It's just me but...

[Mitch.Conner]

Did anyone from Canon ever actually call it 'the year of the lens', or is it just people conflating something read in a rumour?

I don't know if somebody at Canon was one of the original sources of the "year of the lens" rumor. Whether there was ever an official press release saying so, I don't think there was.

It was unofficial regardless of whether anybody at Canon had anything to do with it.

With that said, according to this site at least, there were multiple sources which affirmed it (IIRC) which led to some (myself included) to believe that there was some truth to it.

 

[risc32]

i don't feel that my 5dmk3 is aging. my 5d"c" is starting to, but it's still very good, most of the time it just needs more input from me. is it just me, or did the 24-105 get listed like 3 times in this thread as having come out this year? do you guys just need to buy something? I've got a friend like that, retail therapy he calls it.

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

I agree with your sentiment, however, I feel like I am in Neuro's shoes a little.

For me, it's about what isn't currently meeting my needs first, and what would better meet my needs second.

I'll just state that CR3's I'm excited for are;
35 1.4L ii
5Div or 5Dx (whatever it may be)
16-35 2.8L iii or some other uwa, however, a touch more sharpness in the corners and I'm a happier camper.

I keep sittin', waitin', wishin', for one of these to surface as a near future upgrade, until then nothing else has really floated my boat. (I do enjoy playing with the 24-70 2.8Lii though)

Cheers,
-Tabor

 

[Don Haines]

Being as my 60D is acting up... and they start shipping the 7D2 in 5 days.. for me Canon's timing of camera body releases is just about perfect.....

As to lenses, realistically, I have what I need (except for a FAST wide angle prime) so I really don't feel the urge to rush out and buy lenses... unless someone comes out with a 16mm F1.4 lens... that might make me change my mind...

 

[dgatwood]

I can't even remember any lenses released this year besides the 400 DO...

Ummm.... 10-18, 16-35, 55-200, 24, 24-105... makes a total of 6 lenses... in what year did Canon last release 6 lenses?

Whee. Two L lenses, only one of which is one is in a focal range that very many folks care about (the 16–35 f/4 L IS), plus a pile of low-end EF-S lenses. Oh, and a kit-quality 24-105 lens, as though the 24–105L needed a further downgrade, rather than an upgrade. :/

Most of us expected the year of the lens to be about quality, not quantity. Where are the upgrades to the ancient lenses that people actually use with regularity? You know, like the 16–35 f/2.8 IS, the 24–105 L II, the 100–400 L II, the 70–300 L II, the 28–300 L II, the 50/85/135mm L primes.... Or the EF-S 15–85 II....

 

[Loswr]

Where are the upgrades to the ancient lenses that people actually use with regularity? You know, like the ... 70–300 L II ...

The 70-300L is 'ancient'? Were you born last month or something?

 

[Khalai]

I can't even remember any lenses released this year besides the 400 DO...

Ummm.... 10-18, 16-35, 55-200, 24, 24-105... makes a total of 6 lenses... in what year did Canon last release 6 lenses?

Whee. Two L lenses, only one of which is one is in a focal range that very many folks care about (the 16–35 f/4 L IS), plus a pile of low-end EF-S lenses. Oh, and a kit-quality 24-105 lens, as though the 24–105L needed a further downgrade, rather than an upgrade. :/

Most of us expected the year of the lens to be about quality, not quantity. Where are the upgrades to the ancient lenses that people actually use with regularity? You know, like the 16–35 f/2.8 IS, the 24–105 L II, the 100–400 L II, the 70–300 L II, the 28–300 L II, the 50/85/135mm L primes.... Or the EF-S 15–85 II....

What wrong with these two? Quite recent, quite capable, no need to upgrade them (yet)...

 

[Sabaki]

Was "Year of the Lens" coined by a Canon official or was it perhaps somebody else?

 

[Khalai]

I can't even remember any lenses released this year besides the 400 DO...

Ummm.... 10-18, 16-35, 55-200, 24, 24-105... makes a total of 6 lenses... in what year did Canon last release 6 lenses?

Whee. Two L lenses, only one of which is one is in a focal range that very many folks care about (the 16–35 f/4 L IS), plus a pile of low-end EF-S lenses. Oh, and a kit-quality 24-105 lens, as though the 24–105L needed a further downgrade, rather than an upgrade. :/

Most of us expected the year of the lens to be about quality, not quantity. Where are the upgrades to the ancient lenses that people actually use with regularity? You know, like the 16–35 f/2.8 IS, the 24–105 L II, the 100–400 L II, the 70–300 L II, the 28–300 L II, the 50/85/135mm L primes.... Or the EF-S 15–85 II....

You've got zero to no chance of seeing a new 70-300L this decade from Canon.

However the 70-300 does highlight that maybe it is time for a new version of the 70-200/f4L USM (now 15 years old) due to corner weakness, amongst other things. But it is possible that the 70-200/f4L IS USM has made that unrealistic due to the relatively small price difference between the two at present and the price change Canon would inflict on the non-IS lens if a new one were to be brought out.

The 85/1.8 is pretty damn good - only problem is CA. If Canon fixed that then they may find the 85/1.2L a harder sell, especially if they do a 85/1.8 IS USM. Thus it'll likely be a 80/2.0 IS USM to provide greater distance between the two products and lessen cannibalization. Rince and repeat for the 50. Don't know about the 135.

There won't be a successor to the 24-105/f4L.

Fine by me, get me 50/1.8 IS USM with similar performance wide open as 35/2 IS USM and I'll happily replace my 50/1.4 (semi)USM, which I have to stop down to at least f/1.8 to get something useful.