Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]

[Woody]

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.

The TSE 17 f/4L lens is rather recent, isn't it? I consider the 200-400 f/4 lens with in-built 1.4x TC and 24-70 f/4L HIS macro lenses to be pretty interesting too. If Canon releases a 16-50 f/4L IS lens with sharp corners, I'll be impressed.

But I agree Canon needs to keep up their innovative work on lenses.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

You know what I want to see them do? I want to see them bring back the 50/1.0L. Remind the world why the EF mount was made to be what it is. I want to see them push the envelope and see what could be done with today's manufacturing techniques and materials. You know your stuff is outdated when even a company like Sigma can beat your 35/1.4L for bokeh quality, corner sharpness, and secondary spectrum control. Then design an affordable series of lenses with emphasis on durability, like a 50/1.4 II, or a simple 50/1.8 that isn't plastic.

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.

While I agree with most of your sentiments, but many of those "golden years" lenses has some serious issues. The 50mm f1.0 L is horrendously soft wide open, The 200mm f1.8 was closer to f2 in reality...and was heavily front heavy...it easily nose dived on a pod becuase the tripod ring was put in completely the wrong place. The 400 DO is widely regarded as softer than the 400mm f2.8 or 400mm f5.6..or even a 300mm f2.8 with a 1.4 TC (which really questions the need for that particuar lens).

While Sigma have a fine 35mm f1.4, my Canon 35mm f1.4 has performed faultlessly over the last 6 years...I have the Canon version and the Sigma version wasn't available and it produces fantasticly sellable pictures. To me, a lens is a lot more than chart results and sharp corners.

A new 100-400 L would be a game changer. The mkI version is one of the most versatile long lenses available and it's very old and certainly needs a re-work. An IS system which didn't come of the ark (it was one of the very first IS systems ever put into a lens)...an AF system which faster than pedestrian....and a sharpness to equal or better the 400mm f5.6 would be very nice. I'd buy one in an instant....I could lose several lenses in my bag to combine into this one lens.

At a guess, I'd say these are coming:
a new ultra wide, say a 14-24L (although a 12-24 would be sweeter)
100-400L replacement
A TS-e 45L and TS-e (longer than) 90L with improved macro capability
A 180mm L Macro replacement
A 300mm f4 L IS replacement
That's six, I'm sure there's more!

I'd like to see a 24-105L update and a 16-35IIL replacement.

 

[Eldar]

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.

The TSE 17 f/4L lens is rather recent, isn't it? I consider the 200-400 f/4 lens with in-built 1.4x TC and 24-70 f/4L HIS macro lenses to be pretty interesting too. If Canon releases a 16-50 f/4L IS lens with sharp corners, I'll be impressed.

But I agree Canon needs to keep up their innovative work on lenses.

Photography is not something that was invented yesterday, so some good thinking has gone into what the producers offer today. I believe what we normally discuss in this forum can be split in two. The bodies, where the technology development still have a very steep curve, can be described as evolving, whereas the the lens market is a rather mature one.

In my view Canon is struggling a bit on the body side, but not on lenses. Yes, there are a few we would like to see upgraded or developed, but in general they have pushed the performance on lots of key focal lengths, both primes and zooms. Hereunder the 17 and 24 TS-E, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 300/400/500/600 big whites etc. etc. They have also delivered a few additions we have not seen before. the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x being one and the 8-15 f4L fisheye zoom being another. I believe it is quite clear that Canon provides the widest range of quality glass in the business.

Looking at my collection of Canon lenses, I can shoot any object from 8-1200mm, in most lighting situations, at any arena and in any climate condition. And my own lack of capabilities set aside, the quality provided by the Canon glass has improved a lot over the last 10 years. I believe that is called pushing the envelope

 

[Sporgon]

Will Canon really produce a 135L IS ? It would be larger than the current one and undoubtably much more expensive, putting it in more conflict with the 70-200 2.8 II. Add 1.8 and both the fore mentioned problems grow. The current lens is the 'holy Grail' of L lenses because it is affordable to many. Put it out of reach and the only thing that will happen is the second hand value of the current one will go up !

It's also relevant that the likes of Sigma haven't (yet) produced a stabilised 135.

 

[Loswr]

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies.

Did Canon design AF versions of those lenses just for you? :

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Here's what you're going to see:

1. Another EF-S 18-135/3.5-5.6 IS consumer-grade zoom.
2. And another EF-S 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS zoom.
3. Some sort of insanely expensive, slow aperture EF wide- to normal non-L prime with added IS, priced around $700-900, like an EF 50/2 IS STM for $800.
4. An incremental update to some already well-regarded L lens that nobody really needs to have updated and even fewer people can actually afford, like the EF 200/2L IS...at 150% of the price.
5. Maybe we'll get a new EF 135/2L II, no IS, for $1800.
6. EF 24-70/2.8L IS, weighing in around 3.5 pounds and costing $3500, just to p*ss off all the people who bought the 24-70/2.8L II.
7. A completely new but also completely redundant design, like a 35-135/4L IS zoom.
8. A 400/5.6L IS...for $3000.

Or any one of those could be replaced by a new 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS II that is priced at absurd levels, say $4200.

Yeah, I'm definitely exaggerating, and sort of joking...but to be honest, I do NOT see Canon moving toward meeting the demands of fast aperture prime users. They are ALL about the zooms, and they are all about slow aperture designs that have looser tolerances that they can slap IS units on, and mark up at 1.5-2x the cost. Their thinking is that photographers don't need fast apertures anymore--after all, aren't the sensors good enough? (And no, they aren't.) When was the last time you saw ANY f/1.8 or faster design announced for production?

You know what I want to see them do? I want to see them bring back the 50/1.0L. Remind the world why the EF mount was made to be what it is. I want to see them push the envelope and see what could be done with today's manufacturing techniques and materials. You know your stuff is outdated when even a company like Sigma can beat your 35/1.4L for bokeh quality, corner sharpness, and secondary spectrum control. Then design an affordable series of lenses with emphasis on durability, like a 50/1.4 II, or a simple 50/1.8 that isn't plastic.

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.

Mikael, are you again? Do not give ideas to greedy executives Canon, they already have many. Let's contemplate what interests us, not what we hate.

 

[Tom W]

I threw out my guesses a while earlier, but if Canon were to build lenses specifically for me....

14-24 f/2.8 L
A new 100-400 f/4-5.6 IS L with the latest/greatest IS and an improved optical formula.

I'm really not hurting in the middle range, and their long lenses are already awesome. A little too expensive though, which is why I have the previous versions of two of them (but hey, a strong used market frees up cash for people to buy in the new market so there).

I'd love to have the 200-400 f/4 +1.4X but that's just out of my price range for now. Ditto on the 500/4 IS II, which is considerably lighter than my 400/2.8 IS. Either would be great for birding without the burden.

 

[Northstar]

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.

I think the new 200-400 w/ built in extender is, in your words, a "novel" lens that "pushes the envelope ". 8)

 

[ME]

It is going to be 8 lenses on a turret. The delays are because of size and weight issues. 4 primes & 4 zooms. And a new bag specially designed for the new 8-in-1 lens. ???

 

[Skywise]

Bllarrrggg!!

I'm just about to make the jump to full frame to the 6D from my T4i for a trip this Christmas and am going to drop some serious coin. (Christmas lights, fireworks, low-light videos... I need a 6D, Santa! Really! ;D) I'm looking to get the FF equivalents to replace my 10-22 and 17-55 EF-S lenses...

To save money I'm going body only and plan on getting the 16-35 f2.8 II to start which will handle my shooting needs short term.

Now there might be a better wide-angle coming soon?? (I need a head banging smiley...)

On the plus side I was looking at the 24-70 f2.8 to replace my 17-55 sometime next year so there might be a better lens for that... But if I knew there was a 10-22 f2.8 with IS coming I might hold off...)

 

[danski0224]

Now there might be a better wide-angle coming soon?? (I need a head banging smiley...)

Just as a friendly reminder, these rumored lenses are still vaporware

Almost certain to be months out, if not longer.

Buy what you need or want now, and enjoy it.

 

[Etienne]

Bllarrrggg!!

I'm just about to make the jump to full frame to the 6D from my T4i for a trip this Christmas and am going to drop some serious coin. (Christmas lights, fireworks, low-light videos... I need a 6D, Santa! Really! ;D) I'm looking to get the FF equivalents to replace my 10-22 and 17-55 EF-S lenses...

To save money I'm going body only and plan on getting the 16-35 f2.8 II to start which will handle my shooting needs short term.

Now there might be a better wide-angle coming soon?? (I need a head banging smiley...)

On the plus side I was looking at the 24-70 f2.8 to replace my 17-55 sometime next year so there might be a better lens for that... But if I knew there was a 10-22 f2.8 with IS coming I might hold off...)

The 16-35 is $1499 at B&H right now. If they update it will be well over $2000 likely. I have the 16-35 II and, in spite of it's faults, it is my most used lens. It delivers.

You could take this approach: get the 24 2.8 IS and the 35 f/2 IS ... these are very good lenses for the money right now. Both are at $550. Alternatively ... get the 24 1.4 ... some wide angle shooters use only this lens and nothing else.

It could be a long wait just to see that the lens you want is not in the update list. The 35 1.4 II has been rumored for many years. You could have bought it when the rumors started and have 5 or 6 years of shots by now.

 

[privatebydesign]

Here's what you're going to see:

1. Another EF-S 18-135/3.5-5.6 IS consumer-grade zoom.
2. And another EF-S 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS zoom.
3. Some sort of insanely expensive, slow aperture EF wide- to normal non-L prime with added IS, priced around $700-900, like an EF 50/2 IS STM for $800.
4. An incremental update to some already well-regarded L lens that nobody really needs to have updated and even fewer people can actually afford, like the EF 200/2L IS...at 150% of the price.
5. Maybe we'll get a new EF 135/2L II, no IS, for $1800.
6. EF 24-70/2.8L IS, weighing in around 3.5 pounds and costing $3500, just to p*ss off all the people who bought the 24-70/2.8L II.
7. A completely new but also completely redundant design, like a 35-135/4L IS zoom.
8. A 400/5.6L IS...for $3000.

Or any one of those could be replaced by a new 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS II that is priced at absurd levels, say $4200.

Yeah, I'm definitely exaggerating, and sort of joking...but to be honest, I do NOT see Canon moving toward meeting the demands of fast aperture prime users. They are ALL about the zooms, and they are all about slow aperture designs that have looser tolerances that they can slap IS units on, and mark up at 1.5-2x the cost. Their thinking is that photographers don't need fast apertures anymore--after all, aren't the sensors good enough? (And no, they aren't.) When was the last time you saw ANY f/1.8 or faster design announced for production?

You know what I want to see them do? I want to see them bring back the 50/1.0L. Remind the world why the EF mount was made to be what it is. I want to see them push the envelope and see what could be done with today's manufacturing techniques and materials. You know your stuff is outdated when even a company like Sigma can beat your 35/1.4L for bokeh quality, corner sharpness, and secondary spectrum control. Then design an affordable series of lenses with emphasis on durability, like a 50/1.4 II, or a simple 50/1.8 that isn't plastic.

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.

Mikael, are you again? Do not give ideas to greedy executives Canon, they already have many. Let's contemplate what interests us, not what we hate.

No too eloquent and the grammar and punctuation are well above the Swede's levels.

Anybody that wants to bring back the 50 f1.0 never used one, it was a technological tour de force and a photographic POS, the TS-E 17 is the modern 50 f1.0, but it actually takes good images too.

But most of his listed lenses are anything like new and the only one that shows interesting technology is the 400 with its DO and IS, but again, after having used DO lenses and seen their out of focus rendering issues I don't see that technology going more mainstream until they sort that major issue out. The TS-E 17 is an optical masterpiece, whatever design team and R&D manager pushed that should be promoted to a director level to enthuse the lens range.

The 85 1.2 is a very old design, as is the 135 f2, both comfortably pre date the EF mount, the 200 f1.8 was made in FD mount too and is nothing more than a tricked 300 f2.8 design. As for the MP-E 65, well Canon have long pushed their macro efforts, I'd like to know the true differences between the MP-E 65 and the old Macrophoto 35mm f2.8 you use on a bellows, obviously there is the electronic component but from an optics point of view I would guess they are pretty similar. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdmacro/2035macro.htm I actually own one too but it is in the UK in storage. EDIT: Having looked up the diagrams for both the 35mm is a very simple design the MP-E 65 is much more complex.

But make no mistake, Canon are still a leader in 135 format lens design, and they have many designs that will never make it to market for various reasons. It's just on top of designing them, they have to make and sell them for a profit to continue.

Look at the 8-15 zoom, the 17 and the IQ popping 24 TS-E's, the constantly improving IS, Hybrid IS, the new generation coatings that have genuine IQ advantages, the 200 f2 was a good step up from the 200 f1.8 and it included an optical redesign along with the IS, the 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8's are widely regarded as prime beaters (at the very least prime equalizers) and it wasn't that long ago that zooms were considered convenient jokes that would never be prime time, they are so good now you can use TC's with them and still get great images. All the MkII IS teles are class leaders as is the 200-400.

There are glaring failings in the Canon EF lineup though. A class matching ultrawide zoom must have huge pent up demand for it, the 45 and 90 TS-E's are crying out for the modern designs but are comparatively low volume sellers, the 400 f5.6 should have been given IS years ago, all the non sealed L's would get a sales boost from just a comparatively simple sealing update etc.

 

[Ruined]

Here are my predictions!

2014 Non-L Lenses
--
EF 50mm f/1.8 IS
EF 85mm f/2.0 IS
EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS II
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS II

2014 L Lenses
--
EF 14-24mm F/2.8L
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
EF 35mm f/1.4L II (IS?)
EF 135mm f/2L (IS?)

 

[lw]

Sorry to disappoint, but these new lenses are just white versions of existing models to match the new white SL1 /100D shortly to be released in Japan and Korea.

Of course, to complement the new white SL1 they will also be re-releasing some of the L lenses such as the 70-200mm F2.8 L in black.

 

[tron]

Sorry to disappoint, but these new lenses are just white versions of existing models to match the new white SL1 /100D shortly to be released in Japan and Korea.

Of course, to complement the new white SL1 they will also be re-releasing some of the L lenses such as the 70-200mm F2.8 L in black.

;D ;D ;D

 

[Lee Jay]

OK, I might have to update my lenses but still allow me to ... order:

a 400mm 5.6L IS with at least the same quality and AF speed
a super quality 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS II

I see very little point in having both. If the 100-400L II is as good or better than the current 400/5.6L, and it's stabilized, why bother with a 400/5.6L? Is it the hope for a lower cost (good luck with that)? The relatively small weight savings? I just don't see the point.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I only read a few posts but it seems like people have missed the obvious, that one will be a new 16-50 f/4 IS.

(and yes you can point to this post and mock, year after year, even twenty years later when the 16-50 f/4 IS is still 'just around the corner' ;D)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

both comfortably pre date the EF mount, the 200 f1.8 was made in FD mount too and is nothing more than a tricked 300 f2.8 design.

Are you sure? Maybe compared to some very old 300 f/2.8 design then? Because all of the EF ones uses fluorite and quite different designs than the 200 1.8 (although it depends what the definition of "tricked" is) if I recall correctly.

Look at the 8-15 zoom, the 17 and the IQ popping 24 TS-E's, the constantly improving IS, Hybrid IS, the new generation coatings that have genuine IQ advantages, the 200 f2 was a good step up from the 200 f1.8 and it included an optical redesign along with the IS, the 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8's are widely regarded as prime beaters (at the very least prime equalizers) and it wasn't that long ago that zooms were considered convenient jokes that would never be prime time, they are so good now you can use TC's with them and still get great images. All the MkII IS teles are class leaders as is the 200-400.

Yup and some early talk has the Canon T&S and 24-70 II sharp to edges on A7R while the Nikon 24-70 is somewhat soft near 24mm on a D800.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, ........., among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.

The 17 is a recent lens though and the 200-400 is something new with the built-in TC and 400mm performance like the old 400 2.8 version and the 70-300L is the best such small tele-zoom with that range out there, and the 24-70 II takes on the 24 1.4 II at 24mm when all the older ones were mush city at 24mm on FF edges and this one is just about APO. The 24-70 f/4 IS is the smallest little standard zoom with some macro ability that delivers pretty decent 24mm FF edges. 100L has hybrid macro IS.

The 55-250 STM is said to be pretty amazing for the size, weight, price.