List of rumored lenses

[symmar22]

If they could make the same 135mm f2 with IS, I would be more than satisfied, I'm afraid the extra 1/3 of stop of a 1.8 version would only add weight, bulk, a larger filter size and 3 times the price. The new 135mm f2 IS when it comes will likely sell for 1899$ anyway.

Zeiss already make's a 135 F/1.8. It should be no big deal for canon.

I guess it's no big deal, after all Nikon even had a 300mm f2 in the past; I just wonder if the extra 1/3 stop would justify all the negatives (weight, bulk, filter size, price).

 

[RLPhoto]

If they could make the same 135mm f2 with IS, I would be more than satisfied, I'm afraid the extra 1/3 of stop of a 1.8 version would only add weight, bulk, a larger filter size and 3 times the price. The new 135mm f2 IS when it comes will likely sell for 1899$ anyway.

Zeiss already make's a 135 F/1.8. It should be no big deal for canon.

I guess it's no big deal, after all Nikon even had a 300mm f2 in the past; I just wonder if the extra 1/3 stop would justify all the negatives (weight, bulk, filter size, price).

If canon made a 300mm F/2L IS USM, that would also be in this list of wanted rumored lenses. ;D

That Zeiss 135mm F1.8 is just stunning.

 

[kubelik]

If canon made a 300mm F/2L IS USM, that would also be in this list of wanted rumored lenses. ;D

haha I bet a bunch of the owners would also be in some list of wanted felons 8) that would need some serious, serious cash to blow

 

[symmar22]

Just for the fun.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/300mmedif20/index.htm

 

[RLPhoto]

Just for the fun.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/300mmedif20/index.htm

It's only 17 Pounds. : Completely handhold able.

 

[steliosk]

some wide angle lenses are needed

16-35 f/4 IS USM
however i'd love to have a canon 12-24 4-5.6 USM

 

[symmar22]

some wide angle lenses are needed

16-35 f/4 IS USM
however i'd love to have a canon 12-24 4-5.6 USM

+1, though I would refer a fixed aperture (like 12-24 f4L USM). One super wide prime would be good as well to fill the gap :

17mm f2.8 USM, as a cheaper and lighter alternative to the 17 TS-E.

 

[hemidesign]

Oh Lord, Can't wait for the new 135mm F2 with IS.. WOW!
I don't care how much will cost, I'll buy right now! 8)

 

[curby]

It's great to have a stickied summary of rumored lenses, but the first post hasn't been updated in over two years. Could we find another volunteer to take over maintenance and updates, or unsticky this post to prevent confusion?

 

[hemidesign]

I have my aside money to get:
14-24 f2.8 - 85 f1.2 iii and 135 f2 IS.. Can't wait!

 

[tron]

I have my aside money to get:
14-24 f2.8 - 85 f1.2 iii and 135 f2 IS.. Can't wait!

Oh yes you will wait ;D

 

[ashmadux]

a proper 12-24 for full frame would be absolutely killer. the 16-35 just isnt sharp enough for such duty. I am iteching to go full frame but not having a 10-22 kinda sucks

 

[hemidesign]

a proper 12-24 for full frame would be absolutely killer. the 16-35 just isnt sharp enough for such duty. I am iteching to go full frame but not having a 10-22 kinda sucks

I really don't know if they can make 12-24 (12mm without being fisheye).. I think 14mm is the minimum wide for full frame images..

 

[RLPhoto]

a proper 12-24 for full frame would be absolutely killer. the 16-35 just isnt sharp enough for such duty. I am iteching to go full frame but not having a 10-22 kinda sucks

I really don't know if they can make 12-24 (12mm without being fisheye).. I think 14mm is the minimum wide for full frame images..

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/13mm.htm

 

[rs]

a proper 12-24 for full frame would be absolutely killer. the 16-35 just isnt sharp enough for such duty. I am iteching to go full frame but not having a 10-22 kinda sucks

I really don't know if they can make 12-24 (12mm without being fisheye).. I think 14mm is the minimum wide for full frame images..

Sigma make a 12-24 full frame rectilinear ultrawide zoom. By all accounts it's far from great optically, but it does have a unique angle of view.

Hopefully the new Canon ultra wide zoom will be a worthy rival for the Nikon 14-24/2.8. Their patent is for a 14-24 - I've not seen any 12-24 patents out there, so that suggests they can come up with something close to optical perfection like the Nikon 14-24.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

a proper 12-24 for full frame would be absolutely killer. the 16-35 just isnt sharp enough for such duty. I am iteching to go full frame but not having a 10-22 kinda sucks

The 16-35IIL really is sharp and far better than the ef-s 10-22. But it's a general use ultra wide, so it's not too angular distortion corrected. So it works well photographing landscapes and groups of people. Heavily corrected wide angle lenses are great for photographing building and things with straight lines but anything with a circle or curve gets distorted due to the angle of view....so people or groups of people get very out of shape. The 16-35IIL's achillies heel isn't it's sharpness (which most forums seem to spout on about) but it's CA and flare control. It's an old design and due for a new optical formular....but it's still younger than the vernable 17-40L.
The Nikkor 14-24mm is a great lens for shooting charts, but less so for real world shooting. The huge difficulty in fitting and using filters is big problem for landscape shooters (compare it to how easy 82mm filters are to handle) and due to it's recitiliear design, it's not that great for people shots. Yes it's very sharp wide open, but then again who needs really sharp corners at f2.8? Most landscapers stop down to achieve sufficient DOF and the 16-35IIL easily matches it by f8. For group shots, a bit of vignetting and corner softness looks nice.
Many of my pro photographer friends who shoot Nikon have all sold this lens and gone back to their older 17-35mm options. So I do wonder if a new Canon 14-24mm lens will be that useful if it behaves the same as the Nikkor version. For the extra 2mm wider angle of view and the PITA filter handling...Hmmm...

 

[wayno]

Is the 16-35 ii good sharp at edges at F8 at 16? I'd be surprised.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Is the 16-35 ii good sharp at edges at F8 at 16? I'd be surprised.

I've been using one for 4 years now....have you tried one? I hope you aren't basing your opinions on forum chatter. Please take a look at my flickr page and see if there are any landscapes where the 16-35IIL is found to be lacking...then again, I never found the 17-40L particularly lacking either. Both are excellent lenses.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23849425@N06/

 

[FunPhotons]

Many of my pro photographer friends who shoot Nikon have all sold this lens and gone back to their older 17-35mm options. So I do wonder if a new Canon 14-24mm lens will be that useful if it behaves the same as the Nikkor version. For the extra 2mm wider angle of view and the PITA filter handling...Hmmm...

Exactly my thoughts. I shoot around 20mm, with less or more useful if I can't sneaker around. Much as I'd love another zoom covering 20mm, the bulb/filter issue means I'm unlikely to try it. I do much of my landscape shots in less than ideal weather.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Many of my pro photographer friends who shoot Nikon have all sold this lens and gone back to their older 17-35mm options. So I do wonder if a new Canon 14-24mm lens will be that useful if it behaves the same as the Nikkor version. For the extra 2mm wider angle of view and the PITA filter handling...Hmmm...

Exactly my thoughts. I shoot around 20mm, with less or more useful if I can't sneaker around. Much as I'd love another zoom covering 20mm, the bulb/filter issue means I'm unlikely to try it. I do much of my landscape shots in less than ideal weather.

Yup, I recently used my TS-e 17 to photograph St Mary's Lighthouse. The initial composition didn't really thrill me, so I used some flowing water around the beach rocks as a foreground interest. The spray on the front bulbous element was a complete faf to remove and ruined a number of shots. It was a lot harder to clean than my 16-35, each spot seemed to be huge in the images. Next time i'll go back to my 16-35IIL, sure I would have to correct verticals in post, but that's a small price to pay for the filter issues and cleaning such a big bulbous front element. I've just started using the new Photoix filter options for the TS-e (polariser and 5 stop ND). The 16-35IIL is SO much easier to use in so many ways, which when knee deep in icy water and fading light...simplicty and ease of use are high on my list!