New BR Lens Before the End of the Year? [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
StudentOfLight said:
+1/2. I tend to believe that Canon will pump BR into fast primes before it hits the zooms, but I have little to back up besides a gut feeling.
I say +1/2 because I'm not convinced the 50L would be the next prime. The 135L and 200 f/2.8L are far older pieces of kit in need of an upgrade.
- A
Upvote
0
The level of chromatic aberration in the 135/2L and the 200/2.8L is already very low and quite adequately controlled. It is the shorter focal lengths and faster apertures for which CA is difficult to correct; and at very long focal lengths, CA correction is limited by weight and length constraints, for which BR would help mitigate.
I don't necessarily buy into the argument that production date should be a factor in deciding which lens designs need updating. Some lenses are quite old but have held up remarkably well; the 135/2L is one of the first that comes to mind. Some new lenses keep getting revisions but still leave something to be desired--I haven't found the various incarnations of the 16-35/2.8L to be particularly lust-worthy, for example. I'm also not a fan of all the slow- and variable-aperture consumer zooms that Canon seems to spit out every six months.
My personal thinking on this is that whenever a new optical technology is developed, it should be implemented in those lenses that would stand to receive the most benefit from its use. That of course does not always mesh with the profitability motive; but I think with BR optics, Canon should use it to update the 85L, 50L, and 24L primes, as these I think would stand to benefit most. Of the zooms, all super-wide and wide zooms have problems with lateral color; whether this could be efficiently further corrected by BR optics I am not entirely sure, but if so it would be welcome.
I don't necessarily buy into the argument that production date should be a factor in deciding which lens designs need updating. Some lenses are quite old but have held up remarkably well; the 135/2L is one of the first that comes to mind. Some new lenses keep getting revisions but still leave something to be desired--I haven't found the various incarnations of the 16-35/2.8L to be particularly lust-worthy, for example. I'm also not a fan of all the slow- and variable-aperture consumer zooms that Canon seems to spit out every six months.
My personal thinking on this is that whenever a new optical technology is developed, it should be implemented in those lenses that would stand to receive the most benefit from its use. That of course does not always mesh with the profitability motive; but I think with BR optics, Canon should use it to update the 85L, 50L, and 24L primes, as these I think would stand to benefit most. Of the zooms, all super-wide and wide zooms have problems with lateral color; whether this could be efficiently further corrected by BR optics I am not entirely sure, but if so it would be welcome.
Upvote
0
TAF said:
It already was refreshed. The 24-70 f/4L IS replaced it for all intents and purposes for a paltry price of 35mm, you get a sharper lens, a lighter lens, and a super super useful 0.7x max mag, which is unheard of. That lens is now correctly kitted as the up-market choice over the 24-105.
For those who believe a 24-105L II is coming, I don't see it. Canon sees that FL range as entry level for FF and wisely introduced a cheaper STM variable max aperture version of it to keep costs down.
Reach-obsessed 'range-o-philes' hate this of course, but Canon is moving away from large FL multipliers in their L zooms in favor of sharpness. I agree with that call 100%.
- A
Upvote
0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
I'm not trying to twist anyone's arm, Dustin -- everyone's needs are different. That Tamron is a wonderful optic, please don't get me wrong, but it forces me to do a triple lutz to put on a very expensive oversized filter for landscapes. That's not worth it for me.
I'll happily concede the 15mm FL and easily/conveniently shoot from 16-35 with the much simpler / cheaper / more available 4x6 filter ecosystem that works on those front filter threads.
- A
Upvote
0
WOW!...interesting...I sold my Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II ...and bought the Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS. SO glad I did.
It cost me nothing as selling my used lens gave me enough cash to buy the new one. What a difference in image quality and at what I would consider a reasonable price!!! Did not really miss the f/stop. My lens also handily out resolves the Tamron 15-30mm. ...but we all have different needs.
My next lens will most likely be the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 Art. It will complement my Canon WA Zoom beautifully when I need WAY lower DOF or need to shoot in low light... (hope the review are GREAT!)....
The whole blue glass thing is quite wonderful....but based on the price of the new 35mm f/1.4L II ... I just cannot see spending that kind of money. For instance my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is spectacular enough for me. I can imagine if there is a new 16-35mm f/2.8 mk III ....it will be so prohibitive in price (for me), that I just will keep the great lenses that I have and put my energies into my image making skills.... If I have a great one ..no one will really notice the very expensive subtle differences. ..but I am glad to see all of the lenses improving so much as the sensors resolve more. It's all pretty cool. 8)
It cost me nothing as selling my used lens gave me enough cash to buy the new one. What a difference in image quality and at what I would consider a reasonable price!!! Did not really miss the f/stop. My lens also handily out resolves the Tamron 15-30mm. ...but we all have different needs.
My next lens will most likely be the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 Art. It will complement my Canon WA Zoom beautifully when I need WAY lower DOF or need to shoot in low light... (hope the review are GREAT!)....
The whole blue glass thing is quite wonderful....but based on the price of the new 35mm f/1.4L II ... I just cannot see spending that kind of money. For instance my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is spectacular enough for me. I can imagine if there is a new 16-35mm f/2.8 mk III ....it will be so prohibitive in price (for me), that I just will keep the great lenses that I have and put my energies into my image making skills.... If I have a great one ..no one will really notice the very expensive subtle differences. ..but I am glad to see all of the lenses improving so much as the sensors resolve more. It's all pretty cool. 8)
Upvote
0
I just sold my 16-35mm ii to get the 35mm 1.4 ii. I don't regret it. My usable images at the focal length are far superior.
What I do miss is the range from 16-24 at 2.8. I tried the f4 but it wasn't cutting it no matter how good of quality.
I for one would love! Love! To see a new 16-35. It's would be difficult to know what my next purchase would be then. Body or lens.
What I do miss is the range from 16-24 at 2.8. I tried the f4 but it wasn't cutting it no matter how good of quality.
I for one would love! Love! To see a new 16-35. It's would be difficult to know what my next purchase would be then. Body or lens.
Upvote
0
I have to agree with this. Canon have recently been really poor at supporting the APS-C platform with anything other than basic beginner offerings, like the recent variable aperture zooms. I have to assume that they make a decent amount of money off of these kit bodies, and anyone actually filling in things on the more premium end would be a boon for them.ahsanford said:
I'd be really interested to see what fast ef-s primes would look like - in theory they should be smaller and cheaper than their full frame counter-parts (Sigma's 30mm f1.4 EX compared to the old full frame 50mm EX).
They did not give up filters just to 'chase 1mm.' They also did it to achieve better IQ than the 16-35L and all of Canon's previous attempts to make this lens work. Canon themselves did this by sacrificing a stop of light. Nikon did it with the bulbous front element and achieved even wider zoom with a lot of very expensive glass.ahsanford said:
No one has made an f2.8 lens in this zoom range without sacrificing something very practical. It just comes down to what the customer is willing to give up. I imagine for many event shooters, weak corners and some CA is a fine compromise for being able to protect the front element.
Upvote
0
It's more than just going to 1mm that caused them to use the design they did. Judging from the excellent coma performance wide open at 15mm, it was a good decision.ahsanford said:
Filters are becoming an unnecessary item for landscapes these days, even when using Canon cameras. There might be the rare need for some polarized filtering, but for ND and ND grads, there are solid ways around the filters. I can actually get far better results using special techniques for a 10 stop ND filter effect without color casting, exposure calculations, or any ND filters.
I've personally been using the Sigma 8-16 all this year and going completely filterless. It's worked out great so far.
Upvote
0
Zanken said:
We've beaten this one (red text above) to death, but I agree. There's no profit in Canon selling, say, a killer EF-S lens (say a mark II version of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM) for $999. They'd much rather someone feel:
- Handcuffed by the limited EF-S options
- Frustrated with buying an EF standard zoom like a 24-70 and constantly changing it out because it's not wide enough on crop
...in a word, they want intermediate/advanced EF-S users to feel limited & frustrated so that they feel compelled to go to a FF rig. If you just make the plunge to FF, look at all the sweet glass you get!
Sigma, on the other hand, cares a lot less about folks migrating to FF -- they just want to sell lenses. I'm shocked we haven't seen more on the EF-S front from them.
- A
Upvote
0
e_honda said:
I don't see the need for IS in a 16-35 f/2.8 III. What I would appreciate though is better corner sharpness and less CA. I love my 16-35 f/2.8 II, yet I am at times disappointed with the corners...
Upvote
0
+1, The changes I'd like on the 135L are not so much the glass, but rather 9-blade curved aperture, weather-sealing and IS.chromophore said:
I've got the 24L II which is a relatively modern lens so while I agree it can benefit from the BR technology I think it is less likely to see an upgrade in the immediate future. My guess is that the 50L and 85L are more likely, and of the two the 50L is the weaker performer.
Upvote
0
Question: What exactly is the purpose of the 16-35 focal range?
I ask this as the for/against contentions regarding IS seems to come from two different places.
My initial understanding is that it was primarily designed as a WA for landscape lens but it certainly has been extensively used as an event lens too. Hmmmmmmm...
I ask this as the for/against contentions regarding IS seems to come from two different places.
My initial understanding is that it was primarily designed as a WA for landscape lens but it certainly has been extensively used as an event lens too. Hmmmmmmm...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
