The Next L Lens From Canon to be a Fast Zoom [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
ahsanford said:
There are some exceptions to this rule:
Canon PowerShot Pro1
Canon 10x42 L IS
Canon CN-E 14.5-60 L
etc
Upvote
0
midluk said:
You are making sense about Canon's marketing. Stop that.
Canon wants 7D2 users to buy 1DX rigs and thoughtfully plunk down the $10k+ to get their birding reach back with longer EF superteles. Why on earth would they do those users a solid by giving them an EF-S 16-50 or 17-55 f/2.8 with a red ring on it? That only encourages them to stay with a crop body...
- A
Upvote
0
16-35L F/2.8 III
Yes, please. I hope with the new "blue secret sauce" of the 35/1.4.
;o)
The v2 is not bad and often in use here. It has a small sweet spot, but as long as I stay there, I get good results. I wish I could let go of that (memorizing the sweet-spots for 16; 24; 35 settings) and use with the v3 all options.
My concern is only that the price point might be above $2K -- given the tendency of the past year, and then it is not really interesting anymore.
Yes, please. I hope with the new "blue secret sauce" of the 35/1.4.
;o)
The v2 is not bad and often in use here. It has a small sweet spot, but as long as I stay there, I get good results. I wish I could let go of that (memorizing the sweet-spots for 16; 24; 35 settings) and use with the v3 all options.
My concern is only that the price point might be above $2K -- given the tendency of the past year, and then it is not really interesting anymore.
Upvote
0
The 16-35 f2.8 MkII is a dog when compared to the latest wide and ultrawide lenses from Canon, the 16-35 f4 IS illustrates what a severely compromised lens the f2.8 MkII is, the TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 MkII, along with the 11-24 have demonstrated Canon's total dominance in the wide, ultrawide and specialty wide categories to all but the most Sony/sensor-centric image makers/forum dwellers.
Funny because Canon are so often accused of not having innovation yet I am sure Nikon and Sony would both pay a fortune for Canon's wide angle design team!
Anyway, onto the next L zoom, I think it is a toss up between the much needed 16-35 f2.8 MkIII and the 24-70 f2.8 IS. Nikon have released their 24-70 f2.8 VR so Canon can't be that far behind and it would finish the 24-70 segment off, but that 16-35 is a real thorn in their side now all the other Canon wides are so good.
Funny because Canon are so often accused of not having innovation yet I am sure Nikon and Sony would both pay a fortune for Canon's wide angle design team!
Anyway, onto the next L zoom, I think it is a toss up between the much needed 16-35 f2.8 MkIII and the 24-70 f2.8 IS. Nikon have released their 24-70 f2.8 VR so Canon can't be that far behind and it would finish the 24-70 segment off, but that 16-35 is a real thorn in their side now all the other Canon wides are so good.
Upvote
0
ajfotofilmagem said:
Well, 24-105L on FF may still beat the EF-S 17-55L, so what's the point? 5D3+24-105L vs. 7D2+17-55L, both ~$3k? What's next? EF-S 10-22L to match the good old 17-40L?
7D2 is made for big whites, IMHO
. For the price of 17-55/2.8L, you could get 18-35/1.8 ART and an UWA lens (like Tokina 11-16) and still have some money left. Or maybe you expect it to sell for $999 or less? I think $1500 is more realistic and if you seek perfection, why start with a crop body in the first place? Don't tell me you need 10fps to photograph people indoors. Indoors, F1.8 is what matters more, not 1mm (or 2) extra wide (not to mention distortion and stuff...).
Upvote
0
I see the most likely update will be a 16-35 f/2.8III. Currently my somewhat unloved 16-35 f/2.8II is up for sale to finance a 16-35 f/4is. I'll go ahead with this plan in spite of the possibility of the 16-35 f/2.8III which I have no doubt will be a comprehensive upgrade on the 16-35 f/2.8II, along with a reassuringly high price tag.
-pw
-pw
Upvote
0
On a rational point of view I agree with ahsanford that the 24-70 2.8 IS is the most probable new release.
Personally I would enjoy a (black!) 50-200 4.0 IS or 40-200 4.0 IS with nearly the size/weight of the current 70-200 4.0 lenses. If such a lens delivers excellent IQ in such a compact package f/4.0 would be relatively fast - o.k., in absolute terms it isn't ... I see three two-body-two-lens-setups which are interesting for me:
- 16-35 + 40/50-200 general allround
- 40/50-200 + 100 Macro hiking with interesting macro subjects
- 40/50-200 + 400 5.6
Personally I would enjoy a (black!) 50-200 4.0 IS or 40-200 4.0 IS with nearly the size/weight of the current 70-200 4.0 lenses. If such a lens delivers excellent IQ in such a compact package f/4.0 would be relatively fast - o.k., in absolute terms it isn't ... I see three two-body-two-lens-setups which are interesting for me:
- 16-35 + 40/50-200 general allround
- 40/50-200 + 100 Macro hiking with interesting macro subjects
- 40/50-200 + 400 5.6
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
For my shooting needs, a 16-35 f2.8 III L is a far more useful lens than a 16-35mm f4 LIS. If light levels are low, I'd rather have the extra stop than rely on IS technology. IS can stabilise my camera but it can't freeze fast moving objects For hand held wedding work...i need a shutter speed of 1/50th or higher due to my moving targets. For my landscape work...I'd rather use a tripod than rely on an IS system. If I need a 15 second exposure...that needs a stable platform and an IS unit can't do those kinds of shutter speeds.
While I recognise that the newer 16-35 f4 LIS design is optically superior....the rest of the lens is what is giving me the working problems. I need the extra stop...end of story. So i'm hoping a new mkIII design can rectify my shooting needs with my optical desires. The mkII is easily my weakest lens in my bag in terms of optical distortion, vignetting, soft corners, curved field coverage and strong CA.
What I like about it is AF, weather sealing, build quality, versatility, flare control and the sunstars are the best I've seen from this lens....Canon please keep the same effect.....it's awesome and better than the f4 variant in this regard.
While I recognise that the newer 16-35 f4 LIS design is optically superior....the rest of the lens is what is giving me the working problems. I need the extra stop...end of story. So i'm hoping a new mkIII design can rectify my shooting needs with my optical desires. The mkII is easily my weakest lens in my bag in terms of optical distortion, vignetting, soft corners, curved field coverage and strong CA.
What I like about it is AF, weather sealing, build quality, versatility, flare control and the sunstars are the best I've seen from this lens....Canon please keep the same effect.....it's awesome and better than the f4 variant in this regard.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
