Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]

[Vern]

no predictions, just wishes:

135 1.8 IS (if they just add the IS, I'll probably keep my current 135 2.0, but for 1/2 stop, I'd pay...indoor sport enthusiast, the IS would be nice for other applications though).

600 f4 with built-in 1.4TC (if optically equivalent to the 600II, I would sell mine and trade for the built-in TC b/c I am so frequently fighting to quickly and quietly adapt to different size wildlife photo ops - bluebird drops by my deer blind etc....).

800 f4.5 w built-in 1.4TC (just making this up, I guess no patent has been cited) - w the lighter construction in the version II superteles, maybe this would be under 15 lbs?

That leaves 5 lenses for everyone else's wishes.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

I think you will find, the 200 f1.8 is, effectively, a 300 f2.8 with a built in reverse converter, due to this they used three UD elements rather than one fluorite one, ever wonder why the 200 f1.8 is so long? Technically, it isn't a telephoto lens either, telephoto means the lens is shorter than its focal length, the 200 f1.8 is 208mm long.

 

[privatebydesign]

no predictions, just wishes:

135 1.8 IS (if they just add the IS, I'll probably keep my current 135 2.0, but for 1/2 stop, I'd pay...indoor sport enthusiast, the IS would be nice for other applications though).

600 f4 with built-in 1.4TC (if optically equivalent to the 600II, I would sell mine and trade for the built-in TC b/c I am so frequently fighting to quickly and quietly adapt to different size wildlife photo ops - bluebird drops by my deer blind etc....).

800 f4.5 w built-in 1.4TC (just making this up, I guess no patent has been cited) - w the lighter construction in the version II superteles, maybe this would be under 15 lbs?

That leaves 5 lenses for everyone else's wishes.

f1.8 is one third stop aster than f2, f1.7 is half a stop faster.

 

[docsmith]

Hmmm.....I'd say the lenses a lot of us want:

EF-M 15 mm f/2.8 pancake
EF-M 50 mm f/2 IS pancake
EF-M 55-200 f/4-5.6

14-24 f/2.8 L
35 f/1.4 L IS
135 f/1.8 L IS
400 f/5.6 L IS
100-400 L II

50-150 mm f/2.8 L (ok, that may just be me)

What we are likely to get:

Something like the:
USA announcement of the "new" EF-M 11-22 f/4-5.6 IS STM

EF-S 10-20 f/3.5-5.6 IS

50 f/2 IS
85 f/2 IS

35 f/1.4 L II
135 f/2 L II
TS-E 45 f/2.8 L
TS-E 90 f/2.8 L

Unfortunate, but probably not a single lens I would actually buy. But I can see each of those having their place.

 

[Ruined]

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.

I would personally like to see a cheaper & lower build quality version of the 70-300L with similar optics. A proper update of the non-L 70-300 IS USM, in other words... Reason being that there are virtually no EF-mount telephoto zooms that are both short, light, and sharp. You either have to go long with the 70-200 f/4L, heavy with the 70-300 f/4-5.6L, or long&heavy with the 70-200 f/2.8. It would be nice to see short & light like the 70-300 non-L, but with the optics of the L. It is pretty evident from the 70-300L's design that a lot of the size and weight is from the high quality build; while the build is good, I'd like to see a lighter less obtrusive design as well.

The 55-250 STM is a good example of light build + great optics, but it will not mount on full frame. I don't like the plastic mount though, that is a bit TOO cheap

 

[Loswr]

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.

I would personally like to see a cheaper & lower build quality version of the 70-300L with similar optics. A proper update of the non-L 70-300 IS USM, in other words... Reason being that there are virtually no EF-mount telephoto zooms that are both short, light, and sharp. You either have to go long with the 70-200 f/4L, heavy with the 70-300 f/4-5.6L, or long&heavy with the 70-200 f/2.8. It would be nice to see short & light like the 70-300 non-L, but with the optics of the L. It is pretty evident from the 70-300L's design that a lot of the size and weight is from the high quality build; while the build is good, I'd like to see a lighter less obtrusive design as well.

The 55-250 STM is a good example of light build + great optics, but it will not mount on full frame. I don't like the plastic mount though, that is a bit TOO cheap

Canon says, "If you can afford a FF body, you can afford an L-series telezoom." Not saying that I agree, but everyone who fills out the online registration for a lens gives them data on lenses and bodies owned, and income level.

 

[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.

I think you will find, the 200 f1.8 is, effectively, a 300 f2.8 with a built in reverse converter, due to this they used three UD elements rather than one fluorite one, ever wonder why the 200 f1.8 is so long? Technically, it isn't a telephoto lens either, telephoto means the lens is shorter than its focal length, the 200 f1.8 is 208mm long.

hmm good points about the length, I didn't realize it was so long. You may be correct about it all, interesting, I will have to go look at the diagrams again.

 

[cellomaster27]

I hope canon releases the rumored 50mm 1.8 IS USM before 2014. That's all.

 

[Etienne]

I hope canon releases the rumored 50mm 1.8 IS USM before 2014. That's all.

Make it a 1.4, built like the 35 f/2

 

[cellomaster27]

I hope canon releases the rumored 50mm 1.8 IS USM before 2014. That's all.

Make it a 1.4, built like the 35 f/2

I hope my family won't mind me filling my own stocking then!

 

[pj1974]

I hope canon releases the rumored 50mm 1.8 IS USM before 2014. That's all.

Make it a 1.4, built like the 35 f/2

I hope my family won't mind me filling my own stocking then!

This (ie a Canon 50mm IS) is similar to my #1 wish… (as I’d written earlier in this thread).

But I also have had a few other ideas since, in this order:

2) EF-S 7-18mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS (this would be an awesome lens if Canon could pull develop and produce this!) I don’t need a fast ultrawide. Having said that, I’m very happy with my awesome Sigma 8-16mm
3) EF-S 50-150mm f/2.8 L USM IS (if it could be significantly smaller & cheaper than Canon’s EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM IS). Sigma have a lens of this version, and many reports show it has great IQ (sharp, contrast, low CA, decent bokeh) – but it’s not that much smaller than the FF 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses out there. (It’s about AUD $900 online – great value for what it is, but too large, and I prefer Canon’s AF over Sigma’s for such lenses and critical DOF applications).
4) EF 50-100mm f/2 USM IS (maybe with a built in 1.4x)
5) EF-S 50-100mm f/2 USM IS (seeing as Sigma made the 18-35mm f/1.8 for APS-C, maybe there can be size / other benefits realised)

I think that none of the above lenses are totally unrealistic.... sure, they are very 'brave' and 'adventurous' - but surely possible! 8)

Let's see what 2014 (& beyond) brings... would be a lovely match to a 7DmkII.

Paul

 

[Ruined]

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.

I would personally like to see a cheaper & lower build quality version of the 70-300L with similar optics. A proper update of the non-L 70-300 IS USM, in other words... Reason being that there are virtually no EF-mount telephoto zooms that are both short, light, and sharp. You either have to go long with the 70-200 f/4L, heavy with the 70-300 f/4-5.6L, or long&heavy with the 70-200 f/2.8. It would be nice to see short & light like the 70-300 non-L, but with the optics of the L. It is pretty evident from the 70-300L's design that a lot of the size and weight is from the high quality build; while the build is good, I'd like to see a lighter less obtrusive design as well.

The 55-250 STM is a good example of light build + great optics, but it will not mount on full frame. I don't like the plastic mount though, that is a bit TOO cheap

Canon says, "If you can afford a FF body, you can afford an L-series telezoom." Not saying that I agree, but everyone who fills out the online registration for a lens gives them data on lenses and bodies owned, and income level.

Perhaps, it does not have to be ultra cheap, I am thinking MSRP $1099, with a build quality similar to the EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro but the optics of the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L. Another option would be an update of the 70-300mm DO IS with better image quality. I think there is a market for such a lens, but then again I can simply use my 55-250 STM on my crop body when I want to be less obtrusive.

 

[RC]

I hope canon releases the rumored 50mm 1.8 IS USM before 2014. That's all.

Make it a 1.4, built like the 35 f/2

No, Make it a 1.4, built like the 35 f/2" L build with WS.

 

[Etienne]

I hope canon releases the rumored 50mm 1.8 IS USM before 2014. That's all.

Make it a 1.4, built like the 35 f/2

No, Make it a 1.4, built like the 35 f/2" L build with WS.

I could live with that

 

[TheJock]

I was about to get the 24-105 f4L for Christmas, but everything’s on hold as I would hate to miss out on something “new”.
My wish list of “new” models is as follows

EF 17-135mm f4 L USM IS (preferred option as this would suit almost all my needs and would be a permanent fixture on my camera)
EF 24-150mm f/4 L USM IS (dreaming now! )

Lets push the boundaries further, what would be your ULTIMATE dream lens??

 

[messus]

Lot's of wish-lishes here.

But if Canon are to be serious they need to remedy where they (we) are hurting most, and it is not primarily in the long end.

Although in my opinion, every EF lens from 50mm and down should have been upgraded a long time ago, it is in no doubt that
Canon has for a long time been neglecting the wide angle department, and the current line up has been beaten by competition for a long time..

Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)

Canon EF 14 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma in the corners, beaten well by the Zoom lens 14-24 2.8 Nikon, as well as the Samyang 14mm.
Canon EF 16-35 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ,, lot's of CA/coma and soft in the corners. It has it's strengths in weight and portability but need an IQ upgrade.
Canon EF 24 1.4 L II (2008) has REALLY BAD IQ!! CA and so much coma in the corners that it basically useless in low lit sutations wide open. Beaten well by Samyang 24 1.4! Wake up Canon!!
Canon EF 35 1.4 L II (1998) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma/soft in the corners. An old lens well beaten by Samyang 35 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.4, needs an upgrade, but IMO 24 1.4 is more important to prioritize!
Canon EF 50 1.8 II, (1990), the oldest 50mm is the best 50mm Canon has. Corner sharpness is bad, but still beets all other 50mm from Canon, still this lens suffers from CA and is beaten well by the Nikon 50 1.8 and Sigma 50 1.4.
Canon EF 50 1.4 (1993) is suffering from severe CA wide open, well beaten by the Nikon 50 1.8 / Sigma 50 1.4.

Canon need to pull their finger out of wherever they are currently (the Cinema division) and respect and prioritize the DSLR customers which have put Canon where they are.

My top 3 wishes are:

1. I would like to hope that Canon are capable of producing an optical competitive UWA zoom lens to match/beat the Nikon 14-24 2.8 / Zeiss Distagon 15mm 2.8. Both these mentioned lenses are both better and cheaper than the Canon 14mm 2.8 II.
2. I would love to see an upgrade of the 16-35 2.8 with acceptable corner IQ.
3. I think Canon really need to replace the really bad 24 1.4 II !! The price/IQ here is out of proportions!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)

Canon EF 14 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma in the corners, beaten well by the Zoom lens 14-24 2.8 Nikon, as well as the Samyang 14mm.
Canon EF 16-35 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ,, lot's of CA/coma and soft in the corners. It has it's strengths in weight and portability but need an IQ upgrade.
Canon EF 24 1.4 L II (2008) has REALLY BAD IQ!! CA and so much coma in the corners that it basically useless in low lit sutations wide open. Beaten well by Samyang 24 1.4! Wake up Canon!!
Canon EF 35 1.4 L II (1998) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma/soft in the corners. An old lens well beaten by Samyang 35 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.4, needs an upgrade, but IMO 24 1.4 is more important to prioritize!
Canon EF 50 1.8 II, (1990), the oldest 50mm is the best 50mm Canon has. Corner sharpness is bad, but still beets all other 50mm from Canon, still this lens suffers from CA and is beaten well by the Nikon 50 1.8 and Sigma 50 1.4.
Canon EF 50 1.4 (1993) is suffering from severe CA wide open, well beaten by the Nikon 50 1.8 / Sigma 50 1.4.

Canon need to pull their finger out of wherever they are currently (the Cinema division) and respect and prioritize the DSLR customers which have put Canon where they are.

Have you even tried these lenses or are you chart watching? Your comments are extream and very irritating to those of us who actually use these items in a professional guise....which the L lenses were created. They weren't designed for web trolls who claim knowledge, but their experiance seems to come from looking at web reviews. I use a 35mm f1.4 L, 24mm f1.4 II L and 16-35IIL day in day out professionally and have for many years. If you think those lenses are junk because of a few minor aberations...then you really need to get a grip. No lens is perfect, end of subject. All of the lenses above, I use wide open and I have produced great photos which sell and sell. A fast prime shot a f1.2 or f1.4 is a remarkable thing and a lens which is delivered to the customer with pro build, AF and great optics for around £1200 is quite remarkable. These lenses are astonishing and can produce amazing photographs in the right hands. If you pass over these gems because of some crazy elitest attitude...it really is your loss....but please don't come on here and spout your views as verbatim...as you will be challenged!
Consider this, most of the best photographs ever taken were taken on quite lowly kit...Steve McCurry, Cartier Bresson...to name a few. Perhapse we should be more critical of our photographs than our lenses? I suspaect that 99% of modern lenses and cameras out perform their users.

 

[Eldar]

Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)

Canon EF 14 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma in the corners, beaten well by the Zoom lens 14-24 2.8 Nikon, as well as the Samyang 14mm.
Canon EF 16-35 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ,, lot's of CA/coma and soft in the corners. It has it's strengths in weight and portability but need an IQ upgrade.
Canon EF 24 1.4 L II (2008) has REALLY BAD IQ!! CA and so much coma in the corners that it basically useless in low lit sutations wide open. Beaten well by Samyang 24 1.4! Wake up Canon!!
Canon EF 35 1.4 L II (1998) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma/soft in the corners. An old lens well beaten by Samyang 35 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.4, needs an upgrade, but IMO 24 1.4 is more important to prioritize!
Canon EF 50 1.8 II, (1990), the oldest 50mm is the best 50mm Canon has. Corner sharpness is bad, but still beets all other 50mm from Canon, still this lens suffers from CA and is beaten well by the Nikon 50 1.8 and Sigma 50 1.4.
Canon EF 50 1.4 (1993) is suffering from severe CA wide open, well beaten by the Nikon 50 1.8 / Sigma 50 1.4.

Canon need to pull their finger out of wherever they are currently (the Cinema division) and respect and prioritize the DSLR customers which have put Canon where they are.

Have you even tried these lenses or are you chart watching? Your comments are extream and very irritating to those of us who actually use these items in a professional guise....which the L lenses were created. They weren't designed for web trolls who claim knowledge, but their experiance seems to come from looking at web reviews. I use a 35mm f1.4 L, 24mm f1.4 II L and 16-35IIL day in day out professionally and have for many years. If you think those lenses are junk because of a few minor aberations...then you really need to get a grip. No lens is perfect, end of subject. All of the lenses above, I use wide open and I have produced great photos which sell and sell. A fast prime shot a f1.2 or f1.4 is a remarkable thing and a lens which is delivered to the customer with pro build, AF and great optics for around £1200 is quite remarkable. These lenses are astonishing and can produce amazing photographs in the right hands. If you pass over these gems because of some crazy elitest attitude...it really is your loss....but please don't come on here and spout your views as verbatim...as you will be challenged!
Consider this, most of the best photographs ever taken were taken on quite lowly kit...Steve McCurry, Cartier Bresson...to name a few. Perhapse we should be more critical of our photographs than our lenses? I suspaect that 99% of modern lenses and cameras out perform their users.

+1 You beat me to it

 

[Don Haines]

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)

I'd mock the post, but it is probably going to be released at the same time as a 400F5.6II. Right now it looks like a horse race between the two lenses..... A horse race where everyone else has finished and gone home

 

[tron]

Now there are other lenses, but these are the most crucial IMO: (I have / or have had, all these lenses)

Canon EF 14 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma in the corners, beaten well by the Zoom lens 14-24 2.8 Nikon, as well as the Samyang 14mm.
Canon EF 16-35 2.8 L II (2007) has bad IQ,, lot's of CA/coma and soft in the corners. It has it's strengths in weight and portability but need an IQ upgrade.
Canon EF 24 1.4 L II (2008) has REALLY BAD IQ!! CA and so much coma in the corners that it basically useless in low lit sutations wide open. Beaten well by Samyang 24 1.4! Wake up Canon!!
Canon EF 35 1.4 L II (1998) has bad IQ, lot's of CA/coma/soft in the corners. An old lens well beaten by Samyang 35 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.4, needs an upgrade, but IMO 24 1.4 is more important to prioritize!
Canon EF 50 1.8 II, (1990), the oldest 50mm is the best 50mm Canon has. Corner sharpness is bad, but still beets all other 50mm from Canon, still this lens suffers from CA and is beaten well by the Nikon 50 1.8 and Sigma 50 1.4.
Canon EF 50 1.4 (1993) is suffering from severe CA wide open, well beaten by the Nikon 50 1.8 / Sigma 50 1.4.

Canon need to pull their finger out of wherever they are currently (the Cinema division) and respect and prioritize the DSLR customers which have put Canon where they are.

Have you even tried these lenses or are you chart watching? Your comments are extream and very irritating to those of us who actually use these items in a professional guise....which the L lenses were created. They weren't designed for web trolls who claim knowledge, but their experiance seems to come from looking at web reviews. I use a 35mm f1.4 L, 24mm f1.4 II L and 16-35IIL day in day out professionally and have for many years. If you think those lenses are junk because of a few minor aberations...then you really need to get a grip. No lens is perfect, end of subject. All of the lenses above, I use wide open and I have produced great photos which sell and sell. A fast prime shot a f1.2 or f1.4 is a remarkable thing and a lens which is delivered to the customer with pro build, AF and great optics for around £1200 is quite remarkable. These lenses are astonishing and can produce amazing photographs in the right hands. If you pass over these gems because of some crazy elitest attitude...it really is your loss....but please don't come on here and spout your views as verbatim...as you will be challenged!
Consider this, most of the best photographs ever taken were taken on quite lowly kit...Steve McCurry, Cartier Bresson...to name a few. Perhapse we should be more critical of our photographs than our lenses? I suspaect that 99% of modern lenses and cameras out perform their users.

+1 You beat me to it

As I have some of the mentioned lenses and have seen photos from some other allow me to comment:

Canon EF14mm f2.8L II I do have it. It has good IQ and NOT so much Coma! It does have some but it is not a buy stopper.
Canon EF16-35mm f2.8 L (Sorry it's the version I that I have and can comment upon): Bad IQ at the corners (and only in the corners)
and a lot of coma. Judging from that I believe that the version II will not be a huge upgrade (at least regarding coma)

Canon 35mm 1.4L I do have it and It does have coma.

Canon 24mm 1.4L II. This I do not have but i have NO reason to doubt the following 2 reviews:

http://www.extremeinstability.com/lens24mm.html
http://www.lenstip.com/245.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.html
According to the screenshots shown in these reviews it is a joke lens regarding coma.
If you add the fact that my Zeiss 21mm 2.8 ZE has very good corners and almost NO coma I believe that there is indeed room for improvement for Canon lenses.