Rumored 10 new lenses, 5 of which (CR) mentioned...

[TW]

I'm looking for:

35 f2 IS USM
50 f1.4 IS USM
TS-E 45 f2.8L
TS-E 90 f2.8L
185 f3.2L IS Macro

We'll see...

 

[Radiating]

squarebox wrote:

I:d expect a mk2 of the 35L or the 24L as both lens are near the bottom of the L barrel in image issues or mechanics.

There is a 24L II already. It was released in 2008. The 135L was released in 1996.

They tend to update lenses if there is something wrong with them or that could use a massive improvement.

 

[Marsu42]

Could you please tell me a little more about the 70-300L being optimized for crop bodies? That's a lens I find interesting and I might even consider it... Thanks!

I'm not sure that Canon technicians said the 70-300L was optimized for crop bodies.11

Sorry, I am not able to dig up the link just now - but it wasn't the one neuroanatomist mentioned. And I don't remember if it was a Canon *tech*, might have been a marketing guy or something. But the gist of the article was:

Canon designed the 70-300L because of user requests for a quality but affordable, up to 300mmm, physically shorter, less heavy traveling lens than the older 70-200s or fixed primes. And people with these requirements often use crop bodies.

Most important: On full frame, the 70-300L is said to become a little less sharp wide open. If Canon had really wanted it, they could have put in a little more or better glass for a higher price - but they didn't, because you won't notice this on aps-c due to the crop factor. And this at least somewhat fixes the main craziness of using a ef L lens on aps-c: You are buying top quality glass, carry the weight and don't even use part of it!

You can find a lot more information about the 70-300L in the recent 70-200 and 70-300 threads. For me, the size-weight-iq-af-zoomfactor-buildquality-price combination and tradeoff is just right. So I'm really "canon rumors-infected" now: I recommend my own gear

 

[Marsu42]

They tend to update lenses if there is something wrong with them or that could use a massive improvement.

Due to popular user request, I think they should switch to a yearly cycle just like in software: 50mm/1.4/2011, 50mm/1.4/2012, ... so people will have plenty to rumor and discuss about. Or they could do it like car manufacturers: change the color, tweak the design of the af-mf button and so on

 

[wickidwombat]

(Note - we all know lots of you wanted a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS, so let's just take that off the table for now.)

can we put a 24-105 f2.8L IS on the table

 

[funkboy]

This shows where the 135mm f/2L MTF chart stands against the MTF chart of Canon's top performing prime the 400mm f/2.8L IS II. Two completely different lenses, of course, but it shows just how remarkable Canon's current lens technology is, and how much the 135 could be improved. In simplified terms... the higher the lines and the closer they track each other the better the quality of the lens.

Unfortunately, that's a bit of an oversimplification.

Here's the MTF chart for the 14mm f/2.8L II:

Does it mean that the 14L II is a hunk of junk compared to the 400L II? Of course not. It's one of the best 14mm SLR lenses available today. Basically, MTF charts are very useful for comparing lenses of the same focal length, but comparing the 135L's MTF to the 400L II's is apples & oranges.

Luminous Landscape has a very good tutorial on reading MTF charts.

To quote Michael's article:

Keep in mind that the black lines show the lens wide open while the blue lines show the lens stopped down to f/8, so the closer these sets of lines are to each other the better the performance of the lens when used wide open. The very best lenses will have the black and the blue lines close together.

Generally speaking a lens whose thick lines (10 LP/mm) are above .8 on the chart should be regarded as having excellent image quality. Above .6 is regarded as "satisfactory". Below .6 is, well, below.

[...] The closer [the dotted meridonial and sagital] lines are to each other the more pleasing the bokeh of the lens. Fascinating, huh?

The meridonial and sagital lines are also used used to evaluate astigmatism and field curvature — subjects which are beyond the scope of this brief essay.

It's also worth mentioning that anything after the 16mm mark on the X-axis is irrelevant on APS-C cameras...

 

[funkboy]

Due to popular user request, I think they should switch to a yearly cycle just like in software: 50mm/1.4/2011, 50mm/1.4/2012, ... so people will have plenty to rumor and discuss about. Or they could do it like car manufacturers: change the color, tweak the design of the af-mf button and so on

Of course that would be nice, but how much do you think changing the design and tooling of all 60+ lenses in the lineup every year would add to the cost? My guess is at least double...

 

[noncho]

I want light, cheap EF-S 12mm 2.8.

I'm also interested in expected 40mm 2.8 and 100-400 II(but this probably will be too expensive for me).

 

[Marsu42]

Of course that would be nice, but how much do you think changing the design and tooling of all 60+ lenses in the lineup every year would add to the cost? My guess is at least double...

That'll come in handy for Canon, since a successor of any lens seems to be priced double anyway ... but simple updates could be merely cosmetical, like new ring colors, like an glittery, backlit glow-in-the-dark red ring for top gear.

Ok, seriously: I don't quite understand Canon's lens updates. In the higher price range, of course they release top gear to get the most revenue (600L anyone?), but e.g. I don't understand why making an updated 50mm with ring usm takes so long - Nikon and Sigma have done it.

 

[bchernicoff]

Ah, I only own the 90mm and wasn't aware of this feature.

I only own the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, but I use the rotation so frequently that I wouldn't even consider the 45mm or 90mm versions without it (90mm would be my preference - I can use the 2x Extender on the 24mm if I need ~45mm, and the optical performance is decent because the 24 II is so damn sharp to start with).

Now I am really curious. While, I can imagine a scenario when this would be a useful feature, I can't see it being used often. In what situations are you tilting and shifting at other than right angles to each other?

 

[dr croubie]

Now I am really curious. While, I can imagine a scenario when this would be a useful feature, I can't see it being used often. In what situations are you tilting and shifting at other than right angles to each other?

Say you want to take a photo of a building, from a corner point looking along one side.
Something like this, that I just grabbed from a google search for 'building':

Now, you want to shift Up, because that will make all the vertical lines look parallel in the photo.
But you want to tilt to the left, because your plane of (where you want the) focus is near on the left side, far on the right side.
That's why you'd want to have tile and shift at 90 degrees to each other. But for other shots, you'd want them in the same direction, which is why the 'new way' of TS-E 17 and 24L is the best way (or like hartblei were making Superrotators 20 years ago, there's a reason they chose that name, you can tilt/shift in any direction you want)

 

[bchernicoff]

Now, you want to shift Up, because that will make all the vertical lines look parallel in the photo.
But you want to tilt to the left, because your plane of (where you want the) focus is near on the left side, far on the right side.
That's why you'd want to have tile and shift at 90 degrees to each other.

That's a great explanation and you've just cleared up a misconception I had about these lenses. I have used tilt to control depth of field (usually to increase it) and shift to create panoramas, but I have not used shift to correct perspective, incorrectly believing this was done with tilt though I had never tried it. That confusion also prevented me from seeing the usefulness of the independent rotation. Thanks a bunch.

 

[Daniel Flather]

A new 50/1.4 that is doubled in price, so I can sell my current 50/1.4 at a less or no loss.

 

[wickidwombat]

A new 50/1.4 that is doubled in price, so I can sell my current 50/1.4 at a less or no loss.

yours might be the most likely wish to be granted!

 

[ehud.eshet]

I would like to have an EF-S 45-135 F2.0 IS (Make it F2.8 if bigger than the 17-55 F2.8 IS).

Such a 3x zoom @f2.0 would be bigger than 400f2.8...

Sigma just announced an image stabilized 50-150 F2.8 zoom for cropped bodies.
Its size is a bit smaller than EF 70-200L IS II.
I do not see why EF-S 45-135 F2.0-2.8 IS (F2.0 up to 90mm) would be bigger.
Many 60D and 7D owners will pay more than 1500$ for such lens.

Canon, please do not force us to buy Sigma lenses.

 

[marekjoz]

I would like to have an EF-S 45-135 F2.0 IS (Make it F2.8 if bigger than the 17-55 F2.8 IS).

Such a 3x zoom @f2.0 would be bigger than 400f2.8...

Sigma just announced an image stabilized 50-150 F2.8 zoom for cropped bodies.
Its size is a bit smaller than EF 70-200L IS II.
I do not see why EF-S 45-135 F2.0-2.8 IS (F2.0 up to 90mm) would be bigger.
Many 60D and 7D owners will pay more than 1500$ for such lens.

Canon, please do not force us to buy Sigma lenses.

yes, 70-200 f2.8 is also almost 3x zoom. The difference makes this f2.0...