because the depth of field wide open hides the softness anyway, but when did you last compose a photo with the subject dead centre? If you want to see what's possible, try this comparison:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=106&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1000&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=ISO30

Okay, it's not fair to compare a £240 lens to a £1240 lens (just like f/1.8 vs f/1.4 isn't fair either), but it shows what is possible with modern optics. Out of fun, compare the improvement of the Zeiss Milvus over its predecessor.... You pay a near 50% premium for the Milvus over the old ZE 85 f/1.4 T* and it looks to be worth every penny. I'd be willing to pay more than double for a similarly improved 85mm f/1.8 II, but I suspect that this will have to wait for the 85mm f/1.2 L III at >£2000 and >1.3kg

I agree with your assessment, and is part of the reason why I don't think we'll see an updated "consumer" 85mm prime anytime too soon. With that said, I believe Canon could completely refresh that lens and come out with something sharper, eliminate the CA and give us something a bit more punchy and micro contrasty. I don't think the lens would cost them all that much to manufacture, but because of the improvements and such they would probably demand a good premium for it, and come in somewhere in the double to triple price range of the current lens.

I really like Brian's website. I wish he had test results of those lenses stopped down through the common apertures (Would allow those "fair" comparisons you speak of too). The 85mm like a number of those era lenses, is a bit soft wide open, but sharpens up very quickly even stopping down a tiny bit. Which is why I typically shoot that lens in the f/2 to f/2.5 range.

It's interesting you speak of modern optics. For fun I looked at the 135mm f/2L (my most recent lens pickup) and that is a very solid/sharp lens across the frame and I think we all know how old that lens design is.

 

[TommyLee]

I would like to see
a 180 or 200 macro ..............f4... I guess... with I.S. and a bit of speed to focus

...
for me ..as big choice....I want to buy the 200 f2 but I want to see it with new coatings and 4-stop I.S. .....
wont get the 'old' one.... beat the otus 85 in performance (in the 200mm class of course...but stunning edges..chromatics)
I'll just shoot the 14L II and 200mm f2L .... better hood
maybe a hood like the old... 300 f4 I.S....slider

ok my nice 35L II in middle..
to walk about..

so ................wide ...normal...and long...
...
I always hoped they would some slightly wider standard FF zoom.
like 20mm to 85mm... or so
f4 all the way

 

[slclick]

Some will make some happy.
Some will make some unhappy.

 

[RGF]

The 16-35 had a long time sitting in my cases before it was used more often. It was pretty much one of my workhorses over many years, if I could use it on its sweet-spots, which are fairly small. I have replaced it with Sigma Art Primes, (apples and Oranges, I know) and there is currently no way back, except with a v3 version.

The only thing that bothered me [v2] is the CA and the strong flare, and nope I do not fix CA in post, as it is not a fix, it is a fake for hobbyists, at least in any app I had my fingers on so far.

So, I look forward to the v3 of this one, and hopefully it has the flare suppression of the e.g., Sigma 24mm as well the CA of it (or better!), at least at comparable settings.
I guess we will see a price-point at 2K+, I hope Canon delivers accordingly. Fingers crossed.

I would rather have the F2.8 but right now I carry the 16-35 F4. Of course that means 82mm filters.

wish canon would go back to 77 mm on their std lenses.

 

[slclick]

The 16-35 had a long time sitting in my cases before it was used more often. It was pretty much one of my workhorses over many years, if I could use it on its sweet-spots, which are fairly small. I have replaced it with Sigma Art Primes, (apples and Oranges, I know) and there is currently no way back, except with a v3 version.

The only thing that bothered me [v2] is the CA and the strong flare, and nope I do not fix CA in post, as it is not a fix, it is a fake for hobbyists, at least in any app I had my fingers on so far.

So, I look forward to the v3 of this one, and hopefully it has the flare suppression of the e.g., Sigma 24mm as well the CA of it (or better!), at least at comparable settings.
I guess we will see a price-point at 2K+, I hope Canon delivers accordingly. Fingers crossed.

I would rather have the F2.8 but right now I carry the 16-35 F4. Of course that means 82mm filters.

wish canon would go back to 77 mm on their std lenses.

I'm not sure I'd classify an UWA zoom a standard lens. 24+ sure. But I know what you mean, I've had to buy an extra 82 here and there as well.

 

[FECHariot]

I'm somewhat surprised the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM is up for refresh. I would have thought the recent (and pretty well reviewed) 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM lens would suffice for that segment. I guess Canon sees room for two price points there. Brace wallets for impact for a higher end UWA USM lens?

It would be nice to see the 10-22 get 2.8. Make it good with coma for Milky Way shots while giving up none of the good points on the current 10-22. There just ins't enough separation between the 10-18 and 10-22 so if they are going to have 2 UWA options, the 10-22 replacement will have to go upscale.

 

[rbr]

In case you weren't aware, Canon recently released a new 400 f4 DO II lens. I seriously doubt that a non DO version could be any better or that it would be priced much differently. It's a fantastic lens and does very well with both the 1.4x and 2x III.

 

[traveller]

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.

Longitudinal chromatic aberration can be a problem on the 85mm f/1.8, even if the Canon is typical of this class of lens. I would like to think that the technology is there to correct for this in a more modern lens design. The question is could Canon do this without bumping up the price to 'L' or Zeiss Milvus money? It would also be nice to see a slight bump in off-centre resolution; I know that some say it's not an issue on a portrait lens, because the depth of field wide open hides the softness anyway, but when did you last compose a photo with the subject dead centre? If you want to see what's possible, try this comparison:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=106&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1000&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=ISO30

Okay, it's not fair to compare a £240 lens to a £1240 lens (just like f/1.8 vs f/1.4 isn't fair either), but it shows what is possible with modern optics. Out of fun, compare the improvement of the Zeiss Milvus over its predecessor.... You pay a near 50% premium for the Milvus over the old ZE 85 f/1.4 T* and it looks to be worth every penny. I'd be willing to pay more than double for a similarly improved 85mm f/1.8 II, but I suspect that this will have to wait for the 85mm f/1.2 L III at >£2000 and >1.3kg

I agree with your assessment, and is part of the reason why I don't think we'll see an updated "consumer" 85mm prime anytime too soon. With that said, I believe Canon could completely refresh that lens and come out with something sharper, eliminate the CA and give us something a bit more punchy and micro contrasty. I don't think the lens would cost them all that much to manufacture, but because of the improvements and such they would probably demand a good premium for it, and come in somewhere in the double to triple price range of the current lens.

I really like Brian's website. I wish he had test results of those lenses stopped down through the common apertures (Would allow those "fair" comparisons you speak of too). The 85mm like a number of those era lenses, is a bit soft wide open, but sharpens up very quickly even stopping down a tiny bit. Which is why I typically shoot that lens in the f/2 to f/2.5 range.

It's interesting you speak of modern optics. For fun I looked at the 135mm f/2L (my most recent lens pickup) and that is a very solid/sharp lens across the frame and I think we all know how old that lens design is.

The Canon 135mm f/2 is by all accounts a very good lens (though I've never used it myself), just don't compare it to the Zeiss ZE version! (At double the price, to be fair to Canon).

To be honest, most people would probably struggle to get optimal results from Zeiss lenses anyway, because of the difficulty of achieving critical focus at large apertures without the assistance of auto focus -unless you use live view or tethering. Canon's hybrid viewfinder patent would come in useful here.

 

[Foxdude]

How about new ef-m lenses? I would like some fast primes, like 50mm and 85mm F1.8. 35mm would be nice too.
maybe new improved stabilized ef-m price to suprise us?

 

[ahsanford]

It would be nice to see the 10-22 get 2.8. Make it good with coma for Milky Way shots while giving up none of the good points on the current 10-22. There just ins't enough separation between the 10-18 and 10-22 so if they are going to have 2 UWA options, the 10-22 replacement will have to go upscale.

I agree the 10-22 needs differentiation optically, but from a feature standpoint, I think the EF-S 10-22mm is already upscale to the EF-S 10-18mm in many respects...

• It is a shade quicker (max aperture-wise)
• USM focusing is superior to STM for stills
• It has a metal mount vs. the 10-18's plastic mount
• It has internal zooming and focusing (technically the 10-22 front element moves, but it is always behind the front filter threads)
• Has a distance scale
• Takes very common 77mm filters you may already own for another lens

..but the optics are 10 years older, so the much newer 10-18 outperforms it much like how a new non-L EF prime can out-resolve an aging L prime. Modernize the 10-22 and it will improve considerably. Whether or not it gets IS and how much it will cost are the $64,000 questions with that lens, IMHO.

- A

 

[Ryananthony]

It would be nice to see the 10-22 get 2.8. Make it good with coma for Milky Way shots while giving up none of the good points on the current 10-22. There just ins't enough separation between the 10-18 and 10-22 so if they are going to have 2 UWA options, the 10-22 replacement will have to go upscale.

I agree the 10-22 needs differentiation optically, but from a feature standpoint, I think the EF-S 10-22mm is already upscale to the EF-S 10-18mm in many respects...

• It is a shade quicker (max aperture-wise)
• USM focusing is superior to STM for stills
• It has a metal mount vs. the 10-18's plastic mount
• It has internal zooming and focusing (technically the 10-22 front element moves, but it is always behind the front filter threads)
• Has a distance scale
• Takes very common 77mm filters you may already own for another lens

..but the optics are 10 years older, so the much newer 10-18 outperforms it much like how a new non-L EF prime can out-resolve an aging L prime. Modernize the 10-22 and it will improve considerably. Whether or not it gets IS and how much it will cost are the $64,000 questions with that lens, IMHO.

- A

I did not think any modern lenses were made with plastic mounts. thats a shame.