Two New Big White Lenses Coming Next Year [CR2]

[SecureGSM]

the off centre sharpness can be improved a bit, but not by much. A price hike is almost in order. Look a the Nikon's 70-200 latest and greatest price. Honestly, I do not see much point in upgrade. I am very happy with my 70-200 L II lens.

p.s. I purchased my lens slightly used from a very nice old gentleman living in Mornigton, Victoria, Australia, for A$1,500,00 (US$1,200) with a bonus Canon 2x Extender II included. Brian is now in his late 80's and no longer is able to walk mid to long distances due to ongoing lungs issues
I would like to take this opprtunities to express my gratitude to all older generation forum members. We have so much to learn from you, guys. Thank you for your patience and generocity!

So they are looking for the best available.

If I was a pro I would probably choose a best bang for a buck. I doubt the clients would spot a difference between the 70-200 I vs 70-200 II vs 70-200 III

Many pros still use first iteration or non-IS one as well. If it works, don't fix it. I know sime pros with inferior setup than I have. Why? Because I enthusiast and I plead guilty to GAS, they just need a reliable tool for the right price.

I've got 70-200 II second-hand in mint condition and 6 months warranty for 1600 €. And they'll have to pry that lens from my cold dead hands, if they want to part me with it.

70-200 III would be rather minor improvements (current one is very sharp wide open, any improvements will be rather difficult to accomplish within certain budget) with major price hike. Thanks, but no thanks

 

[Khalai]

the off centre sharpness can be improved a bit, but not by much. A price hike is almost in order. Look a the Nikon's 70-200 latest and greatest price. Honestly, I do not see much point in upgrade. I am very happy with my 70-200 L II lens.

p.s. I purchased my lens slightly used from a very nice old gentleman living in Mornigton, Victoria, Australia, for A$1,500,00 (US$1,200) with a bonus Canon 2x Extender II included. Brian is now in his late 80's and no longer is able to walk mid to long distances due to ongoing lungs issues
I would like to take this opprtunities to express my gratitude to all older generation forum members. We have so much to learn from you, guys. Thank you for your patience and generocity!

I use this lens as a wedding portrait machine, usually wide open. While I hate its weight after a longer use, I love the output of that lens. Centre sharpness is amazing, borders could be better, but I won't pay over 2500 € for that. If thye could somehow make it under 1 kg of weight though, that would be some feat! But physics is merciless I'm afraid...

 

[Jopa]

the off centre sharpness can be improved a bit, but not by much. A price hike is almost in order. Look a the Nikon's 70-200 latest and greatest price. Honestly, I do not see much point in upgrade. I am very happy with my 70-200 L II lens.

p.s. I purchased my lens slightly used from a very nice old gentleman living in Mornigton, Victoria, Australia, for A$1,500,00 (US$1,200) with a bonus Canon 2x Extender II included. Brian is now in his late 80's and no longer is able to walk mid to long distances due to ongoing lungs issues
I would like to take this opprtunities to express my gratitude to all older generation forum members. We have so much to learn from you, guys. Thank you for your patience and generocity!

I use this lens as a wedding portrait machine, usually wide open. While I hate its weight after a longer use, I love the output of that lens. Centre sharpness is amazing, borders could be better, but I won't pay over 2500 € for that. If thye could somehow make it under 1 kg of weight though, that would be some feat! But physics is merciless I'm afraid...

The sharpness on the 5DsR is mind blowing. I'm seriously considering to sell the 200/2 because of the versatility (and usability) of the 70-200 II.

 

[Joakim]

I didn't see anyone mention the 300-600 with built in TC they patented a few years ago.

The 200 F2 and 800 F5.6 both lack an II version so my money is in 1 of these (likely the 200, as the 800 is less versatile than a 600 F4) as well as the 600 DO.

 

[SecureGSM]

shooting in studio with the 200mm prime is definetely not the most flexible option out there unless your studio is very, very large. shooting outdoors is a different story and 200/2.0 is a very special lens. very sharp, virtually distortion free and vignetting free by F2.8. for outdoor enviromental portraiture the 200/2L is a nice tool, I suppose. quite a bokeh machine too. for my style of shooting, 135mm prime is a more versatile lens to use. If I were you, I would consider selling the 200/2.0 but you love shooting outdoors and wide open and 200/2.0 is a great lens that is more than capable of delivering that ultimate image quality you are pursuing.
zooms are not primes
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

stopped down a bit, the 70-200 L II is as sharp though.

the off centre sharpness can be improved a bit, but not by much. A price hike is almost in order. Look a the Nikon's 70-200 latest and greatest price. Honestly, I do not see much point in upgrade. I am very happy with my 70-200 L II lens.

p.s. I purchased my lens slightly used from a very nice old gentleman living in Mornigton, Victoria, Australia, for A$1,500,00 (US$1,200) with a bonus Canon 2x Extender II included. Brian is now in his late 80's and no longer is able to walk mid to long distances due to ongoing lungs issues
I would like to take this opprtunities to express my gratitude to all older generation forum members. We have so much to learn from you, guys. Thank you for your patience and generocity!

I use this lens as a wedding portrait machine, usually wide open. While I hate its weight after a longer use, I love the output of that lens. Centre sharpness is amazing, borders could be better, but I won't pay over 2500 € for that. If thye could somehow make it under 1 kg of weight though, that would be some feat! But physics is merciless I'm afraid...

The sharpness on the 5DsR is mind blowing. I'm seriously considering to sell the 200/2 because of the versatility (and usability) of the 70-200 II.

 

[Maximilian]

Many pros still use first iteration or non-IS one as well. If it works, don't fix it. I know sime pros with inferior setup than I have. Why? Because I enthusiast and I plead guilty to GAS, they just need a reliable tool for the right price.

I Am with you and also with the other thoughts you've posted here.

What I wanted to say is, that those f2.8 zooms are the typical lighthouse and reference lenses where everybody wants to shine.

 

[Khalai]

Many pros still use first iteration or non-IS one as well. If it works, don't fix it. I know sime pros with inferior setup than I have. Why? Because I enthusiast and I plead guilty to GAS, they just need a reliable tool for the right price.

I Am with you and also with the other thoughts you've posted here.

What I wanted to say is, that those f2.8 zooms are the typical lighthouse and reference lenses where everybody wants to shine.

Canon did their job well then. 16-35/2.8 III, 24-70/2.8L II and 70-200/2.8L II are all very sharp lenses, albeit some people miss IS on that 24-70. I do not, seeing results from peers with IS, I'm glad Canon went IS-less way for better image quality.

Yes, there is a room for improvement in off-centre image quality in those lenses, but at what cost? Are we really willing to pay +1000 € for a lens that is slightly sharper in the corners (and its predecessor is already acceptable as well), much bigger and heavier? Because physics is physics, unless there is some opto-scientific breakthrough such as superhigh transmissive, chromatic aberration free, optically excellent compound with extreme refractive index compared to current technology available...

 

[tron]

So they are looking for the best available.

If I was a pro I would probably choose a best bang for a buck. I doubt the clients would spot a difference between the 70-200 I vs 70-200 II vs 70-200 III

Many pros still use first iteration or non-IS one as well. If it works, don't fix it. I know sime pros with inferior setup than I have. Why? Because I enthusiast and I plead guilty to GAS, they just need a reliable tool for the right price.

I've got 70-200 II second-hand in mint condition and 6 months warranty for 1600 €. And they'll have to pry that lens from my cold dead hands, if they want to part me with it.

70-200 III would be rather minor improvements (current one is very sharp wide open, any improvements will be rather difficult to accomplish within certain budget) with major price hike. Thanks, but no thanks

I had the non-IS 70-200 2.8 Unfortunately it was stolen. If I had it I would not buy the II. It had very good IQ. It was my first zoom that had fixed lens IQ (judging by b/w enlargements)

 

[Lt Colonel]

It's interesting to watch this thread run though a dump of wishes, mine included, and then trail off "big whites" onto other wants, wishes and needs. These should provide free focus group marketing research for Canon if they are listening. One would think this group is a reasonable microcosm of Canon users worldwide; maybe. I predict that no matter what the mystery lens is, I'll be in the 1/3 (or more) of folks who will not be able to justify the expense as a hobbyist photographer.

I hope it is a groundbreaking, gee-whiz gotta have new lens, so we can help the other 2/3 finance it by getting a deal on your used gear.

 

[Maximilian]

...
Are we really willing to pay +1000 € for a lens that is slightly sharper in the corners
...

Me not, and if you think about the "normal" enthusiasts, that buy a xxD and some decent lenses they are still just dreaming about lenses north of say 1.000 $/€ because they simply cannot afford or justify such an invest.

And here I am totally with you that such enthusiasts would welcome improvements in the midprice lenses, esp. those old prime designs from the last century.
But it seems that Canon doesn't see any interesting sales numbers here. Otherwise there would be products already available, so I suppose.

Let's hope that we won't have to wait very much longer for those... *sigh*

 

[PeterAlex7]

Therefore, why they should replace their cash cows? It still a decent lens. They should replace their old lenses, like 50L. I doubt the sale of 50L for a month could equal the half of the 70-200 II thesedays. Because of it was no longer a money maker, they have to make it a money maker again right? I think the profit would be bigger that way than replacing an already great also money maker lens.

 

[Antono Refa]

Big white?

C'mon, we all know what the one of them is... 8)

- A

yup.. you're getting a 50mm f0.25.. and approx 15lbs weight.

Big.. not necessarily long

Ernst Abbe worked out that for complicated lenses (more than one element, or air as a part of the lenses optical path) that f0.5 is a hard limit. Faster than that and you have to have a one piece solid lens which makes focusing and aperture control problematic.

So it looks like ashford will have to settle for a 50mm f0.5. ;D

If Canon makes an EF 50mm f/0.7 USM, I'll buy two. Three, if it has IS.

 

[ahsanford]

If Canon makes an EF 50mm f/0.7 USM, I'll buy two. Three, if it has IS.

Don't forget to save money for back and wrist surgery.

- A

 

[LonelyBoy]

It would be less versatile than a 400mm f/4 + TCs. A 400 DO II f/4 + 1.4xTC = 560mm f/5.6. 400 DO + 2xTC = 800mm f/8, whereas 500mm f/5.6 + 1.4xTC = 700mm f/8. OK, you could have 500mm + 2xTC at 1000mm f/11 but it would not AF and would be above the DLA for high density sensors.

A 400/4 would also be a lot more expensive.

Would it? A 500/5.6 would be pretty close in size of glass to a 400/4 of the same specs.

Isn't the rule that 100mm front element is where it gets expensive? The whole fact that you can use TCs to turn one into a 700/8 and the other into an 800/8 should illustrate the difference. And it's why the 150-600s turn into f/6.3 at the long end.

 

[snoke]

Will Canon's competitor to 150-600 or 200-500 or ... be a "bit white lens" next year?
Or will it be a big black lens?
Or just not be at all?

 

[Antono Refa]

If Canon makes an EF 50mm f/0.7 USM, I'll buy two. Three, if it has IS.

Don't forget to save money for back and wrist surgery.

I'm saving for the Canon AG-E1 Anti-Gravity Accessory that canon will release with it, which I would buy even though it wouldn't shoot 4K video.

 

[ethanz]

If Canon makes an EF 50mm f/0.7 USM, I'll buy two. Three, if it has IS.

Don't forget to save money for back and wrist surgery.

I'm saving for the Canon AG-E1 Anti-Gravity Accessory that canon will release with it, which I would buy even though it wouldn't shoot 4K video.

I've thought about that too. Like a tripod that moves with you without legs or carrying it.

 

[Khalai]

If Canon makes an EF 50mm f/0.7 USM, I'll buy two. Three, if it has IS.

Don't forget to save money for back and wrist surgery.

I'm saving for the Canon AG-E1 Anti-Gravity Accessory that canon will release with it, which I would buy even though it wouldn't shoot 4K video.

I've thought about that too. Like a tripod that moves with you without legs or carrying it.

Canon ML (MagLev) lens series?

 

[WRS]

I vote they bring out that rumored 1000mm f/5.6 DO ;D

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30034.0

 

[AlanF]

It would be less versatile than a 400mm f/4 + TCs. A 400 DO II f/4 + 1.4xTC = 560mm f/5.6. 400 DO + 2xTC = 800mm f/8, whereas 500mm f/5.6 + 1.4xTC = 700mm f/8. OK, you could have 500mm + 2xTC at 1000mm f/11 but it would not AF and would be above the DLA for high density sensors.

A 400/4 would also be a lot more expensive.

Would it? A 500/5.6 would be pretty close in size of glass to a 400/4 of the same specs.

Isn't the rule that 100mm front element is where it gets expensive? The whole fact that you can use TCs to turn one into a 700/8 and the other into an 800/8 should illustrate the difference. And it's why the 150-600s turn into f/6.3 at the long end.

I doubt that there is any such rigid rule. For example, the 150-600mms you quote - the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary does indeed have a 95mm front element, but the Sports has a 105mm front element and costs only $900 more, which includes better construction, weather sealing and more expensive glass components.