Two Lenses Coming for CP+? [CR2]

[Arctic Photo]

35 L II and the 50 f1.8 IS 8)

+1
Could also be update of 135L, but 35L is in more need IMO.

Really? I use my 35L day in day out for professional weddings and it's an amazing performer. Sure it could do with a warm over but it's not going to make a huge difference over the current model. Sure, better AF in lower light, newer coatings and weather sealing would be nice...but don't be fooled, it's one of the finest picture taking optics in Canon's catalogue.

Really. If I need f/1.4 for creative (DoF) reasons, I reach for the 35L...for everything else, the 24-70/2.8L II is better.

I think Im going to puke if one of those lenses aren't a tack sharp UWA-zoom lens.

Keep a bucket handy...

That sounds very mechanical. The 35L has a certain feel, a certain love. When you go with it, you know it's a special moment and it's going to give you something special back.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Development Announcements usually don't make sense. The only practical use for them is to hurt other companies sales, for example, a 300-600mmL might put a damper on the Tamron lens sales.

Far too often, development announcements hurt your own sales, and if something goes wrong, you look incompetent.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

35 L II and the 50 f1.8 IS 8)

+1

Could also be update of 135L, but 35L is in more need IMO.

+1 again 8) These 35 and 50 mm lenses are direly needed to upgrade Canon's lens line-up.

I'm in agreement here. These are both holes that need quick plugging, particularly considering that the Sigma is ending up in a lot of bags, and, for others of us, the new 35mm f/2 IS is actually in many ways superior to the current 35L. It is my most recent addition.

Count me in for wanting the new 50mm. I don't have an AF 50mm in my kit right now because I was never blown away by the (non L) 50mm choices. I have owned and then sold two copies each of the 50mm f/1.8 and 1.4. I have never bought the 50L because of both its own shortcomings and high price. I make do with some vintage options (Takumar and Helios), and really enjoy those lenses. But for a lot of work AF is really needed.

 

[rbr]

I also want a high quality ultra-wide prime. No more ultra-wide zooms, please, unless they're great at the wide end. Zooms are always going to compromise somewhere somehow, and if Canon came up with something really incredible there will an incredibly high price tag on it. A nice compact and affordable prime between 16 and 20mm with edge to edge razor sharpness, little distortion, and manageable light falloff at normal landscape apertures would be very welcome in my camera bag. A lens like that is also a gaping hole in Canon's lens line up.

 

[Artifex]

35 L II and the 50 f1.8 IS 8)

+1

Could also be update of 135L, but 35L is in more need IMO.

+1 again 8) These 35 and 50 mm lenses are direly needed to upgrade Canon's lens line-up.

I'm in agreement here. These are both holes that need quick plugging, particularly considering that the Sigma is ending up in a lot of bags, and, for others of us, the new 35mm f/2 IS is actually in many ways superior to the current 35L. It is my most recent addition.

Count me in for wanting the new 50mm. I don't have an AF 50mm in my kit right now because I was never blown away by the (non L) 50mm choices. I have owned and then sold two copies each of the 50mm f/1.8 and 1.4. I have never bought the 50L because of both its own shortcomings and high price. I make do with some vintage options (Takumar and Helios), and really enjoy those lenses. But for a lot of work AF is really needed.

+1

Although I never use AF, I am also waiting for a great modern fast 50mm. The 50L is too expensive for me, and the 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 are too weak in term of build quality and handling IMO. The Zeiss 50mm 1.4 wide apertures performance aren't good enough for the price, although stopped down, there's nothing to complain about. The 55mm, although spectacular, is really out of my budget. The Sigma 50 1.4 seems to be the best value in term of sharpness, but the handling isn't great and the focus ring is too stiff for pleasant MF. The best option would be the Voigtländer 58mm 1.4, but it doesn't exist in EF mount. I personally can't justify buying a 500$ lens in the wrong mount, especially if the mount isn't a m42.

I hope rumors are true and 2014 is the year of the 50mm : Canon IS 50mm + Samyang 50mm 1.2 + Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 (although this one seems to be more of a speculation than a rumor).

 

[pj1974]

I really like it when a CR2 rumour appears. Though I even get more excited to see a CR3!

I have been in the market for a new Canon 50mm for a number of years. As I’ve written in a number of CR threads previously, each of the current Canon 50mm lenses has their strengths, but also their notable weaknesses. I really appreciate what Sigma (& Tamron) have been doing with many of their recent lenses, however to ensure forward compatibility (and most accurate critical AF) – I prefer Canon, as even the Sigma 18-35mm (as superbly sharp and ground-breaking a lens as it is) has been noted to have some AF niggles – which really takes the wind out of its sails for me.

A new EF Canon 50mm lens between f/1.4 and f/2 would fill the only ‘gap’ that I really have in my set of lenses. Ideally (for me) a Canon 50 mm would have very good IQ wide open (sharp, lots of general & micro contrast, low CA) - would have absolutely awesome IQ 1 stop down, FTM USM and close MFD. IS would be a (much appreciated) bonus.

As for what the other lens – I don’t ‘need’ anything else, though I know various people are looking for a new Canon UWA prime or zoom (eg 14-24mm), or a telephoto zoom (eg 100-400mm ‘mkII’). I can’t see Canon updating any of it’s current “II” lenses, nor updating any of their L focal length primes for which they have recently brought out a non-L prime (so I actually doubt a new 35mm L will be on the cards).

If there are 2 lenses coming out, maybe a new non-L 85mm prime, as the current 85mm is good, but could be a little improved upon, and the 85mm L II is not that ‘new’. Or, actually I’m thinking a new TS-E … at a new focal length.

Regards

Paul 8)

 

[Viggo]

35 L II and the 50 f1.8 IS 8)

+1

Could also be update of 135L, but 35L is in more need IMO.

+1 again 8) These 35 and 50 mm lenses are direly needed to upgrade Canon's lens line-up.

I'm in agreement here. These are both holes that need quick plugging, particularly considering that the Sigma is ending up in a lot of bags, and, for others of us, the new 35mm f/2 IS is actually in many ways superior to the current 35L. It is my most recent addition.

Count me in for wanting the new 50mm. I don't have an AF 50mm in my kit right now because I was never blown away by the (non L) 50mm choices. I have owned and then sold two copies each of the 50mm f/1.8 and 1.4. I have never bought the 50L because of both its own shortcomings and high price. I make do with some vintage options (Takumar and Helios), and really enjoy those lenses. But for a lot of work AF is really needed.

+1

Although I never use AF, I am also waiting for a great modern fast 50mm. The 50L is too expensive for me, and the 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 are too weak in term of build quality and handling IMO. The Zeiss 50mm 1.4 wide apertures performance aren't good enough for the price, although stopped down, there's nothing to complain about. The 55mm, although spectacular, is really out of my budget. The Sigma 50 1.4 seems to be the best value in term of sharpness, but the handling isn't great and the focus ring is too stiff for pleasant MF. The best option would be the Voigtländer 58mm 1.4, but it doesn't exist in EF mount. I personally can't justify buying a 500$ lens in the wrong mount, especially if the mount isn't a m42.

I hope rumors are true and 2014 is the year of the 50mm : Canon IS 50mm + Samyang 50mm 1.2 + Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 (although this one seems to be more of a speculation than a rumor).

Look into the Zeiss 50 f2, although far from the 1.2 aperture, but you mentioned the 50 f1.8. The Zeiss f2 is superb and really makes the Zeiss 1.4 look really bad... I love the 1:2 macro as a bonus to crop your portraits as close as you want with fantastic sharpness at f2. love the 50 perspective compared to a 100mm macro for example.

 

[jrista]

I think Im going to puke if one of those lenses aren't a tack sharp UWA-zoom lens.

16-35L III or 14-24L

Bring it.

Ditto! I'd love a 14-24L with stellar corner performance. Bring it!

 

[jrista]

I'd really lime an UWA prime, maybe 18mm would be fun. There was also talk about a 16-50L a couple of months ago. That would be awesome.

For now I am only thinking about how to be able to fit the 24-70 Mkii in to the budget.

Like, not lime...

You know, you can 'Modify' your posts. I know I do when I've gotten confused with my keyboard

I know, thanks. I'm using a tablet now and I don't care much for the 'keyboard'. Next time, I'll edit :

I'm just waiting for reliable dictation to hit the tablet scene...

"I'd really lime an ['strike that twice'] like an UWA prime..." ;D

 

[jrista]

i hope for a new 100-400mm.

will buy one as soon as it´s out (and when it´s not over 2500 euro :).

Yeah, I'm anxious for the 100-400L II as well. I love my 100-400L, but it's an old design and a new one with greatly improved IQ is high on my list of "want that!"

I suspect there would be more fanfare around a 100-400L II release. That has been one of Canon's best selling and most popular lenses for well over a decade. Any replacement should be made well known. I'd certainly be happy to sell my current one and buy the Mark II if it was released...but it just doesn't feel like CP+ is the time or the place for it for some reason...

 

[JonAustin]

I've decided to not buy any more non-IS lenses, and am waiting for IS-equipped updates to the following lenses: 50mm, 85mm, 24-70/2.8. I'm also waiting for a 100-400 II, although I might settle for a 400/5.6 IS. I would also be "casually" interested in an IS-equipped UWA zoom to replace my 17-40.

 

[Artifex]

35 L II and the 50 f1.8 IS 8)

+1

Could also be update of 135L, but 35L is in more need IMO.

+1 again 8) These 35 and 50 mm lenses are direly needed to upgrade Canon's lens line-up.

I'm in agreement here. These are both holes that need quick plugging, particularly considering that the Sigma is ending up in a lot of bags, and, for others of us, the new 35mm f/2 IS is actually in many ways superior to the current 35L. It is my most recent addition.

Count me in for wanting the new 50mm. I don't have an AF 50mm in my kit right now because I was never blown away by the (non L) 50mm choices. I have owned and then sold two copies each of the 50mm f/1.8 and 1.4. I have never bought the 50L because of both its own shortcomings and high price. I make do with some vintage options (Takumar and Helios), and really enjoy those lenses. But for a lot of work AF is really needed.

+1

Although I never use AF, I am also waiting for a great modern fast 50mm. The 50L is too expensive for me, and the 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 are too weak in term of build quality and handling IMO. The Zeiss 50mm 1.4 wide apertures performance aren't good enough for the price, although stopped down, there's nothing to complain about. The 55mm, although spectacular, is really out of my budget. The Sigma 50 1.4 seems to be the best value in term of sharpness, but the handling isn't great and the focus ring is too stiff for pleasant MF. The best option would be the Voigtländer 58mm 1.4, but it doesn't exist in EF mount. I personally can't justify buying a 500$ lens in the wrong mount, especially if the mount isn't a m42.

I hope rumors are true and 2014 is the year of the 50mm : Canon IS 50mm + Samyang 50mm 1.2 + Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 (although this one seems to be more of a speculation than a rumor).

Look into the Zeiss 50 f2, although far from the 1.2 aperture, but you mentioned the 50 f1.8. The Zeiss f2 is superb and really makes the Zeiss 1.4 look really bad... I love the 1:2 macro as a bonus to crop your portraits as close as you want with fantastic sharpness at f2. love the 50 perspective compared to a 100mm macro for example.

Thanks for the suggestion. It is true that the Zeiss 50mm f2 looks astonishing; the sharpness is ridiculous, like the build quality, colors, micro-contrast and, I guess, the reselling values (30 years old CZ 50mm 1.4 still sell at 450-550$ on eBay!). Also, the 1:2 macro looks really nice; you can even have 1,86:1 easily with extension tubes. However, at 1283 USD (source: B&H), it is pretty expensive for such a "slow" prime.
Is it worth it? I have no doubt! However, it is still a lot of money.
Personally, I am waiting for 2014 before buying anything, in case there is a "game-changer" such as the Sigma Art 35mm (which is even better than the Zeiss 35mm 1.4 for half the price!). Still, I am saving money for if this doesn't happen (1283 USD to be precise!)

 

[BozillaNZ]

A 14-24 with bobble front element is only good for pixel peepers. No filters? that's a big NO for landscapes, especially for Canon's *cough* DR *cough*.

In comparsion, Canon's 16-35 is a all purpose performer. Adding a UV for harsh conditions, putting all sorts of filters like rectangular GND for landscapes, then as a good reportage lens solely because of the focal range. It is a better choice than a bobble 14-24.

Nikon's 14-24 might be a sharpness marvel but many people bought it and afraid to use because the unable to be protected front element gets scratched easily, also you either can't use GND filters or have to break down to buy some novelty solutions. I personally don't like a lens like this.

I'm all for a new 50mm!

 

[tron]

A 14-24 with bobble front element is only good for pixel peepers. No filters? that's a big NO for landscapes, especially for Canon's *cough* DR *cough*.

In comparsion, Canon's 16-35 is a all purpose performer. Adding a UV for harsh conditions, putting all sorts of filters like rectangular GND for landscapes, then as a good reportage lens solely because of the focal range. It is a better choice than a bobble 14-24.

Nikon's 14-24 might be a sharpness marvel but many people bought it and afraid to use because the unable to be protected front element gets scratched easily, also you either can't use GND filters or have to break down to buy some novelty solutions. I personally don't like a lens like this.

I'm all for a new 50mm!

I would love a 16-35 2.8L III but I would bet that there will be none.

 

[privatebydesign]

A 14-24 with bobble front element is only good for pixel peepers. No filters? that's a big NO for landscapes, especially for Canon's *cough* DR *cough*.

In comparsion, Canon's 16-35 is a all purpose performer. Adding a UV for harsh conditions, putting all sorts of filters like rectangular GND for landscapes, then as a good reportage lens solely because of the focal range. It is a better choice than a bobble 14-24.

Nikon's 14-24 might be a sharpness marvel but many people bought it and afraid to use because the unable to be protected front element gets scratched easily, also you either can't use GND filters or have to break down to buy some novelty solutions. I personally don't like a lens like this.

I'm all for a new 50mm!

What a misguided comment. Nobody who bought the 14-24 had any illusions about the front element, same with the 17ts-e that has singlehandedly taken several niches by storm. Besides, there is more than one very high quality filter options for both lenses, I know I own and use one.

 

[WillT]

Another vote for an ultra wide zoom that is sharp at the corners. Don't get me wrong I like my 16-35 but it leaves a lot to be desired in the corners.

 

[crasher8]

All micromotor lenses they plan on keeping should get the full Ring treatment starting with the 50. The 20 could use a refresh too but I'm not holding my breath. Why is it the only good primes under 24mm that are not L series are all utter crap or ManFocus?

 

[tron]

Another vote for an ultra wide zoom that is sharp at the corners. Don't get me wrong I like my 16-35 but it leaves a lot to be desired in the corners.

+1 I sold 16-35 2.8 L version I since I used my TS-E 17mm f/4L more and more. (So that lately I have ordered a custom filter holder for the100mm Lee Filter System...)

 

[privatebydesign]

Another vote for an ultra wide zoom that is sharp at the corners. Don't get me wrong I like my 16-35 but it leaves a lot to be desired in the corners.

+1 I sold 16-35 2.8 L version I since I used my TS-E 17mm f/4L more and more. (So that lately I have ordered a custom filter holder for the100mm Lee Filter System...)

If you don't already have a selection of the Lee filters look at the Fotodiox Wonderpana system for the 17. It is very well made and allows much more movement than the Lee system, even full shift with zero vignetteing.

 

[Ruined]

Another vote for an ultra wide zoom that is sharp at the corners. Don't get me wrong I like my 16-35 but it leaves a lot to be desired in the corners.

Given the minimal improvement between the 16-35 I and 16-35 II despite many years passing and increasing of front element to 82mm filter thread, I think the only way a UWA Zoom will be sharp at corners is with a bulbous element w/o filter support.