Basic Information on Lenses Coming in 2016 [CR2]

[Ruined]

85mm f/1.4L portrait redesign please!!!

 

[wsmith96]

The surprise lens could be an IS version of the 24-70 f2.8 L

 

[Kim Bentsen]

Only ONE L-lens in 2016 will not cut it.

The elephant in the room is the 24-70mm/2.8 IS. Everyone else offers a stabilized solution with a 24-70mm/2.8.

 

[Famateur]

Well, I guess I better finally get around to selling my EF-S 17-55MM F2.8 IS before a direct replacement comes along -- especially if it's at a lower price!

Anyone want to buy it? It's a fantastic lens, but I just don't use it anymore...

 

[ahsanford]

Only ONE L-lens in 2016 will not cut it.

The elephant in the room is the 24-70mm/2.8 IS. Everyone else offers a stabilized solution with a 24-70mm/2.8.

Does 'everyone else' offer an 85 f/1.2? A 17mm tilt-shift? A 5:1 macro? A 70-200 IS + aperture combination for every budget?

Canon doesn't have to keep pace with everyone everywhere.

One might argue Canon's greatest hole in the lineup is a best-in-class astro lens. Right now, of the holy astro trinity of [very wide], [very fast] and [coma free], I believe Canon only can check off two boxes at a time. We all presume a new 24 f/1.4L with the BR gunk will come to save the day eventually (the 35L II controls coma well!), but we don't know when that might be.

- A

 

[NancyP]

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.

 

[Kim Bentsen]

I am a die hard self-confessed Canon fanboy, and no one can match the quality of the Canon lens program.

But the 24-70mm/2.8 is the most critical lens for many people. It is essential that Canon gets with the program on this lens. They probably already have developed this lens but are hesitating to release it because of lack of production capacity. If released every man and his dog would want one. The Tesla Model 3 sales history would be shamed by the 24-70/2.8 IS. Canon is afraid they can't cope with the success.

What other reason could there be?

Only ONE L-lens in 2016 will not cut it.

The elephant in the room is the 24-70mm/2.8 IS. Everyone else offers a stabilized solution with a 24-70mm/2.8.

Does 'everyone else' offer an 85 f/1.2? A 17mm tilt-shift? A 5:1 macro? A 70-200 IS + aperture combination for every budget?

Canon doesn't have to keep pace with everyone everywhere.

One might argue Canon's greatest hole in the lineup is a best-in-class astro lens. Right now, of the holy astro trinity of [very wide], [very fast] and [coma free], I believe Canon only can check off two boxes at a time. We all presume a new 24 f/1.4L with the BR gunk will come to save the day eventually (the 35L II controls coma well!), but we don't know when that might be.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I am a die hard self-confessed Canon fanboy, and no one can match the quality of the Canon lens program.

But the 24-70mm/2.8 is the most critical lens for many people. It is essential that Canon gets with the program on this lens. They probably already have developed this lens but are hesitating to release it because of lack of production capacity. If released every man and his dog would want one. The Tesla Model 3 sales history would be shamed by the 24-70/2.8 IS. Canon is afraid they can't cope with the success.

What other reason could there be?

Because (a) it's not sexy enough for people to leave if they don't get one, and (b) it'll be a $2500 lens with a fairly limited market as a result.

I think they'll make one someday, don't get me wrong, but they have more pressing needs. UWA event/sports folks need an update to their staple 16-35 f/2.8 pretty badly, and Nikon's $1,400 200-500 f/5.6 is a legitimate threat to flip budding birding/wildlife photographers to their side of the ledger. I think Canon will offer those before a 24-70 f/2.8L IS gets offered, but I could be wrong.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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

 

[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.

 

[Etienne]

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. The 28 would compete with the current 28 IS, so unless it's much bigger and much more expensive or it doesn't have IS, I don't really see a place for it. The 85 and 100 are still good performers and the 85 is next in line for most likely replacement but since the design is so similar to the 100, I'd guess that those two will come as a pair later. The 50 is already rumored to be coming, but I think the 20 could be the one of the surprises.

My reasoning on the 20 f/2.8 is that it's the only ultrawide prime in the lineup that isn't an expensive L (14L) or a fisheye lens (15 fisheye, now discontinued), and it's worse optically than the 17-40 and every other ultrawide zoom in the lineup (16-35 and 11-24). There's almost no reason for anyone to choose the 20 over the 17-40 at the moment unless the f/2.8 aperture was critical. Sigma has the 20 f/1.4 ART lens and there are a ton of budget (<$500) primes wider than 24 from third parties though most lacking in AF. A relatively cheap and compact 20mm f/2.8 IS would be a nice reason to choose a prime over the current ultrawide zooms in the lineup, and paired with the 50 would expand the IS prime offerings (20, 24, 28, 35, 50).

+1 .... I would be all for an affordable 20mm f/2.8 IS

 

[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.

 

[ahsanford]

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

 

[Loswr]

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.

Of course, a sharper version with IS would likely see a substantial price bump, negating much of that appeal.

 

[nicksotgiu]

I'm still holding off on buying the 16-35mm f/4.0L because of the f/2.8L III coming soon... hopefully...

Is the filter size going to be 77mm like the f/4.0L version? I hope so.

All my filters are 77mm, so that would be convenient.

 

[nightscape123]

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.

 

[Krob78]

Hey, maybe they'll announce the new 16-35mm 2.8 III with the new 5d Mk IV as a kit lens option! : :

 

[ahsanford]

I'm still holding off on buying the 16-35mm f/4.0L because of the f/2.8L III coming soon... hopefully...

Is the filter size going to be 77mm like the f/4.0L version? I hope so.

All my filters are 77mm, so that would be convenient.

Not happening. The current 16-35 f/2.8L USM II jumped to 82mm, so I would be stunned if it got smaller.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

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.

 

[dslrdummy]

I'd be very interested in a 135mm f/2.0Lii. The current 135 is a great lense by all accounts and this is often put as the reason why it hasn't been upgraded but it is 20 years old. Might be the 'surprise' referred to.