List of rumored lenses

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,398
5,161
kubelik said:
rejames, you are one strong individual if you're hoping for a faster version of the 28-300 ... that thing is already a monster of a lens

It's no bigger and not much heavier than the 100-400mm, which is fine to carry around for the day (for me, at least). But, take that 28-300mm and make it a constant f/4 - now you're talking about a beast of a lens!
 

ronderick

EOS RP
Jul 21, 2010
396
0
47
Taiwan
neuroanatomist said:
kubelik said:
rejames, you are one strong individual if you're hoping for a faster version of the 28-300 ... that thing is already a monster of a lens

It's no bigger and not much heavier than the 100-400mm, which is fine to carry around for the day (for me, at least). But, take that 28-300mm and make it a constant f/4 - now you're talking about a beast of a lens!

Read somewhere that this lens targets photojournalists, but I guess so far I haven't seen any local media people lugging one of these around ;D

Which brings up another question: how is it possible that Nikon is introducing a lens with similar specs for half the price? ($2,500 vs. $1,000)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,398
5,161
ronderick said:
Which brings up another question: how is it possible that Nikon is introducing a lens with similar specs for half the price? ($2,500 vs. $1,000)

The white paint that Canon uses is a very costly component of the manufacturing process. In fact, the only more expensive component that Canon uses to make lenses is the special green paint they use for the rings on their two DO lenses...

:p
 

kubelik

EOS R
Aug 11, 2010
824
0
neuroanatomist said:
The white paint that Canon uses is a very costly component of the manufacturing process. In fact, the only more expensive component that Canon uses to make lenses is the special green paint they use for the rings on their two DO lenses...

:p

nice one neuro. +1

joking aside ... looking at the MTF charts, there does appear to be a difference in the quality of the optics delivered by the nikon and canon 28-300 zooms. I suspect there are differences in build quality, too; I don't know for certain if the nikkor is a plastic fantastic, but the canon L lens definitely isn't
 
E

Edwin Herdman

Guest
kubelik said:
it's not like Canon even has to officially declare a replacement for the 24-70 f/2.8 L
Are any Canon retirements anything but stealth ones? Meaning that, sure, it might get mentioned that one lens is discontinued, somewhere near the bottom of an email from somebody who works at Canon, but not in an actual press release...speaking of approaching the question differently.
neuroanatomist said:
The white paint that Canon uses is a very costly component of the manufacturing process. In fact, the only more expensive component that Canon uses to make lenses is the special green paint they use for the rings on their two DO lenses...
You're lucky they just used that non-toxic paint (it makes it safe to dance on, unlike the wings of a B2 bomber - you see the government can only afford the toxic variety), instead of opting for a recessed ring of pure, highly polished synthetic turquoise stone.

In all seriousness, after my previous huge post, I'm more interested in whether the 70-300mm L stands up that much better to abuse (and scores well enough on the other bullet points) than the new Tamron to be worth the price premium. (Don't tell me that Canon's "price high, aim kind of high" problems are affecting ALL their products...) It's obviously worth more, but $1100 more? Guess I've already signed away on the image quality end of the spectrum...man, the one thing of Ken Rockwell's that I need to keep in mind is that lenses are tools, not coture objects. *shakes fist at Canon*
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,398
5,161
Edwin Herdman said:
Are any Canon retirements anything but stealth ones?

Sure - pretty much any time they update a lens, i.e. release a Mk II version, the previous version is retired. It might remain on some country-specific websites for a while, if they still have some of the old version in stock, but production of the old one is halted prior to the release of the updated. But that's not necessarily the case when they release a new lens, even if it seems a lot like the old one. The 100mm L macro isn't an upgrade of the non-L version. A 24-70mm f/2.8L IS would not be an upgrade of the 24-70mm f/2.8L, so they may or may not discontinue the non-IS version. They certainly didn't discontinue the non-IS versions of the 70-200mm zooms when they released the IS versions (although they did discontinue the 70-200/2.8 IS when they released the MkII version of that lens).
 

kubelik

EOS R
Aug 11, 2010
824
0
from what I've seen, Canon likes to do the "stealth retirement" as edwin calls it; the lens simply unceremoniously disappears from the website. what's more, they usually pre-empt the shakeup with a "crazy webpage" day, where all sorts of lenses go missing temporarily, throwing everyone into a tizzy, before putting most of them back right where they were, with a big grin on their face. I don't know if it's the way their web-design is set up, but I doubt it -- I call Canon shenanigans on that
 
F

Flake

Guest
none I'd say! the f/2.8 is heavy enough and so far as I know there's no current DSLR f/2 zoom. Cost would also be prohibitive just look at the price of the 200mm f/2
 
S

scalesusa

Guest
Flake said:
none I'd say! the f/2.8 is heavy enough and so far as I know there's no current DSLR f/2 zoom. Cost would also be prohibitive just look at the price of the 200mm f/2

I agree that a f/2 24-70 EF lens is extremely unlikely, but Canon has patented a EF-S 17-55mm f/2, and other lenses do exist.


Check this one out

http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/35-100_20/

or

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/546539-REG/Olympus_261011_14_35mm_f_2_0_ED_SWD.html

These lenses are for 4/3 DSLR's, so they are smaller and lighter than they would be if FF, but f/2 Zooms do exist.
 
E

Edwin Herdman

Guest
Speaking of the 24-70mm L, is there a rumor that a new one is coming along?

I've spent the last week looking at various standard zooms for my APS-C camera but with compatibility for a full-frame (or larger than APS-C) camera in the future, and the current 2002 model of the EF 20-70mm f/2.8 L seems my best bet. Upgrade or not, I need coverage in that focal length. The 17-55mm EF-s is, well, EF-s, and it has a poor minimum focus distance. Sigma and Tamron have interesting-looking options but word is the Tamron 17-50 isn't sharp at f/2.8, and (I missed this until now) the Sigma 17-70mm is a variable focal length option - 70mm is just f/4. One thing I'm wondering about is how the 24-70mm would stack up against the 17mm TS-e or the 24mm II and the other lenses shown in the frame edge comparisons - the 17-40mm and the 16-35 II don't seem all that great (though chromatic abberation isn't too big a deal), though the 16-35 II isn't dropping as much resolution as the 17-40mm.

The only downside to the Canon, besides price, appears to be the lack of IS. Flare characteristics seem pretty good. Of course the zoom range isn't as wide as 17mm, but I have a lens dedicated to that.
 
S

scalesusa

Guest
Edwin Herdman said:
The 17-55mm EF-s is, well, EF-s, and it has a poor minimum focus distance.

Are you referring to magnification? Minimum focus distance for the 17-55mm lens doesn't seem to be poor, none of these are Macro lenses.

The magnification is the best indicator of how large of a image you can get on your sensor, and a lens like the 24-70 with a fairly short MFD and a longer focal length is going to win.

17-55mm Min focus Distance 13.8 inches Max Magnification .16X

24-70mm L Min focus Distance 15 inches Max Magnification .29X

Sigma 17-50mm Min focus Distance 11 inches Max Magnification .20X
 

max

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 20, 2010
83
21
I have a 50mm 1.8II and want to upgrade it... but the 1.4 seems to be so unreliable and crappy constructed that it wont even last....

Should I get it, keep the one I have and wait for a newer version, or get the sigma 1.4?
 

kubelik

EOS R
Aug 11, 2010
824
0
lot of people shooting pretty happily with 50 f/1.4s with no problems, and I'm one of them. definitely shoot plenty with it, and plenty with it in AF mode. considering it costs just over 3 times as much as the f/1.8, the question is really, is it 3 times better. between the image+bokeh quality and the build quality and the extra 2/3 stop of light, I'd say definitely yes.
 
P

prestonpalmer

Guest
This should be added to the Canon Rumors site and kept updated somewhere!
 
T

tzalmagor

Guest
Flake said:
none I'd say! the f/2.8 is heavy enough and so far as I know there's no current DSLR f/2 zoom. Cost would also be prohibitive just look at the price of the 200mm f/2

The EF 24-70mm has a front element large enough to be f/0.95, which makes me wonder - is the lens really as small as it can be ?
 

dougkerr

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 14, 2011
85
0
85
Weatherford, Texas
dougkerr.net
tzalmagor said:
The EF 24-70mm has a front element large enough to be f/0.95, which makes me wonder - is the lens really as small as it can be ?
The entrance pupil (whose diameter determines the f-number) rarely falls at the front element, but usually behind it.

As a result the front element may well need to have a greater diameter to avert vignetting.

Best regards,

Doug
 

hutjeflut

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 22, 2011
55
0
i wouldnt mind the 100-400 getting updated as it might press the price of the old one down a little but i doubt that would happen im never that lucky.
 

GMCPhotographics

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Aug 22, 2010
1,702
424
51
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
DoesNotFollow said:
Any chance the new 24-70 will be f2?
lol! highly unlikely! The current 24-70L is a bit over weight for what it is (although fantastically robust). An f2 design would require the whole lens to double in size and weight.
There was a prototype 35-70/f2 that was seen tested quite a few years back but I haven't heard anything about that lens for a long while.
 
N

NXT1000

Guest
why would canon need to release 35mm f1.4L ?? other than to sell it at higher price, it is perfect already, just like 300mm f2.8L, it is a perfect lens, they just want to make more money by raising price.

135mm f2 IS, that is good product if it is true. If they have no IS, again no reason other than to raise the price of the lens and make more profit.

Since they are unable to deliver lens that they promise, like 300mmL f2.8II etc, i expect zero new lens announcement, they have limited number of engineers, if they are firefight problem with those lens and damage by earthquake and power shortage, how in the world they can deliver new lens?

no power from nuclear plant = no lens, as simple as ABC.