Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]

[RLPhoto]

Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?

you have not read, what he wrote. He is using multiple Canon bodies for stills and video. Out in the wild.
The last thing I'd want out there is a body from another manufaturer, with different user interface, different sensor characteristics, different batteries, etc. ... how about you?

I would.

 

[ksagomonyants]

For those who expect a new 200 f2 ii, what new features do you think will be implemented in it? Does anyone know how much more expensive the new 300 2.8 ii was as compared to the 300 f2.8 i when the former was released?

 

[9VIII]

Currently I have the 1DX, the 5D3 and 2 x 5D2, 4 x T3.

Four T3 bodies? Was this model chosen just because of price or is there something specific about the camera that makes it more appealing?
After owning one for more than a year now, and after buying a 5D2 earlier this year, I'm still quite satisfied with the performance of the T3. One example is that If I'm doing HDR I prefer the T3 because it gives a cleaner image with long exposures. I'm guessing those cameras spend a lot of time looking at the sky?

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??

I'm waiting for the 50-500/f1.4L IS USM

Are you sure you want a lens with a 357mm front element?

 

[Loswr]

For those who expect a new 200 f2 ii, what new features do you think will be implemented in it?

The new 'white' paint color.

 

[bigmag13]

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.

Well said!

 

[Northstar]

Just watched the imax 3d space movie that included some pretty good info on the Hubble space telescope...awesome tech.

I'm hoping a smaller version of the Hubble is coming from canon in 2014...ef mount "L" of course....red ring optional.

 

[Grumbaki]

Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?

you have not read, what he wrote. He is using multiple Canon bodies for stills and video. Out in the wild.
The last thing I'd want out there is a body from another manufaturer, with different user interface, different sensor characteristics, different batteries, etc. ... how about you?

I would.

I would too with the situation you describe.
That's another scale but I'm in office I have to deal with qwerty windows 7 pc and at home a azerty imac.
If your diner relies on it, you adapt. Charles said it.

 

[eml58]

For those who expect a new 200 f2 ii, what new features do you think will be implemented in it?

The new 'white' paint color.

I'm afraid I tend to agree, here, New White Paint same as the Series II Lenses, 20% less weight ?? (Not sure how much, but some weight saving).

I say "afraid" to agree only because I would love to see the 200f/2 get the series II Lens treatment, but it's my view that the current 200f/2 is so good I just don't see why Canon would do anything to it.

Plus the new Lens should it get the series II treatment, will get the Series II price increase, I had the 300f/2.8 series I and the 400 series I before upgrading both Lenses (have sold the 400 since though), in general the price increase for the series II over the series I has been in the order +/- 30% increase, that would likely see a series II 200f/2 move to above 8K, not sure that would be a smart move for Canon.

Why mess with perfection ??

 

[TW]

I'd say 8 per year for the next 3 years...

EF prime:
20 2.8 IS
50 1.8 IS
90 2.0 IS (replacing 85 & 100)

EF L prime:
14 2.8
35 1.4
50 1.2
85 1.2
135 1.8 IS
200 1.8 IS
300 4.0 IS
400 5.6 IS
800 5.6 IS

EF L zoom:
12-28 2.8 (replacing 16-35)
17-50 4.0 IS (replacing 17-40)
24-70 2.8 IS
70-200 4.0 IS
100-400 4.0-5.6 IS

EF L specialty:
45 2.8 TS
105 2.8 TS Macro (replacing 90 & old 100 macro)
200 4.0 IS Macro (replacing 185 & 200)

EF-S:
12-18 3.5
16-55 2.8
30-150 4.0

 

[ksagomonyants]

I'd say 8 per year for the next 3 years...

EF prime:
20 2.8 IS
50 1.8 IS
90 2.0 IS (replacing 85 & 100)

EF L prime:
14 2.8
35 1.4
50 1.2
85 1.2
135 1.8 IS
200 1.8 IS
300 4.0 IS
400 5.6 IS
800 5.6 IS

EF L zoom:
12-28 2.8 (replacing 16-35)
17-50 4.0 IS (replacing 17-40)
24-70 2.8 IS
70-200 4.0 IS
100-400 4.0-5.6 IS

EF L specialty:
45 2.8 TS
105 2.8 TS Macro (replacing 90 & old 100 macro)
200 4.0 IS Macro (replacing 185 & 200)

EF-S:
12-18 3.5
16-55 2.8
30-150 4.0

How many of them are you planning to add to your lens collection?

 

[TW]

I'd say 8 per year for the next 3 years...

EF prime:
20 2.8 IS
50 1.8 IS
90 2.0 IS (replacing 85 & 100)

EF L prime:
14 2.8
35 1.4
50 1.2
85 1.2
135 1.8 IS
200 1.8 IS
300 4.0 IS
400 5.6 IS
800 5.6 IS

EF L zoom:
12-28 2.8 (replacing 16-35)
17-50 4.0 IS (replacing 17-40)
24-70 2.8 IS
70-200 4.0 IS
100-400 4.0-5.6 IS

EF L specialty:
45 2.8 TS
105 2.8 TS Macro (replacing 90 & old 100 macro)
200 4.0 IS Macro (replacing 185 & 200)

EF-S:
12-18 3.5
16-55 2.8
30-150 4.0

How many of them are you planning to add to your lens collection?

None of the EF-S, all the specialty and non-L primes, probably a couple of the zooms depending on price and performance, plus the 135, 300 and 400.

 

[StudentOfLight]

105 2.8 TS Macro (replacing 90 & old 100 macro)

How large do you expect the front element of this Tilt-shift to be?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I'd say 8 per year for the next 3 years...

EF prime:
20 2.8 IS
50 1.8 IS
90 2.0 IS (replacing 85 & 100)

EF L prime:
14 2.8
35 1.4
50 1.2
85 1.2
135 1.8 IS
200 1.8 IS
300 4.0 IS
400 5.6 IS
800 5.6 IS

EF L zoom:
12-28 2.8 (replacing 16-35)
17-50 4.0 IS (replacing 17-40)
24-70 2.8 IS
70-200 4.0 IS
100-400 4.0-5.6 IS

EF L specialty:
45 2.8 TS
105 2.8 TS Macro (replacing 90 & old 100 macro)
200 4.0 IS Macro (replacing 185 & 200)

EF-S:
12-18 3.5
16-55 2.8
30-150 4.0

I like your list. I could buy:
EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 (my favorite)
EF 200mm F4 IS Macro (could even be F5.6 because for macro I'd only use narrow openings anyway)
EF 90mm F2 IS (great for portrait)
EF 50mm F1.8 IS (if quality and price are fair)

Hopefully Canon listen to your ideas.

 

[jrista]

105 2.8 TS Macro (replacing 90 & old 100 macro)

How large do you expect the front element of this Tilt-shift to be?

Agreed. Aren't most of the current TS lenses f/3.5 max aperture?

 

[Loswr]

105 2.8 TS Macro (replacing 90 & old 100 macro)

How large do you expect the front element of this Tilt-shift to be?

Agreed. Aren't most of the current TS lenses f/3.5 max aperture?

Sorry, I don't get the point. How big do you think it would need to be? The 45mm and 90mm are f/2.8. The TS-E 90mm takes 58mm filters, and the front element is recessed and noticeably smaller than the filter threads. There's clearly room to add 10-15mm to the focal length, increase the image circle to match the 17/24, and still have a pretty small front element.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?

you have not read, what he wrote. He is using multiple Canon bodies for stills and video. Out in the wild.
The last thing I'd want out there is a body from another manufaturer, with different user interface, different sensor characteristics, different batteries, etc. ... how about you?

If my livelihood depended on it, I would.

I might still do that in part (even though I do this for a hobby). I did not like the WA lenses of Canon so I might just pick up a used D800 (sell quite cheap these days) and the 14-24.

It's such a common perception that pros NEED the best cameras. In most cases they don't, infact they get by using quite humble equipment. The things which amatures prize, are not the same things which pros need or desire. MP count is typically very low on our lists. Reliability and build generally are they highest factors. A client usually doesn't care if a quality image is 18mp or 36mp, as long as it's the image they want, it's sharp and clean.

 

[StudentOfLight]

105 2.8 TS Macro (replacing 90 & old 100 macro)

How large do you expect the front element of this Tilt-shift to be?

Agreed. Aren't most of the current TS lenses f/3.5 max aperture?

Sorry, I don't get the point. How big do you think it would need to be? The 45mm and 90mm are f/2.8. The TS-E 90mm takes 58mm filters, and the front element is recessed and noticeably smaller than the filter threads. There's clearly room to add 10-15mm to the focal length, increase the image circle to match the 17/24, and still have a pretty small front element.

I was merely asking an honest question and it was misinterpreted.

I guess if I had to ask my question again, it would be stated like this... Do you think it would have an significant enlargement of front element (to improve IQ when shifting) and an appropriate increase in filter size (e.g. 72mm) or do you think it will retain 58mm filter size of the current 90mm?

Another website (http://camyx.com/rumors/2013/10/canon-ts-e-135mm-f2-8l-lens/) states that the upgrade will be TS-E 135mm f/2.8 L, but I haven't seen any other source with these specifications. I would imagine that such a design would be quite large and heavy vs the old lens, although if included a tripod collar that might be useful.

Does anyone have links to a patent?

 

[tron]

I guess some things do not apply to TS-E world. I do not mean of course the diameter (opening) of the front element but the total size.

See:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/818360-REG/Schneider_06_1064382_PC_TS_Super_Angulon.html

The above 90mm TS lens is bigger (length and diameter) and much heavier than Canon! Yet it is f/4.5!!!

The above is just a thought as I am not an expert. But I deducted so from the above example....

 

[Don Haines]

Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?

you have not read, what he wrote. He is using multiple Canon bodies for stills and video. Out in the wild.
The last thing I'd want out there is a body from another manufaturer, with different user interface, different sensor characteristics, different batteries, etc. ... how about you?

If my livelihood depended on it, I would.

I might still do that in part (even though I do this for a hobby). I did not like the WA lenses of Canon so I might just pick up a used D800 (sell quite cheap these days) and the 14-24.

It's such a common perception that pros NEED the best cameras. In most cases they don't, infact they get by using quite humble equipment. The things which amatures prize, are not the same things which pros need or desire. MP count is typically very low on our lists. Reliability and build generally are they highest factors. A client usually doesn't care if a quality image is 18mp or 36mp, as long as it's the image they want, it's sharp and clean.

funny you should say this......

It's the results that count, not the process... the bride wants to see beautiful pictures of herself and her family/friends.... who cares what the camera and lens are as long as the pictures are good...

And as to what kind of lunatic would buy gear they hate.... Me. In my day job I have test equipment that has user interfaces that are unusable without a manual and notes... I HATE!!! the gear, but it is the best at what it does so that's what we get...

 

[J.R.]

Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?

you have not read, what he wrote. He is using multiple Canon bodies for stills and video. Out in the wild.
The last thing I'd want out there is a body from another manufaturer, with different user interface, different sensor characteristics, different batteries, etc. ... how about you?

If my livelihood depended on it, I would.

I might still do that in part (even though I do this for a hobby). I did not like the WA lenses of Canon so I might just pick up a used D800 (sell quite cheap these days) and the 14-24.

It's such a common perception that pros NEED the best cameras. In most cases they don't, infact they get by using quite humble equipment. The things which amatures prize, are not the same things which pros need or desire. MP count is typically very low on our lists. Reliability and build generally are they highest factors. A client usually doesn't care if a quality image is 18mp or 36mp, as long as it's the image they want, it's sharp and clean.

I don't think you read the posts carefully enough. The question here was not if a PRO needs the best camera. AvTvM's question was that why would you buy into a different system? My view is, why not? Learning a new system is by far a better option than buying gear you hate and rant about in internet forums.

Coming to your post, it all depends on what you shoot. Maybe a wedding shooter can get by with the previous generation equipment but wildlife / bird shooters do usually buy the best and the latest equipment to come out with standout photos, or do you mean to suggest that a 1DX with a 600mm f/4 offers no improvement at all?

BTW, isn't it funny how some Pros come out citing humble equipment when they themselves -

use a 35mm f1.4 L, 24mm f1.4 II L and 16-35IIL day in day out professionally and have for many years.