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

[C_Raven]

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.

I agree that a 70-200 f/2.8L IS III is practically impossible right now, but what about a 70-200 f/2.8L II? Do you think canon will not produce telezooms without IS anymore?

 

[ahsanford]

I've been contemplating the Tamron 15-30mm but haven't pulled the trigger yet. I have the focal length range already covered with other lenses so it's more about upgrading image quality and speed for me. One thing that makes me hesitate over the Tamron is its weight. I do hope a 16-35mm III won't weigh too much more than Canon's current version. With this caveat, I think I'd be willing to stump up the much higher asking price over the Tamron, for the additional benefits of filterability, focusing quality, and that feeling of extra robustness and longevity that all L lenses seem to have.

Unless you only shoot events, I would think twice before buying that Tamron. What seems like a bargain has some strings attached.

The decision to go for 15mm and eliminate the filter ring was a disastrous call, IMHO. You may not need filters often, but when you do, you'll be stuck old-school hand-holding them or ponying up a lot more money for the external Lee or Wonderpana setups. That's a staggeringly high price to pay for 1 extra mm wider.

Why Tamron didn't just make a 16-35 f/2.8 VC with a front-filter ring and grab all of Canon's 16-35 f/2.8L II users' business is utterly beyond me. They would have snapped up everyone's money.

That said, I appreciate that there are not a tremendous number of truly sharp and modern f/2.8 UWA zooms out there, and it might be perfect for your needs. But caveat emptor if you ever need to tame reflections, manage a tough sky, etc. with such a lens.

- A

 

[Mancubus]

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

Apart from the 24-70mm 2.8 IS, I think all the others on this list are pretty useless or at least unnecessary.

16-35 just got the f/4 IS which is pretty good and sharp.
14-24 wouldnt make much sense because of the brand new 11-24.
70-200 2.8 IS is already a masterful lens that excels at everything it's intended to.

But a 24-70 2.8 with IS would be great, especially now that Nikon has one. I don't consider Tamron or Sigma, gave up on 3rd party brands after a major disappointment with a Sigma not being compatible with my new 7d2 body and never answering my support request emails.

 

[Random Orbits]

I've been contemplating the Tamron 15-30mm but haven't pulled the trigger yet. I have the focal length range already covered with other lenses so it's more about upgrading image quality and speed for me. One thing that makes me hesitate over the Tamron is its weight. I do hope a 16-35mm III won't weigh too much more than Canon's current version. With this caveat, I think I'd be willing to stump up the much higher asking price over the Tamron, for the additional benefits of filterability, focusing quality, and that feeling of extra robustness and longevity that all L lenses seem to have.

Unless you only shoot events, I would think twice before buying that Tamron. What seems like a bargain has some strings attached.

The decision to go for 15mm and eliminate the filter ring was a disastrous call, IMHO. You may not need filters often, but when you do, you'll be stuck old-school hand-holding them or ponying up a lot more money for the external Lee or Wonderpana setups. That's a staggeringly high price to pay for 1 extra mm wider.

Why Tamron didn't just make a 16-35 f/2.8 VC with a front-filter ring and grab all of Canon's 16-35 f/2.8L II users' business is utterly beyond me. They would have snapped up everyone's money.

That said, I appreciate that there are not a tremendous number of truly sharp and modern f/2.8 UWA zooms out there, and it might be perfect for your needs. But caveat emptor if you ever need to tame reflections, manage a tough sky, etc. with such a lens.

- A

Doesn't the Tamron have low coma? If so, I'd consider that a great choice for astro. Similar to 14 at f/2.8 but will more framing options.

 

[ahsanford]

Apart from the 24-70mm 2.8 IS, I think all the others on this list are pretty useless or at least unnecessary.

16-35 just got the f/4 IS which is pretty good and sharp.
14-24 wouldnt make much sense because of the brand new 11-24.
70-200 2.8 IS is already a masterful lens that excels at everything it's intended to.

But a 24-70 2.8 with IS would be great, especially now that Nikon has one. I don't consider Tamron or Sigma, gave up on 3rd party brands after a major disappointment with a Sigma not being compatible with my new 7d2 body and never answering my support request emails.

The problem is that there are event photographers, up close sports photogs, etc. who desperately need f/2.8 in an ultrawide. The stellar 16-35 f/4L IS does nothing for them, so they've stuck with their 16-35 f/2.8L II and quietly pined for something sharper, esp. on the wide open end.

It's a bigger need than you think, and I'm fairly confident that's the next L zoom we're going to see.

- A

 

[NWPhil]

not that a lens patent telsl the whole story, and I would prefer to see a 24-105 or similar upgraded lens, but:

http://photorumors.com/2013/10/22/the-latest-lens-patents-from-canon-pentax-and-sony/
- reinforces the 24-70mm 2.8 IS

and then
http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/05/patent-canon-ef-16-35-f2-8l-iii/
hmmmm...


and many more interesting patents that probably will never see the daylight

 

[StoneColdCoffee]

I've been contemplating the Tamron 15-30mm but haven't pulled the trigger yet. I have the focal length range already covered with other lenses so it's more about upgrading image quality and speed for me. One thing that makes me hesitate over the Tamron is its weight. I do hope a 16-35mm III won't weigh too much more than Canon's current version. With this caveat, I think I'd be willing to stump up the much higher asking price over the Tamron, for the additional benefits of filterability, focusing quality, and that feeling of extra robustness and longevity that all L lenses seem to have.

I finally sold my Canon 16-35/f2.8L II and bought the Tamron 15-30. Mostly I shoot Landscape Astro and while the Canon served a great purpose, the Coma flare at the edges I always had to overlook. so my next thought was to buy a Nikon 14-24with adapter. after watching many reviews I went with the Tamron. I really really like the tamron. IQ is much better. but one thing thatyour right about..this lens is a beeasttttt. its huge! its the weight of the body and you really feel it carrying it around. plus its just large in size. but it was the trade off I made for better quality. now. I believe the new lens will be the 16-35 III. it has to be. and it will be expensve. I really hope not the $3k expensive of the f/4. but it probably will be. So ill keep the Tamron for awhile. and wait for the price drop to $2200. the 70-200II was $2200 and its still the sharpest lense I own. then later ill sell the tamron..it is great quality. plenty of light comes in.

 

[tron]

35-105/2.8L would be nice

or 35-85/2L
:

35-105 2.8 is doable as well as 28-105 2.8.

See Tamron 28-105MM F/2.8 LD Aspherical (IF)