The Next L Lens From Canon to be a Fast Zoom [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

A great new lens was announced last week, but people will always ask ‘what’s coming next?’</p>
<p>We’re told again that the next L lens from Canon will be a fast zoom (f/2.8), and the thinking is it will be an EF 16-35 f/2.8L III. We were originally <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/03/ef-16-35mm-f2-8-replacement-ii-cr1/" target="_blank">told this back in March</a>, and a patent for such an optical formula <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/05/patent-canon-ef-16-35-f2-8l-iii/" target="_blank">became public in May</a>.</p>
<p>There could be other lenses announced in the meantime, and we’re still waiting for a new Non-L, Non-DO 70-300 to arrive, a lens we’ve been expecting for quite some time.</p>
<p>We expect some specialty lenses to arrive in the next few months, most notably new tilt-shift lenses and a new macro. There’s also a possibility of a couple of updated or new supertelephoto lenses.</p>
<p>L lens development is a slow process, and I don’t expect to see any new L lens announced until the new EF 35 f/1.4L II stock levels are good and we have a new camera body or two.</p>

 

[Haydn1971]

Whilst the replacement for the EF 16-35mm f2.8 seems likely, there is of course the EFs 17-55mm that is perhaps in more dire need of replacement. Also, are there any wild cards likeky, fast Macro zoom ? Sigma 120-300 f2.8 alternative ? Integrated extender ?

 

[Sabaki]

I'd love it to be a 12-24mm f/2.8 but I think logically, it will be a 16-35 f/2.8 mkIII

 

[infared]

I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8L II to buy the 16-35mm f/4L IS. (It was an even wash for me financially). I am glad that I made that change strictly to get sharper images. The IS helps at times to compensate for the slower f/stop...and I am generally not looking for low DOF with a SuperWideAngle lens. For economic reasons I think that this lens will stay in my quiver even with the intro of this new SuperWideAngle f/2.8 III zoom. It's going to be a wallet-bender, but it hopefully will have the resolution improvement that Canon has always lacked in this area compared to the competition.
We shall see soon.

 

[Vivid Color]

I would love a lighter replacement for the 180 mm macro that has IS, if that's possible.

 

[rowlandw]

To me fast is f/2. Any chance of that in a zoom?

 

[rs]

To me fast is f/2. Any chance of that in a zoom?

Sigma managed it with the 24-35mm f/2 Art

 

[Etienne]

I expect this will be pricey

 

[ecka]

35-105/2.8L would be nice

or 35-85/2L
:

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Whilst the replacement for the EF 16-35mm f2.8 seems likely, there is of course the EFs 17-55mm that is perhaps in more dire need of replacement.

Certainly, users of 7D Mark II would like a 17-55mm L.
Why would someone pay dearly for a body weather sealed, if the standard zoom lens does not have the same resistance?
While I do not have the option of a 17-55mm L, I will content myself with 70D.

 

[siegsAR]

35-105/2.8L would be nice

or 35-85/2L
:

I'd love these, but I doubt Canon will make them. But who knows.

 

[ecka]

Whilst the replacement for the EF 16-35mm f2.8 seems likely, there is of course the EFs 17-55mm that is perhaps in more dire need of replacement.

Certainly, users of 7D Mark II would like a 17-55mm L.
Why would someone pay dearly for a body weather sealed, if the standard zoom lens does not have the same strength?
While I do not have the option of a 17-55mm L, I will content myself with 70D.

I think many would prefer the Sigma 18-35/1.8 anyway ...

 

[Etienne]

Whilst the replacement for the EF 16-35mm f2.8 seems likely, there is of course the EFs 17-55mm that is perhaps in more dire need of replacement.

Certainly, users of 7D Mark II would like a 17-55mm L.
Why would someone pay dearly for a body weather sealed, if the standard zoom lens does not have the same resistance?
While I do not have the option of a 17-55mm L, I will content myself with 70D.

I owned the EFS 17-55 2.8, and it was a very nice lens. Sold it about 5- 6 years ago when I went full frame. The IQ was excellent, IS was excellent, AF awesome, but the bokeh was nervous, build quality was uninspiring, zoom action was not dampened, and the zoom creep was really annoying.

This lens is definitely worth a second version with full L-lens treatment. And Canon may do this because it would be an excellent lens for the C100, C300 cameras (I would buy it for that alone) as well as for the 7DII.

 

[RGF]

I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8L II to buy the 16-35mm f/4L IS. (It was an even wash for me financially). I am glad that I made that change strictly to get sharper images. The IS helps at times to compensate for the slower f/stop...and I am generally not looking for low DOF with a SuperWideAngle lens. For economic reasons I think that this lens will stay in my quiver even with the intro of this new SuperWideAngle f/2.8 III zoom. It's going to be a wallet-bender, but it hopefully will have the resolution improvement that Canon has always lacked in this area compared to the competition.
We shall see soon.

+1. or perhaps a 14-35 F2.8 at the IQ of the 16-35 F4.

 

[RGF]

To me fast is f/2. Any chance of that in a zoom?

Sigma managed it with the 24-35mm f/2 Art

I suspect that it is much easier to make a 24 F2 zoom than 16 F2 zoom.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Whilst the replacement for the EF 16-35mm f2.8 seems likely, there is of course the EFs 17-55mm that is perhaps in more dire need of replacement.

Certainly, users of 7D Mark II would like a 17-55mm L.
Why would someone pay dearly for a body weather sealed, if the standard zoom lens does not have the same strength?
While I do not have the option of a 17-55mm L, I will content myself with 70D.

I think many would prefer the Sigma 18-35/1.8 anyway ...

I could live with zoom 16-something in APS-C cameras, but 18mm wide angle really is not enough to photograph groups of people indoors.

 

[AJ]

I think it's a 24-70/2.8 IS

 

[ahsanford]

OK [cracks knuckles] let's read some tea leaves. From the rumor:

• L lens = it's not an EF-S or EF-M mount. An EF-S 17-55 f/2.8L IS USM is a wonderful dream, but it's a pipe dream. L is reserved for EF and that's that. Canon wants > $1k lenses on full-frame rigs. (Pullthrough, profit, all that.)
  
  
• Fast zoom = f/2.8 -- were it an f/2 zoom, Canon would be hyping this far, far more as a gamechanging innovation (even if Sigma beat them to it).
  
  

So that leaves us with the following possibilities:

• 16-35 f/2.8L III - In my mind, this is the most likely. Canon has made it's big UWA zoom releases for the landscapers/videographers (16-35 f/4L IS) and the architecture/U-U-UWA people (11-24 f/4L), so the event/sports people would logically round out the UWA zoom arena.
  
  
• 24-70 f/2.8L IS - This is a dark horse, but I believe it has to come eventually in light of Nikon finally pulling the trigger. This is a bread-and-butter pro lens segment and therefore speaks to the pride of the company, and even the perception of lagging behind Nikon may prompt Canon to offer IS as well. My theory is that they've already designed this back when they did the 24-70 f/2.8L II but did not commercialize it b/c they weren't sure there was a market for a $2,500 standard zoom. Now, with Nikon offering one, Canon will see how well that lens sells and possibly follow suit.
  
  
  
• 14-24 f/2.8L - Not seeing it. Canon could have made this lens instead of the 11-24. This is Nikon's preeminent *do everything* UWA zoom -- events, landscape, etc. But Canon's strategy is different. They don't want to waste landscaper's time with weight tied to an aperture they'll never use and they also know how important front-filtering is, so they split the UWA zoom market into three segments -- landscape, architecture, and events. Once Canon puts out a 16-35 F/2.8L III, each camp will be far, far happier than being saddled with a single 14-24 f/2.8L that would be unfilterable for landscapers and not wide enough for interior architecture. Canon might the right call by not pursuing a 14-24 f/2.8L.
  
  
  
  
• 70-200 f/2.8L IS III - too soon for this?
  
  
• Some beast of a higher multiple tele zoom or shifted range of a current zoom: 70-300 f/2.8L IS, 120-300 f/2.8L IS, etc. - That's a Sigma play to be disruptive. I don't think Canon would ever do this as it would undermine/jeopardize 70-200 sales, but I could be wrong.
  

- A

 

[andrewflo]

OK [cracks knuckles] let's read some tea leaves. From the rumor:

• L lens = it's not an EF-S or EF-M mount. An EF-S 17-55 f/2.8L IS USM is a wonderful dream, but it's a pipe dream. L is reserved for EF and that's that. Canon wants > $1k lenses on full-frame rigs. (Pullthrough, profit, all that.)
  
  
• Fast zoom = f/2.8 -- were it an f/2 zoom, Canon would be hyping this far, far more as a gamechanging innovation (even if Sigma beat them to it).
  
  

So that leaves us with the following possibilities:

• 16-35 f/2.8L III - In my mind, this is the most likely. Canon has made it's big UWA zoom releases for the landscapers/videographers (16-35 f/4L IS) and the architecture/U-U-UWA people (11-24 f/4L), so the event/sports people would logically round out the UWA zoom arena.
  
  
• 24-70 f/2.8L IS - This is a dark horse, but I believe it has to come eventually in light of Nikon finally pulling the trigger. This is a bread-and-butter pro lens segment and therefore speaks to the pride of the company, and even the perception of lagging behind Nikon may prompt Canon to offer IS as well. My theory is that they've already designed this back when they did the 24-70 f/2.8L II but did not commercialize it b/c they weren't sure there was a market for a $2,500 standard zoom. Now, with Nikon offering one, Canon will see how well that lens sells and possibly follow suit.
  
  
  
• 14-24 f/2.8L - Not seeing it. Canon could have made this lens instead of the 11-24. This is Nikon's preeminent *do everything* UWA zoom -- events, landscape, etc. But Canon's strategy is different. They don't want to waste landscaper's time with weight tied to an aperture they'll never use and they also know how important front-filtering is, so they split the UWA zoom market into three segments -- landscape, architecture, and events. Once Canon puts out a 16-35 F/2.8L III, each camp will be far, far happier than being saddled with a single 14-24 f/2.8L that would be unfilterable for landscapers and not wide enough for interior architecture. Canon might the right call by not pursuing a 14-24 f/2.8L.
  
  
  
  
• 70-200 f/2.8L IS III - too soon for this?
  
  
• Some beast of a higher multiple tele zoom or shifted range of a current zoom: 70-300 f/2.8L IS, 120-300 f/2.8L IS, etc. - That's a Sigma play to be disruptive. I don't think Canon would ever do this as it would undermine/jeopardize 70-200 sales, but I could be wrong.
  

- A

Nicely put. This seems like a pretty solid roundup of the latest rumors in Canon camp. Agreed on pretty much everything here.

Personally, it seems a 16-35mm f/2.8L II replacement seems most likely. But a 24-70 f/2.8L IS would be very generously welcomed!

 

[meywd]

OK [cracks knuckles] let's read some tea leaves. From the rumor:

• L lens = it's not an EF-S or EF-M mount. An EF-S 17-55 f/2.8L IS USM is a wonderful dream, but it's a pipe dream. L is reserved for EF and that's that. Canon wants > $1k lenses on full-frame rigs. (Pullthrough, profit, all that.)
  
  
• Fast zoom = f/2.8 -- were it an f/2 zoom, Canon would be hyping this far, far more as a gamechanging innovation (even if Sigma beat them to it).
  
  

So that leaves us with the following possibilities:

• 16-35 f/2.8L III - In my mind, this is the most likely. Canon has made it's big UWA zoom releases for the landscapers/videographers (16-35 f/4L IS) and the architecture/U-U-UWA people (11-24 f/4L), so the event/sports people would logically round out the UWA zoom arena.
  
  
• 24-70 f/2.8L IS - This is a dark horse, but I believe it has to come eventually in light of Nikon finally pulling the trigger. This is a bread-and-butter pro lens segment and therefore speaks to the pride of the company, and even the perception of lagging behind Nikon may prompt Canon to offer IS as well. My theory is that they've already designed this back when they did the 24-70 f/2.8L II but did not commercialize it b/c they weren't sure there was a market for a $2,500 standard zoom. Now, with Nikon offering one, Canon will see how well that lens sells and possibly follow suit.
  
  
  
• 14-24 f/2.8L - Not seeing it. Canon could have made this lens instead of the 11-24. This is Nikon's preeminent *do everything* UWA zoom -- events, landscape, etc. But Canon's strategy is different. They don't want to waste landscaper's time with weight tied to an aperture they'll never use and they also know how important front-filtering is, so they split the UWA zoom market into three segments -- landscape, architecture, and events. Once Canon puts out a 16-35 F/2.8L III, each camp will be far, far happier than being saddled with a single 14-24 f/2.8L that would be unfilterable for landscapers and not wide enough for interior architecture. Canon might the right call by not pursuing a 14-24 f/2.8L.
  
  
  
  
• 70-200 f/2.8L IS III - too soon for this?
  
  
• Some beast of a higher multiple tele zoom or shifted range of a current zoom: 70-300 f/2.8L IS, 120-300 f/2.8L IS, etc. - That's a Sigma play to be disruptive. I don't think Canon would ever do this as it would undermine/jeopardize 70-200 sales, but I could be wrong.
  

- A

Nicely put. This seems like a pretty solid roundup of the latest rumors in Canon camp. Agreed on pretty much everything here.

Personally, it seems a 16-35mm f/2.8L II replacement seems most likely. But a 24-70 f/2.8L IS would be very generously welcomed!

+1 , and no way a 70-200 f/2.8L IS III will come soon, I don't think it will ever come before DO is all over the L lenses, because how much sharper can they go? with the weight and price as well.