Lenses Lenses Lenses

Status
Not open for further replies.

Canon Rumors Guy

Canon EOS 40D
CR Pro
  • Jul 20, 2010
    9,723
    2,395
    Canada
    www.canonrumors.com
    HTML:
    <p><strong>From EOS-Numerique
    
    <span style="font-weight: normal;">A thread has shown up on the EOS Numerique forum about what’s coming shortly. I will talk about what’s posted there.</span></strong></p>
    <p><strong><a href="http://www.eos-numerique.com/forums/f11/les-nouveautes-canon-pour-la-rentree-153805/"><span style="font-weight: normal;">http://www.eos-numerique.com/forums/f11/les-nouveautes-canon-pour-la-rentree-153805/</span></a> </strong></p>
    <p><strong>Here’s what I know so far
    
    <span style="font-weight: normal;">As I wrote yesterday, 2 of the big white lenses are going to be replaced. The above link says all 4, however I’m still told it’ll just be 2 at a time.</span></strong></p>
    <p>300 f/2.8L IS II
    
    400 f/2.8L IS II</p>
    <p><strong>[CR3]</strong> on at least 2 big white lenses getting replacements.</p>
    <p><strong>Zooms
    
    <span style="font-weight: normal;">The above link points to a 100-300L. I’ve heard a bit about this over the last few weeks.</span></strong></p>
    <p>If I had to guess, it could be an EF 100-300 f/4L IS.  It wouldn’t be 2.8 and I highly doubt it would be variable aperture.</p>
    <p>A wide angle zoom is also coming, <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/07/new-f4l-ef-zoom-cr1/" target="_self">I’ve heard 16-50 f/4L IS</a>. It may be something different, but I do not see a 2.8 replacement of the 16-35 f/2.8 II.</p>
    <p>The 8mm-12mm mentioned in the forum post I’ve heard nothing about.</p>
    <p>Like we’ve said in the past, there are 3-4 lenses coming this fall.</p>
    <p>I will <strong>[CR2]</strong> this.</p>
    <p><strong>The Bad News
    
    <span style="font-weight: normal;">I have heard NOTHING about the following desired lenses.</span> </strong></p>
    <p><strong>24-70 f/2.8L IS
    
    <span style="font-weight: normal;">If it’s coming, it’s been very well hidden. Not a single source has mentioned anything about it.</span> </strong></p>
    <p><strong>50 f/1.4 II
    
    <span style="font-weight: normal;">Nothing has come my way in a long time.</span> </strong></p>
    <p><strong>August 19 Announcements
    
    <span style="font-weight: normal;">The above thread also says there will be announcements tomorrow. To be honest, I’ve received an equal number of yays & nays for camera stuff being announced tomorrow.</span></strong></p>
    <p><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">More soon</span></strong></p>
    <p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
     
    M

    muteteh

    Guest
    The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens. My guess is Canon thinks sales would gain more from giving new photographers an advanced feature than giving other photographers a needed feature.

    An EF 100-300 f/4 IS ? Between the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6, and existing EF 100-400mm, I don't see how this caters photographers' needs better than an upgraded EF 100-400mm.

    An EF-S 8mm-12mm ? I think Canon needs to invest in it's wide angle lenses, but that an APS-C diagonal fisheye would sell better ?

    [Why ? The Canon fisheye is a very good seller on Amazon, and practically every Canon body - including APS-C bodies ! - has a DxO module for the EF 15mm fishseye lens. The only lenses I am likely to buy from Canon in the next one to two years are ultra wide for FF, e.g. circular fisheye and EF 14mm-whatever f/4 or f/2.8]
     
    Upvote 0

    funkboy

    6D & a bunch of crazy primes
    Jul 28, 2010
    475
    4
    52
    elsewhere
    A 100-300 f/4L IS would suit my needs perfectly.

    Certainly better optically than the existing 100-400, plus no trombone zoom.

    I'd much rather have a smaller/lighter 100-300 f/4 and add my 1.4x TC when I need it. A little more reach at f/5.6, great wide-open, and still retains AF without tape.

    Of course, this would mean that I wouldn't be buying that 70-200 f/4L I've been wanting...
     
    Upvote 0

    ronderick

    EOS RP
    Jul 21, 2010
    396
    0
    48
    Taiwan
    I think the 2 new f/4 lenses would strengthen the travel/outdoor gear package and compliment the 24-105 really nicely.

    So instead of the old set (17-40mm f/4 + 24-105mm f/4 + 100-400mm f/4-5.6), we get the new power-up version (16-50mm f/4 + 24-105mm f/4 + 100-300mm f/4).

    Like everyone else, I really hope that there's no more pull/push zoom on the white lens... it's such a royal pain when rain sets in...

    However, I am a bit worried about the weight, size, and especially the $$$ of these new L lenses... :'(
     
    Upvote 0
    J

    Justin

    Guest
    We're all worried friend. The way the 70-200 f/2.8 went up from 1799 street to 2499 is not encouraging for the future upgrades. 25% plus increases are unwelcome. The only thing they do preserve is the resale value on the previous versions--which I suppose is a good thing for some folks.

    ronderick said:
    I think the 2 new f/4 lenses would strengthen the travel/outdoor gear package and compliment the 24-105 really nicely.

    So instead of the old set (17-40mm f/4 + 24-105mm f/4 + 100-400mm f/4-5.6), we get the new power-up version (16-50mm f/4 + 24-105mm f/4 + 100-300mm f/4).

    Like everyone else, I really hope that there's no more pull/push zoom on the white lens... it's such a royal pain when rain sets in...

    However, I am a bit worried about the weight, size, and especially the $$$ of these new L lenses... :'(
     
    Upvote 0

    kubelik

    EOS R
    Aug 11, 2010
    824
    0
    I agree with muteteh and Justin's sentiments about a 100-300 f/4; namely, it doesn't really do much for you that canon's current lineup doesn't already do. I hate comparing against nikon but I do think they had the right idea in going to a 200-400 f/4.

    I'd love to see the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS replaced by a 200-400mm f/4-5.6 IS that uses a conventional zoom ring, weathersealing, and newer IS. would I pay a 25% markup from the Dust Buster's price for a lens like that? a resounding heck yes.

    16-50 f/4 would be a great landscape walkaround lens to replace the 17-40, the extra bit of range on both ends makes a lot of sense. agree with CR guy that replacing the 16-35 II makes little sense for canon at the moment
     
    Upvote 0
    S

    Sebastian

    Guest
    muteteh said:
    The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens.

    I'm totally with you here. But remember that we've enough freaks in this very forum would happily cram an IS even in a fisheye. ;)

    muteteh said:
    An EF 100-300 f/4 IS ? Between the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6, and existing EF 100-400mm, I don't see how this caters photographers' needs better than an upgraded EF 100-400mm.

    Again, I fully have to concur. Owning both a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 100-400, I definitely wouldn't have a need for a 100-300 f/4 in between. (A f/2.8 would be a different thing. ;)) And personally, I really like the long end of my 100-400, so I also wouldn't replace it with a 100-300.

    However, if a 100-300 f/4 would have a better built and image quality over the 100-400, people who haven't already got a lens that range could well choose the 100-300.


    Regards,

    Sebastian
     
    Upvote 0
    C

    coldstone

    Guest
    100-300 is a bad choice in my opinion
    after buying a 70-200 4 IS thats even more frustrating (because this is one of my best lenses) since its almost the same range with a 1,5tc (with very little loss in image quality) ...
    a 200-400 4-5,6 IS would be a better solution
    the 16-50 is a good choice in my opinion since the 16-35 I/II were really bad in the corners
    and you had no other choice if you wanted a lens that can use filters (and yes that is important)
    and is sharp (at least in the center)

    16-50 70-200 200-400 would be just wonderful maybe with some HIS-macros at 100 (already there) and 200
    16-35 24-70... would be ok too
     
    Upvote 0
    L

    Lee Jay

    Guest
    Canon Rumors said:
    <p><strong>From EOS-Numerique

    <span style=\"font-weight: normal;\">The above link points to a 100-300L. I’ve heard a bit about this over the last few weeks.</span></strong></p>
    <p>If I had to guess, it could be an EF 100-300 f/4L IS.  It wouldn’t be 2.8...

    Why not? Sigma makes the pretty-solid 120-300/2.8. A 100-300/2.8 would compete well with the Sigma and the Nikon 200-400/4 (100-300/2.8 + 1.4 = 140-420/4). If they replaced the 300/2.8 with that, I think that would be great. Of course, I doubt they will but I see no reason they couldn't.
     
    Upvote 0
    M

    martijn

    Guest
    It would be very nice if the new batch would include some reasonably priced models (below 2500 euros)...even the least expensive of those new tele-primes would be well over 5 grand I guess.

    Actually I was hoping for an upgraded 100-400 but a 100-300/4 would be a reasonable alternative, with that one stop advantage.

    A 100-300/2.8 would almost certainly be too heavy and expensive...

    I was also thinking of getting the 300/4 prime, but now I'll wait and see if that 100-300/4 actually does emerge in the short term...with the latest technology that Canon has (like the 70-200/2.8 IS II), it may turn out to be at least as good or perhaps even better than the prime too (better IS, coatings etc.)...
    I'd expect to pay something in the region of 1500-2000 euros for one, at least once the early premium has worn off a bit.
     
    Upvote 0
    M

    muteteh

    Guest
    Sebastian said:
    muteteh said:
    The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens.

    I'm totally with you here. But remember that we've enough freaks in this very forum would happily cram an IS even in a fisheye. ;)

    Maybe that circular fisheye would have gotten more votes if I had H-IS added, as well as f/1.0 & rounded 8 blades aperture for that shallow DOF with smooth bokeh effect.
     
    Upvote 0
    J

    Justin

    Guest
    I find it hard to believe Canon isn't going to match the Nikon 14-24 2.8.

    I find it harder to believe the 24-70 2.8 IS is falling off the rumor wagon.

    I find it ridiculous that Canon chooses now to upgrade all its super teles after the olympics and the world cup.

    I find it just plain dumb that Canon doesn't have a competitor or superior camera to compete with the D3s.

    Why no full frame, fast AF, clean high iso, high fps, monster from Canon. Why?
     
    Upvote 0

    unfocused

    Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
    Jul 20, 2010
    6,947
    5,089
    69
    Springfield, IL
    www.thecuriouseye.com
    funkboy said:
    A 100-300 f/4L IS would suit my needs perfectly.

    I'd much rather have a smaller/lighter 100-300 f/4 and add my 1.4x TC when I need it. A little more reach at f/5.6, great wide-open, and still retains AF without tape.

    martijn said:
    It would be very nice if the new batch would include some reasonably priced models (below 2500 euros)...even the least expensive of those new tele-primes would be well over 5 grand I guess.

    Actually I was hoping for an upgraded 100-400 but a 100-300/4 would be a reasonable alternative, with that one stop advantage.

    hmmm said:
    +1 to Funkboys comments. That was almost word for word what I was going to say. :eek:

    This is a great option for those who have been waiting for either a 300 f4L IS update or a 100-400 5.6L IS update.

    Same here. I've used the 300 f4 and the 100-400. The 300 is a great lens and still very sharp with the 1.4 tele-converter. But, I did find the lack of zoom a bit problematic. While I'd still prefer an update on the 100-400, a sharp and affordable 100-300 constant aperture would be a reasonable compromise when combined with a tele-converter.

    Of course, we all lust after the 2.8 versions, but I'd settle for the slightly slower lens if it's affordable and then rent the faster lenses when needed.

    It seems like all these superfast, super long telephotos are great for niche shooters, but it's hard to justify the expense if you aren't using them every day.
     
    Upvote 0
    Status
    Not open for further replies.