Two Lenses Coming for CP+? [CR2]

[dstppy]

Dear Canon:

With regard to 'development announcement's: Please Don't.

Take a note (as should the entire electronics industry) from Apple's playbook and aim for week-1 availability.

We're tired of hearing about nice things that we're not allowed to play with.

Thanks.

You're forgetting about the Mac Pro.

I remember it; the announcement was a bad break in a good policy.

I also said "aim", meaning supply constraints etc.

Personally, the only one that affects me is getting excited over something that doesn't exist yet. Being a gear head, I've had to watch as the electronics industry promise and not deliver time and time again. It's 2013 and I still have to get a living creature to bring me a cold drink from the refrigerator. The OmniBot 2000 promised me that YEARS ago!

 

[privatebydesign]

There are already too many existing lenses on my wishlist to be too bothered about new releases, but if I were to vote for one, it would be an IS version of the 180mm f/3.5L Macro - as some have suggested elsewhere, maybe taking it to 200mm.

I'm normally excited by the widest apertures possible (there's probably a better way of phrasing that!), but for some reason the 35mm f/2 IS seems more interesting than the 35L. Not that I've used either, it must be said.

+1 with you for the 180mm macro. But what about that age old 50mm macro? that lens has been in Canon lineup since 1987. Canon is lagging behind Nikon in terms of lens releases as well now days.

Not really, not in terms of quality usable lenses, Nikon have caught up some, but as far as a good lens selection they were miles behind anyway. Funny how they are so far behind with the flash stuff now too, one brilliant release, the 600EX-RT, and they were leapfrogged.

 

[WillT]

There are already too many existing lenses on my wishlist to be too bothered about new releases, but if I were to vote for one, it would be an IS version of the 180mm f/3.5L Macro - as some have suggested elsewhere, maybe taking it to 200mm.

I'm normally excited by the widest apertures possible (there's probably a better way of phrasing that!), but for some reason the 35mm f/2 IS seems more interesting than the 35L. Not that I've used either, it must be said.

+1 with you for the 180mm macro. But what about that age old 50mm macro? that lens has been in Canon lineup since 1987. Canon is lagging behind Nikon in terms of lens releases as well now days.

Not really, not in terms of quality usable lenses, Nikon have caught up some, but as far as a good lens selection they were miles behind anyway. Funny how they are so far behind with the flash stuff now too, one brilliant release, the 600EX-RT, and they were leapfrogged.

Canon is behind in with the UW zooms. Nikons is superior in every way IMO.

 

[privatebydesign]

There are already too many existing lenses on my wishlist to be too bothered about new releases, but if I were to vote for one, it would be an IS version of the 180mm f/3.5L Macro - as some have suggested elsewhere, maybe taking it to 200mm.

I'm normally excited by the widest apertures possible (there's probably a better way of phrasing that!), but for some reason the 35mm f/2 IS seems more interesting than the 35L. Not that I've used either, it must be said.

+1 with you for the 180mm macro. But what about that age old 50mm macro? that lens has been in Canon lineup since 1987. Canon is lagging behind Nikon in terms of lens releases as well now days.

Not really, not in terms of quality usable lenses, Nikon have caught up some, but as far as a good lens selection they were miles behind anyway. Funny how they are so far behind with the flash stuff now too, one brilliant release, the 600EX-RT, and they were leapfrogged.

Canon is behind in with the UW zooms. Nikons is superior in every way IMO.

That is one lens.

Nikon don't have a lens that is in the same league as the 17mm TS-E, or the MP-E 65, their 24 PC-E is a hunk of junk, let alone compared to the Canon TS-E 24 MkII which truly embarrass' it. They can't best Canon in the 24-70 or 70-200 f2.8 categories either, have you shot with the Nikon 24-120 f4 VR? Canon's 24-105 f4 IS is worth twice the money yet can be bought for a little over half. The Nikon 80-400 does put the Canon 100-400 in its place, but at nearly twice the cost. No 8-15 fisheye zoom either. None of the Canon MkII superteles are in the same league as the Nikon versions, indeed over 200mm the only Nikon lens worth looking at compared to a Canon one is the 800, at $18,000. Nikon don't have an 85 f1.2 or a 50 f1.2, until recently they didn't have any modern AF fast primes or a selection of quality f4 zooms....... I could go on and on, but why bother, if you want Nikon glass get a Nikon.

 

[scyrene]

There are already too many existing lenses on my wishlist to be too bothered about new releases, but if I were to vote for one, it would be an IS version of the 180mm f/3.5L Macro - as some have suggested elsewhere, maybe taking it to 200mm.

I'm normally excited by the widest apertures possible (there's probably a better way of phrasing that!), but for some reason the 35mm f/2 IS seems more interesting than the 35L. Not that I've used either, it must be said.

+1 with you for the 180mm macro. But what about that age old 50mm macro? that lens has been in Canon lineup since 1987. Canon is lagging behind Nikon in terms of lens releases as well now days.

Ah, that's a good point, but I have the 100L macro and the MP-E, so the 50mm macro is superfluous (and indeed I use the 85L + extension tubes for some stuff too).

 

[JonAustin]

... But what about that age old 50mm macro? that lens has been in Canon lineup since 1987.

I own the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, and it's so good at what it does that I'm in no hurry to replace it. (I also have the 100mm f/2.8L IS macro.) I would still like to see (and buy) a new 50mm with true ring USM and IS. But even if that comes to pass, I will keep my 50CM; I think it serves its niche very well.

 

[RLPhoto]

There are already too many existing lenses on my wishlist to be too bothered about new releases, but if I were to vote for one, it would be an IS version of the 180mm f/3.5L Macro - as some have suggested elsewhere, maybe taking it to 200mm.

I'm normally excited by the widest apertures possible (there's probably a better way of phrasing that!), but for some reason the 35mm f/2 IS seems more interesting than the 35L. Not that I've used either, it must be said.

+1 with you for the 180mm macro. But what about that age old 50mm macro? that lens has been in Canon lineup since 1987. Canon is lagging behind Nikon in terms of lens releases as well now days.

Not really, not in terms of quality usable lenses, Nikon have caught up some, but as far as a good lens selection they were miles behind anyway. Funny how they are so far behind with the flash stuff now too, one brilliant release, the 600EX-RT, and they were leapfrogged.

Canon is behind in with the UW zooms. Nikons is superior in every way IMO.

Nikon is behind in Tilt-Shifts.
Nikon is behind in Macros.
Nikon is behind in Standard Zooms.
Nikon is behind in Super Tele's.
Nikon is behind in Super High Speed Primes
Nikon is behind in Auto-Focus systems.
Nikon is behind in Speedlite Flash.
Nikon is behind in Customer Service.
Nikon is behind in Professional Services.
Nikon is behind in Sales.

Nikon is over-rated IMO.

 

[Chaitanya]

There are already too many existing lenses on my wishlist to be too bothered about new releases, but if I were to vote for one, it would be an IS version of the 180mm f/3.5L Macro - as some have suggested elsewhere, maybe taking it to 200mm.

I'm normally excited by the widest apertures possible (there's probably a better way of phrasing that!), but for some reason the 35mm f/2 IS seems more interesting than the 35L. Not that I've used either, it must be said.

+1 with you for the 180mm macro. But what about that age old 50mm macro? that lens has been in Canon lineup since 1987. Canon is lagging behind Nikon in terms of lens releases as well now days.

Ah, that's a good point, but I have the 100L macro and the MP-E, so the 50mm macro is superfluous (and indeed I use the 85L + extension tubes for some stuff too).

I had both Mp-e 65 and 100L untill recently, I photograph snakes, butterflies and spiders a lot. 100mm L was too short for venomous snakes and bugs so I replaced that lens with Sigma 150mm OS recently. But for me in some situations 150mm is too long so I still need a 50mm/60mm macro in my bag.
Here are some photos that I took using 100mm L, 28mm and 50mm reversed with my old 450D.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

There are already too many existing lenses on my wishlist to be too bothered about new releases, but if I were to vote for one, it would be an IS version of the 180mm f/3.5L Macro - as some have suggested elsewhere, maybe taking it to 200mm.

I'm normally excited by the widest apertures possible (there's probably a better way of phrasing that!), but for some reason the 35mm f/2 IS seems more interesting than the 35L. Not that I've used either, it must be said.

+1 with you for the 180mm macro. But what about that age old 50mm macro? that lens has been in Canon lineup since 1987. Canon is lagging behind Nikon in terms of lens releases as well now days.

Not really, not in terms of quality usable lenses, Nikon have caught up some, but as far as a good lens selection they were miles behind anyway. Funny how they are so far behind with the flash stuff now too, one brilliant release, the 600EX-RT, and they were leapfrogged.

Canon is behind in with the UW zooms. Nikons is superior in every way IMO.

Erm? Why because of one lens? The 14-24mm? Their 16-35 f4 is ok, but no better than the Canon 16-35IIL.
Canon's 24-70IIL is superior in every respect to the Nikon version, the TS-e 24L is superior. The TS-e 17L is peerless and without equal. The 16-35IIL has it's issues but it's still the most versatile UW on the market.

The problem with the 14-24mm is that it can't easily take polarisers and ND filters. The front element is very prone to flare and ghosting (compared to the 16-35IIL) and it's very exposed. So while it's a sharp lens, it's not very practical or versatile. The 16-35IIL is just as sharp when stopped down (for landscape work) and very few photographers need very sharp corners at f2.8.

 

[jrbdmb]

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.

Now I'm going to puke.

I expect Canon to update the 35L very soon because I'm sure they are not happy that every objective review says the Siggy 35 is better.

 

[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.

Now I'm going to puke.

I expect Canon to update the 35L very soon because I'm sure they are not happy that every objective review says the Siggy 35 is better.

I still love mine. Is that OK?

There will always be a better lens or better sensor. I bet many of the guys prowling internet forums wouldn't know what to do with the best in a real world situation anyway. Test charts makes for boring pictures.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

These days it may seem anathema, but I have been so unimpressed with the Sigma's bokeh (a pretty huge deal in a wide aperture prime) that I went with the Canon 35mm f/2 IS instead, despite a slight sharpness downgrade from the Sigma. I certainly think that Canon can improve on the Sigma design by offering a properly weather sealed prime that has both great sharpness, much more accurate AF, and smoother bokeh transition.

Where Canon has a problem is the price department. If they aren't a bit more competitive with the pricing it will be very hard to market an only marginally better lens at a price point that could easily be more than double that of the Sigma. I saw a sale on the Siggy yesterday for $699, so the price is certainly already dropping. That's a tough sell for Canon.

The 24-70II is optically fantastic, but its very steep MSRP has meant that a LOT of people have opted for the almost as good but much cheaper + VC Tamron. This a trend that Canon can't afford to keep repeating.

 

[Zv]

These days it may seem anathema, but I have been so unimpressed with the Sigma's bokeh (a pretty huge deal in a wide aperture prime) that I went with the Canon 35mm f/2 IS instead, despite a slight sharpness downgrade from the Sigma. I certainly think that Canon can improve on the Sigma design by offering a properly weather sealed prime that has both great sharpness, much more accurate AF, and smoother bokeh transition.

Where Canon has a problem is the price department. If they aren't a bit more competitive with the pricing it will be very hard to market an only marginally better lens at a price point that could easily be more than double that of the Sigma. I saw a sale on the Siggy yesterday for $699, so the price is certainly already dropping. That's a tough sell for Canon.

The 24-70II is optically fantastic, but its very steep MSRP has meant that a LOT of people have opted for the almost as good but much cheaper + VC Tamron. This a trend that Canon can't afford to keep repeating.

It would be nice if the 35L was dropped in price too! It's one that I want but damn that thing is still going for $1500 or more these days. Seems to have gone up in price! I don't get how the 135L can be so cheap and the 35L so expensive? If the drop the price to $1000 even I'd buy it over the Sigma. And then Canon could release the 35LII at the same price as the 35L is now?

Same with the 50L. I'd value that at $900. At that price I'd buy it. You can't seriously charge people $1500 for that when the 24-70L II is $1699 with rebate! I mean I'd rather fork out the extra and say screw the 24L, 35L and 50L!

But even then I still want a prime. I feel like I'm done with zooms.

 

[Viggo]

These days it may seem anathema, but I have been so unimpressed with the Sigma's bokeh (a pretty huge deal in a wide aperture prime) that I went with the Canon 35mm f/2 IS instead, despite a slight sharpness downgrade from the Sigma. I certainly think that Canon can improve on the Sigma design by offering a properly weather sealed prime that has both great sharpness, much more accurate AF, and smoother bokeh transition.

Where Canon has a problem is the price department. If they aren't a bit more competitive with the pricing it will be very hard to market an only marginally better lens at a price point that could easily be more than double that of the Sigma. I saw a sale on the Siggy yesterday for $699, so the price is certainly already dropping. That's a tough sell for Canon.

The 24-70II is optically fantastic, but its very steep MSRP has meant that a LOT of people have opted for the almost as good but much cheaper + VC Tamron. This a trend that Canon can't afford to keep repeating.

It would be nice if the 35L was dropped in price too! It's one that I want but damn that thing is still going for $1500 or more these days. Seems to have gone up in price! I don't get how the 135L can be so cheap and the 35L so expensive? If the drop the price to $1000 even I'd buy it over the Sigma. And then Canon could release the 35LII at the same price as the 35L is now?

Same with the 50L. I'd value that at $900. At that price I'd buy it. You can't seriously charge people $1500 for that when the 24-70L II is $1699 with rebate! I mean I'd rather fork out the extra and say screw the 24L, 35L and 50L!

But even then I still want a prime. I feel like I'm done with zooms.

Check this one then:

https://foto.no/cgi-bin/bruktmarked/visAnnonse.cgi?id=210639

6000,- nok is 984 usd. It's a 2007 model..

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't get how the 135L can be so cheap and the 35L so expensive?

It is the difference in designs. A 35mm lens on a 44mm flange distance is a retrofocus design, that is it has to bend the light multiple times to get it to focus on the sensor, telephoto lenses, in contrast, are very simple lenses to design and build, it is a straight shot through to the sensor and additional elements are just for correcting aberrations.

The TS-E 17mm was the lens that made me realise all Canon lenses are exactly as designed, and the compromises in them are there for specific reasons, cost, quality tradeoffs, etc. Look at the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII compared to the MkI, sports shooters love it because it is sharper and focuses faster, meanwhile portrait shooters are not so keen because of the slightly harsher bokeh, all trade offs, but all built in at the design stage. Anybody that can make a 17 mm lens with zero distortion is very clever, anybody that can make a 17mm lens to work on a 44mm registry distance is comfortably smarter than that, but to then drive home the total dominance of lens design and build capability by making it a tilt shift lens is, quite simple, showing off.

Canon make the lenses they do for marketing reasons, they come with the limitations and characteristics they do to meet the brief for that lens. It seems the brief can be top quality at any cost and we will sell them for what we can get, the prestige thing, like the 17TS-E and the 200 f1.8, it was said that Canon made a loss on every 200 f1.8 they sold; or the brief can be how cheap can we make it to get people into a system, the 50 f1.8 and many kit zooms spring to mind.

Another consideration is that the needs of film and digital sensors is quite different, most of these lenses core layouts were designed long before digital and the need for perpendicular, or as close as possible, light rays, another major consideration for wide angle and retrofcus designs. Certainly any new wide angle designs will take that into consideration.

 

[scyrene]

There are already too many existing lenses on my wishlist to be too bothered about new releases, but if I were to vote for one, it would be an IS version of the 180mm f/3.5L Macro - as some have suggested elsewhere, maybe taking it to 200mm.

I'm normally excited by the widest apertures possible (there's probably a better way of phrasing that!), but for some reason the 35mm f/2 IS seems more interesting than the 35L. Not that I've used either, it must be said.

+1 with you for the 180mm macro. But what about that age old 50mm macro? that lens has been in Canon lineup since 1987. Canon is lagging behind Nikon in terms of lens releases as well now days.

Ah, that's a good point, but I have the 100L macro and the MP-E, so the 50mm macro is superfluous (and indeed I use the 85L + extension tubes for some stuff too).

I had both Mp-e 65 and 100L untill recently, I photograph snakes, butterflies and spiders a lot. 100mm L was too short for venomous snakes and bugs so I replaced that lens with Sigma 150mm OS recently. But for me in some situations 150mm is too long so I still need a 50mm/60mm macro in my bag.
Here are some photos that I took using 100mm L, 28mm and 50mm reversed with my old 450D.

Those are lovely shots. I would say (although I've not used it), the 180L macro lens would be better for all but the spider. I don't know how close reptiles let you get, but it's the best choice for larger subjects at a distance (butterflies are a classic example). You could try a 200mm lens with extension tubes as a cheaper alternative, maybe (but then you hit the maximum focus distance problem).

I've actually combined the 24-105L with extenders and extension tubes out of curiosity; it produces similar, if inferior results (large magnification without needing to get too close).

 

[Zv]

These days it may seem anathema, but I have been so unimpressed with the Sigma's bokeh (a pretty huge deal in a wide aperture prime) that I went with the Canon 35mm f/2 IS instead, despite a slight sharpness downgrade from the Sigma. I certainly think that Canon can improve on the Sigma design by offering a properly weather sealed prime that has both great sharpness, much more accurate AF, and smoother bokeh transition.

Where Canon has a problem is the price department. If they aren't a bit more competitive with the pricing it will be very hard to market an only marginally better lens at a price point that could easily be more than double that of the Sigma. I saw a sale on the Siggy yesterday for $699, so the price is certainly already dropping. That's a tough sell for Canon.

The 24-70II is optically fantastic, but its very steep MSRP has meant that a LOT of people have opted for the almost as good but much cheaper + VC Tamron. This a trend that Canon can't afford to keep repeating.

It would be nice if the 35L was dropped in price too! It's one that I want but damn that thing is still going for $1500 or more these days. Seems to have gone up in price! I don't get how the 135L can be so cheap and the 35L so expensive? If the drop the price to $1000 even I'd buy it over the Sigma. And then Canon could release the 35LII at the same price as the 35L is now?

Same with the 50L. I'd value that at $900. At that price I'd buy it. You can't seriously charge people $1500 for that when the 24-70L II is $1699 with rebate! I mean I'd rather fork out the extra and say screw the 24L, 35L and 50L!

But even then I still want a prime. I feel like I'm done with zooms.

Check this one then:

https://foto.no/cgi-bin/bruktmarked/visAnnonse.cgi?id=210639

6000,- nok is 984 usd. It's a 2007 model..

Does it include shipping to Japan?? Why is it more expensive in the country it's made in??

 

[Zv]

I don't get how the 135L can be so cheap and the 35L so expensive?

It is the difference in designs. A 35mm lens on a 44mm flange distance is a retrofocus design, that is it has to bend the light multiple times to get it to focus on the sensor, telephoto lenses, in contrast, are very simple lenses to design and build, it is a straight shot through to the sensor and additional elements are just for correcting aberrations.

The TS-E 17mm was the lens that made me realise all Canon lenses are exactly as designed, and the compromises in them are there for specific reasons, cost, quality tradeoffs, etc. Look at the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII compared to the MkI, sports shooters love it because it is sharper and focuses faster, meanwhile portrait shooters are not so keen because of the slightly harsher bokeh, all trade offs, but all built in at the design stage. Anybody that can make a 17 mm lens with zero distortion is very clever, anybody that can make a 17mm lens to work on a 44mm registry distance is comfortably smarter than that, but to then drive home the total dominance of lens design and build capability by making it a tilt shift lens is, quite simple, showing off.

Canon make the lenses they do for marketing reasons, they come with the limitations and characteristics they do to meet the brief for that lens. It seems the brief can be top quality at any cost and we will sell them for what we can get, the prestige thing, like the 17TS-E and the 200 f1.8, it was said that Canon made a loss on every 200 f1.8 they sold; or the brief can be how cheap can we make it to get people into a system, the 50 f1.8 and many kit zooms spring to mind.

Another consideration is that the needs of film and digital sensors is quite different, most of these lenses core layouts were designed long before digital and the need for perpendicular, or as close as possible, light rays, another major consideration for wide angle and retrofcus designs. Certainly any new wide angle designs will take that into consideration.

Ah I didn't realize the 35 was a retrofocus design. I guess that makes sense now. Thanks!

 

[Viggo]

These days it may seem anathema, but I have been so unimpressed with the Sigma's bokeh (a pretty huge deal in a wide aperture prime) that I went with the Canon 35mm f/2 IS instead, despite a slight sharpness downgrade from the Sigma. I certainly think that Canon can improve on the Sigma design by offering a properly weather sealed prime that has both great sharpness, much more accurate AF, and smoother bokeh transition.

Where Canon has a problem is the price department. If they aren't a bit more competitive with the pricing it will be very hard to market an only marginally better lens at a price point that could easily be more than double that of the Sigma. I saw a sale on the Siggy yesterday for $699, so the price is certainly already dropping. That's a tough sell for Canon.

The 24-70II is optically fantastic, but its very steep MSRP has meant that a LOT of people have opted for the almost as good but much cheaper + VC Tamron. This a trend that Canon can't afford to keep repeating.

It would be nice if the 35L was dropped in price too! It's one that I want but damn that thing is still going for $1500 or more these days. Seems to have gone up in price! I don't get how the 135L can be so cheap and the 35L so expensive? If the drop the price to $1000 even I'd buy it over the Sigma. And then Canon could release the 35LII at the same price as the 35L is now?

Same with the 50L. I'd value that at $900. At that price I'd buy it. You can't seriously charge people $1500 for that when the 24-70L II is $1699 with rebate! I mean I'd rather fork out the extra and say screw the 24L, 35L and 50L!

But even then I still want a prime. I feel like I'm done with zooms.

Check this one then:

https://foto.no/cgi-bin/bruktmarked/visAnnonse.cgi?id=210639

6000,- nok is 984 usd. It's a 2007 model..

Does it include shipping to Japan?? Why is it more expensive in the country it's made in??

It's a Norwegian site and shipping is not included no, the used sales value in Norway is often lower than other countries even if the brand new price is of the most expensive in the world ..

 

[Renaissance]

I just hope the 50mm with image stabilization comes out in January!!