Canon EF Lens Speculation [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11703"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11703">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>What’s in the pipeline?

</strong>A few more confirmations about a new EF 800 f/5.6L IS II being in the works. It was stressed that it is no where near market ready and Canon will probably wait for Nikon to get their new 800 to the world. The EF 200 f/2L IS is also on the update radar, but is for the distant future.</p>
<p>Another source claims to have tested a new “Canon ultra-wide zoom on an EOS-1D Xs”.</p>
<p><strong>A New 135L?

</strong>We have received lots of information over the last few years about a replacement to the EF 135 f/2L. It reminds me of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II, which turned out to have a lot of prototypes before it was released and caused me a lot of headaches :). The current tested prototype is said to be an EF 135 f/2L IS. A replacement seems imminent, although I’m not sure if the IS version will ever make it to market.</p>
<p><strong>When is the new stuff coming?

</strong>I’m told that current NDA’s expire at the “end of the month”. I hope to know more soon in regards to announcement date(s), there is definitely more coming in 2012.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[albron00]

Something tells me the price is gonna be double for new EF 135 f/2L IS

 

[TriGGy]

A new 135mm f/2L IS would be a dream all right - albeit sharpness can take a slight hit, maybe a 135mm f/1.4L? Probably they can find a way to let in more light in a longer lens but the lens could look like a longer 85 1.2L and cost too much.

 

[funkboy]

Well, no one with decisional power within Canon is likely to read this, but if they release a 135 f/2L with IS as good as the original I'll preorder one, along with a 2x TC.

 

[david]

If find no priority in replacing the formidable 135L. But where is the long awaited 1.4/50 upgrade? This is important and long overdue.

 

[DzPhotography]

Another source claims to have tested a new “Canon ultra-wide zoom on an EOS-1D Xs”.

I hope this is the 14-24

 

[preppyak]

Something tells me the price is gonna be double for new EF 135 f/2L IS

Yeah, if it follows the exact price increase of the 24-70, it'd be about $1700-1800 retail (from its $1089 now). That's assuming they wont also charge more for IS, so, who knows.

 

[kidnaper]

Here's hoping that ultra-wide is the 14-24, and that I don't have to sell both my 16-35II and a kidney to afford it. Any speculation on price? I'd not be the least bit surprised to see it at $2,499.

 

[preppyak]

Here's hoping that ultra-wide is the 14-24, and that I don't have to sell both my 16-35II and a kidney to afford it. Any speculation on price? I'd not be the least bit surprised to see it at $2,499.

Probably a decent guess. The Nikon version retails a little over $2000, so, a Canon version is probably in the $2500 range.

 

[RLPhoto]

Give me a 135L f/1.8 IS. The current 135L is already perfection, but IS and f/1.8 would only make it irresistible.

 

[dolina]

I 2nd the 135/1.8 IS.

Funny that lens speculation is now CR1 for the 800 and 200.

 

[funkboy]

Give me a 135L f/1.8 IS.

I think I'd prefer f/2, just add IS. The extra 1/3 stop of an f/1.8 model would probably increase the front element size up to 77 or 82mm (just a guesstimate) & increase the weight by 20-30% (in addition to the weight increase from the IS system). That would probably be a ~$2000 lens, if not more.

The beauty of the 135L is amazing IQ, very nice reach for a lot of situations, and an already-awesome f/2 max aperture, all in a very portable & affordable package.

 

[RLPhoto]

Give me a 135L f/1.8 IS.

I think I'd prefer f/2, just add IS. The extra 1/3 stop of an f/1.8 model would probably increase the front element size up to 77 or 82mm (just a guesstimate) & increase the weight by 20-30% (in addition to the weight increase from the IS system). That would probably be a ~$2000 lens, if not more.

The beauty of the 135L is amazing IQ, very nice reach for a lot of situations, and an already-awesome f/2 max aperture, all in a very portable & affordable package.

Zeiss already makes a 135mm F1.8. And its awesome. The 2000$+ price tag wouldn't bother me for a lens that I Use the most.

 

[unfocused]

I would hope that if the 135mm gets an update, that the 200mm 2.8 would also be in line.

 

[preppyak]

I would hope that if the 135mm gets an update, that the 200mm 2.8 would also be in line.

The beauty of the 135L is amazing IQ, very nice reach for a lot of situations, and an already-awesome f/2 max aperture, all in a very portable & affordable package.

See, the thing is, the major advantage to the 135L and the 200mm f/2.8 right now is that they are dirt cheap compared to their quality. You can get 70-200L level results from each for <1/2 the price. Once you update both, especially if there is IS, the price moves a lot closer to the 70-200L. Especially for the 200mm f/2.8, when its street price is <$800, I can't see anyone buying the updated IS version for $1500 or so.

I can see the 135L getting that update, because the f/2 is an advantage...the 200mm I hope doesn't get updated, because that means there is always that cheaper option around

 

[unfocused]

I would hope that if the 135mm gets an update, that the 200mm 2.8 would also be in line.

The beauty of the 135L is amazing IQ, very nice reach for a lot of situations, and an already-awesome f/2 max aperture, all in a very portable & affordable package.

See, the thing is, the major advantage to the 135L and the 200mm f/2.8 right now is that they are dirt cheap compared to their quality. You can get 70-200L level results from each for <1/2 the price. Once you update both, especially if there is IS, the price moves a lot closer to the 70-200L. Especially for the 200mm f/2.8, when its street price is <$800, I can't see anyone buying the updated IS version for $1500 or so.

I can see the 135L getting that update, because the f/2 is an advantage...the 200mm I hope doesn't get updated, because that means there is always that cheaper option around

Well obviously I disagree. I don't have much interest in a zoom at 200mm or less. So a light, small 2.8 prime with IS would interest me much more. Even at double the current price I'd be interested. Different strokes.

 

[Razor2012]

Hey does this mean I can buy a new car at the same price I paid 10 years ago?

 

[7enderbender]

I am just curious here, since quotes like this always seem to crop up in threads like this:

Something tells me the price is gonna be double for new EF 135 f/2L IS

Does everyone really, truly, honestly believe that the current street price of currently released lenses is the same as the original manufacturers suggested retail price when those lenses were first released? Does everyone truly, honestly believe that the introductory MSRP of a brand new lens should or even could be exactly the same as the current street price of the item it may be replacing? Does no one understand that R&D costs a hell of a lot of money, and those costs need to be recouped by sales at the introductory price when a new product is introduced to the market, before it's price can reasonably be reduced? Does no one understand that over a period of decades, simple inflation will naturally increase the introductory MSRP of a new product above and beyond the MSRP of the product it is replacing when it was first released, thanks to the devaluing of our lovely fiat currencies?

Why does everyone complain about the higher introductory prices of new lenses or cameras? OF COURSE THEY ARE MORE EXPENSIVE. That's how things work! If you want manufacturers like Canon to continue improving, to continue making technological advancements in optics, sensor technology, camera ergonomics, frame rates, and other features...WE pay for it. Research and development costs for something like a new lens design that is actually better than the GOOD lens design it is replacing runs in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Private sector corporations like Canon aren't funded by taxes...they are funded by the consumers who purchase and use their products. So OF COURSE the price of a BRAND SPANKIN NEW lens like the 135L is going to be more than the old 135L. Thanks to inflation, OF COURSE the introductory MSRP of that brand spankin new lens is going to be higher than the introductory MSRP of its predecessor...your dollars are WORTH LESS today than they were back then.

Please, stop bitching about the prices of newly released products if you don't understand some of the basic economic fundamentals that underpin those prices. It has gotten SO INCREDIBLY OLD now.

Wow. That's pretty harsh, given that you are making some assumptions yourself that from an economics standpoint might need further evaluation. Most things have become cheaper over the last several years. And if you leave out gas price fluctuations (a whole other can of worms) you may see that most of the Western world is actually faced with DEflation - despite the fact that our governments have increased the money supply to unprecedented levels.
But with everything that is rather complex some items for sometimes unclear reasons have become more expensive or stayed pretty much the same. Optical stuff seems to be one of these areas. Not sure what the camera manufacturers are thinking. Maybe they can charge more for lenses now because cameras have come down to a more reasonable level after the "digital revolution" is everyday stuff now. Other lenses may come down again once the supply-demand cycles normalize things again. I don't really see spending over $2000 on a 24-70 even if I had money sitting around. The current 135L is a great deal in my opinion and (don't tell Canon) I might have spent a few bucks more even if necessary. But not a whole lot more. And I rather have it without IS anyway. Metal barrel and everything? Yeah, I'd pay a little extra for that. The optics are fine as they are. That's actually true for all their lenses. I wish they were of even better built quality.

 

[7enderbender]

Hey does this mean I can buy a new car at the same price I paid 10 years ago?

Yes, pretty much. Cars are actually cheaper than they used to be - and you get much more stuff with them. You can get brand new cars for under $14,000 these days.

 

[jrista]

I am just curious here, since quotes like this always seem to crop up in threads like this:

Something tells me the price is gonna be double for new EF 135 f/2L IS

Does everyone really, truly, honestly believe that the current street price of currently released lenses is the same as the original manufacturers suggested retail price when those lenses were first released? Does everyone truly, honestly believe that the introductory MSRP of a brand new lens should or even could be exactly the same as the current street price of the item it may be replacing? Does no one understand that R&D costs a hell of a lot of money, and those costs need to be recouped by sales at the introductory price when a new product is introduced to the market, before it's price can reasonably be reduced? Does no one understand that over a period of decades, simple inflation will naturally increase the introductory MSRP of a new product above and beyond the MSRP of the product it is replacing when it was first released, thanks to the devaluing of our lovely fiat currencies?

Why does everyone complain about the higher introductory prices of new lenses or cameras? OF COURSE THEY ARE MORE EXPENSIVE. That's how things work! If you want manufacturers like Canon to continue improving, to continue making technological advancements in optics, sensor technology, camera ergonomics, frame rates, and other features...WE pay for it. Research and development costs for something like a new lens design that is actually better than the GOOD lens design it is replacing runs in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Private sector corporations like Canon aren't funded by taxes...they are funded by the consumers who purchase and use their products. So OF COURSE the price of a BRAND SPANKIN NEW lens like the 135L is going to be more than the old 135L. Thanks to inflation, OF COURSE the introductory MSRP of that brand spankin new lens is going to be higher than the introductory MSRP of its predecessor...your dollars are WORTH LESS today than they were back then.

Please, stop bitching about the prices of newly released products if you don't understand some of the basic economic fundamentals that underpin those prices. It has gotten SO INCREDIBLY OLD now.

Hundreds of millions of dollars? I believe you are off by a pretty wide margin there. Also, what do taxes have to do with this?

Well, Canon has spent into the hundred million dollar range with R&D on their optics, lens design, integrated AF chips, etc. in general over the last decade. I guess I implied it was just for one lens, which it is not. They do spend proportionately large amounts of money researching and developing optical designs that no one else does, such as diffractive optics (something previously thought impossible) and viable fluorite lenses (which requires growing giant, flawless crystals), etc.