More Lens Suggestions [CR1]

[neuroanatomist]

Why do you have to ruin my dreams? And so quickly?!? ;D Oh, well, that's what I get for not doing the math...

LOL.

One more point to drive it home - compare a hypothetical 400/4L IS to the existing 400/4 DO IS. What diffractive optics do is, in effect, bend the light more sharply. That means a DO lens can be shorter than an non-DO counterpart (the 400/4 DO is shorter than the 300/2.8), but it still needs the same diameter, and it won't necessarily be much lighter. It could be less expensive, since Canon's DO lenses do seem overpriced for what they are.

 

[Tiosabas]

Why do you have to ruin my dreams? And so quickly?!? ;D Oh, well, that's what I get for not doing the math...

LOL.

One more point to drive it home - compare a hypothetical 400/4L IS to the existing 400/4 DO IS. What diffractive optics do is, in effect, bend the light more sharply. That means a DO lens can be shorter than an non-DO counterpart (the 400/4 DO is shorter than the 300/2.8), but it still needs the same diameter, and it won't necessarily be much lighter. It could be less expensive, since Canon's DO lenses do seem overpriced for what they are.

Well it would look like this prototype 400 f4L non-DO with an IS switch. Scroll about half way down.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2000/9/6/canon_400do

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

One thing is for sure: Canon rumors are quantum leap better then Canon launches. Big LOL. ;D

;D

Anyway I though this was the year of the dragon not lenses???

 

[neuroanatomist]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2000/9/6/canon_400do

Great find, thanks! Suggests there was a prototype, or at least a mockup, over 11 years ago! Here's the image:

400/4 DO on top, non-DO version on bottom, no colored rings on them...

 

[kpk1]

As more as you wish a lens as much Canon will fail you. Look at the 24-70. They put on the price and they cut on the performance, no IS.
So if you want something then ssssssst, Canon is working on it. The surprise is guarantied.

 

[bigblue1ca]

Look at the 24-70. They put on the price and they cut on the performance, no IS.

The 24-70 never had IS, so how can that be a cut in performance? As for the price, yes a few hundred dollars less would be nice, but at the same time by the sounds of it the optics of the lens are going to be great. So that doesn't come cheap, unfortunately.

 

[Quasimodo]

Fail you? Look at theese, they are taken with the new 24-70 II.

http://500px.com/photo/5022029

 

[jrista]

Wow, the 135 f/1.8 is really intriguing. Would that be the fastest short telephoto lens made today? It would be doubly awesome if it offered controllable soft focus as well.

 

[lol]

Sony/Zeiss already do a 135/1.8 so that's nothing new. I'd pass on the soft focus though, as that's very niche. The existing 135 soft focus isn't exactly desirable it seems. I only got one as it was practically given away - I've spent more on filters! Ones at a more typical used price aren't moving fast.

 

[jrista]

Sony/Zeiss already do a 135/1.8 so that's nothing new. I'd pass on the soft focus though, as that's very niche. The existing 135 soft focus isn't exactly desirable it seems. I only got one as it was practically given away - I've spent more on filters! Ones at a more typical used price aren't moving fast.

Well, I'd say the current 135 SF is just too old and clunky to be desirable. I've played with the Nikon SF lens a few times, and seen some truly fantastic portrait shots from it...its truly a beauty. If Canon could make a lens with the same quality and the SF feature, I think it would be highly desirable.

 

[stabmasterasron]

@dswatson83: exactly! I wish they would upgrade these old lenses. I really want a nice quality 50mm lens (I have the 1.8 right now). And I would be willing to spend some cash, but for a lens that is older than me (not really, just a joke). Anyway, the lens is old. They seem to update the L primes every 5 years or so. But for some reason these non-L primes are old as hell. I would think canon could update these primes with modern features without adding L prices to them. But maybe enough people are still buying them that canon sees no reason to update them.

 

[Stone]

I'm hoping for the 35L II to be released in the near future to replace my Sigma 30. The current 35L doesn't really outpeform my siggy in any way so I'm having a hard time justifying $1200 for the "upgrade" but the siggy has to go since I'm going FF this year. I agree the 50mm might be the most needed upgrade and the 85 1.8 could also use a refresh to tame the excessive purple fringing wide open. I can't see the 135L getting any better optically, but IS might be nice update, alot of people are dumping it for the 70-200 2.8 IS which seems to make up for the 1-stop advantage.

 

[kpk1]

Look at the 24-70. They put on the price and they cut on the performance, no IS.

The 24-70 never had IS, so how can that be a cut in performance? As for the price, yes a few hundred dollars less would be nice, but at the same time by the sounds of it the optics of the lens are going to be great. So that doesn't come cheap, unfortunately.

The expected 24-70 was with IS at least, as many of us wrote. The improvement in border area is justifying the increased price ? For me, not.
I quess when 24-70/2.8 III with IS will show you won't mind paying 3000$ on it just because it has something added.
I agree with a price increase because it's a new model and 2-300$ more is justified, so I have been with 1700 in my pocket for this, but 2300 is ridiculous.
Another thing, Nikkor 24-70 is around 1850. If they can do it don't you mind being fulled with 450$ more ??? I am.
Put it this way, Canon 24-105 is 1050$. Proportionally speaking the new 24-70, 2300$ it isn't justified. Make it 1300 or 1400 but the difference is pure marketing and I can see is that good done because some of us really think it's worth.