New BR Lens Before the End of the Year? [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

We’re told that there is a chance Canon will announce another L lens before the end of the year featuring <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-develops-new-camera-lens-optical-element/">Canon’s new Blue Spectrum Refractive (BR) element</a>. The announcement could fall into Q1 of 2016 as well.</p>
<p>Which lens would be announced wasn’t known by the source, but they did say it was likely going to be a zoom. The only L zoom that we’ve heard that is coming “soon” is a replacement for the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II. That lens is used a lot by event photographers, and with the EOS-1D X and EOS 5D Mark III set to be replaced in 2016, the timing is right.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>

 

[Don Haines]

There are two zooms that come to mind..... the 28-70F2.8 and the 70-200F2.8. These are Canon's showcase lenses, the ones that everyone wishes they had in their bag.... I would suspect them to be prime candidates for the BR treatment......

 

[Talley]

Wrong.

16-35 2.8 IS

 

[Sabaki]

I'd be all for a 16-35 f/2.8 mkiii

SERIOUSLY doubt Canon would throw IS into it though

 

[wockawocka]

50mm and a new 85. In that order I reckon.

That BR layer will appear in EVERYTHING. Because it really works.

 

[ahsanford]

The next L zoom is most likely the 16-35 F/2.8L III. Given that this lens generally shoots moving targets (sports, events, etc.) IS seems unlikely, unless Canon is courting videographers at this FL.

What I want to know is: is BR simply going to be slapped into each new L lens that is offered, or is it uniquely beneficial/implementable for wide aperture primes?

- A

 

[Marius in Afrika]

What I want to know is: is BR simply going to be slapped into each new L lens that is offered, or is it uniquely beneficial/implementable for wide aperture primes?

- A

Any links to independent believable test which show the benefits and the prove?

Regards
Marius

 

[ahsanford]

What I want to know is: is BR simply going to be slapped into each new L lens that is offered, or is it uniquely beneficial/implementable for wide aperture primes?

- A

Any links to independent believable test which show the benefits and the prove?

Regards
Marius

The only proof we have is the new 35 f/1.4L II, which apparently is stellar. How much of that is due to the new optical design vs. the impact of the BR technology is not really known, is it?

- A

 

[jlev23]

sigma is kicking canon's ass with the 18-35 f1.8 and all the reports of the current 16-35 being soft. so im hoping they step up their game with a wide angle announcement before the red raven comes out or canon is going to loose a lot of customers, as they are already, to sigma. i personally think they should start making their zooms parafocal, this would be a huge gain for the blurred lines of photographers and videographers and would put canon again in the forefront of the lens race. if they dont, sigma will be the natural choice of everyone moving forward.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

What I want to know is: is BR simply going to be slapped into each new L lens that is offered, or is it uniquely beneficial/implementable for wide aperture primes?

Any links to independent believable test which show the benefits and the prove?

The image quality of the new 35mm L ii, had a dramatic improvement over the previous model. However, is an entirely new optical design. It is not known how much would this improvement is due to the BR element individually.

 

[ahsanford]

sigma is kicking canon's ass with the 18-35 f1.8 and all the reports of the current 16-35 being soft. so im hoping they step up their game with a wide angle announcement before the red raven comes out or canon is going to loose a lot of customers, as they are already, to sigma. i personally think they should start making their zooms parafocal, this would be a huge gain for the blurred lines of photographers and videographers and would put canon again in the forefront of the lens race. if they dont, sigma will be the natural choice of everyone moving forward.

The #1 weakness of Canon's lenses (there aren't too many, let's be fair) are UWA lenses faster than f/4. Astro folks, environmental portraiture folks and UWA event/sports folks are hurting for the same wealth of great glass the standard zoom, standard prime, tele zoom and tele prime options Canon offers. For instance, a 16-35 f/2.8L III is sorely needed by event/sports folks, and something fast + wide + coma-free for astro does not exist in Canon's lineup to my knowledge.

But I have to disagree with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Canon's not losing a wink of sleep over a Ferrari-like EF-S product that weighs nearly 2 pounds. That's a prestige item far more than it is a true threat to their business. If anything, Canon's pride is hurt more than their bottom line.

- A

 

[nicksotgiu]

I'm really hoping it's the 16-35mm f2.8 III !

 

[YuengLinger]

Dear Canon,
Please surprise us all with an ef 50mm 1.2 for Christmas.
Y

PS I agree with ahsanford about Canon being weak in fast UWA--but that might not be the hole Canon plugs next.

 

[ahsanford]

Dear Canon,
Please surprise us all with an ef 50mm 1.2 for Christmas.
Y

PS I agree with ahsanford about Canon being weak in fast UWA--but that might not be the hole Canon plugs next.

Yeah, Canon needs to make up it's mind whether it wants it's priciest 50mm prime to have dreamy bokeh or it wants to capture sharp images. Right now it does one and not the other...

- A

 

[koenkooi]

I'm hoping for a new 50mm and/or 180mm macro lens with BR.

 

[e_honda]

I'd be all for a 16-35 f/2.8 mkiii

SERIOUSLY doubt Canon would throw IS into it though

Yeah, a 16-35 f2.8 IS would be absolutely massive (and expensive). Just look at Tamron's 15-30 f2.8 VC,plus the fact that it's a bulbous lens that can't take front filters.

 

[ahsanford]

I'd be all for a 16-35 f/2.8 mkiii

SERIOUSLY doubt Canon would throw IS into it though

Yeah, a 16-35 f2.8 IS would be absolutely massive (and expensive). Just look at Tamron's 15-30 f2.8 VC,plus the fact that it's a bulbous lens that can't take front filters.

As an occasional landscaper, that Tamron 15-30 just boils by blood. I want to love it, but chasing just 1mm extra cost them a front filter ring. That is now my gold standard example for 'worst lens decision ever'.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

An improved 16-35/2.8 Mk. III optically as good as the 24-70/2.8 II is needed.
IS not urgently needed. Wider on short end also "not needed". Those who want a huge expensive lens with big, bulbous front element -> just get the 11-24.
16-35/2.8 Mk. III should remain "wide-angle event zoom", easily handheld, not heavier, bigger or a lot more expensive than Mk. II. Otherwise I might just go with 16-35 f/4. Yes, thanks for asking: many others will also see it that way. 8)

 

[RGF]

the weakest of the trinity (16-35,24-70, and 70-200 all F2.8) is the 16-35. Time to update it.

Could Canon surprise us with F2.0 monster zoom? Would be nice if the IQ was stellar.

 

[ahsanford]

An improved 16-35/2.8 Mk. III optically as good as the 24-70/2.8 II is needed.
IS not urgently needed. Wider on short end also "not needed". Those who want a huge expensive lens with big, bulbous front element -> just get the 11-24.
16-35/2.8 Mk. III should remain "wide-angle event zoom", easily handheld, not heavier, bigger or a lot more expensive than Mk. II. Otherwise I might just go with 16-35 f/4. Yes, thanks for asking: many others will also see it that way. 8)

I'll add 'front-filterable is a must' to that list, but I agree with everything else.

- A