Two New Big White Lenses Coming Next Year [CR2]

[Ryananthony]

Big white?

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

- A

Be careful what you wished for, this looks more like EF-S or EF-M lens. ;D ;D

I don't care if it's hot pink -- if it's sharp, relatively small, internally focusing and has fast/reliable/modern AF, I'm in on day one.

But I'm OT, sorry. This is a big white thread.

- A

A new canon 50mm is always on topic, regardless of thread.

 

[privatebydesign]

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

 

[Don Haines]

800F5.6 DO lens.....
400F5.6 DO lens......

 

[Jopa]

Need to set myself a reminder to put the 200/2 on eBay in December. I think that one is most likely to update - it needs new brighter paint!
The 600/4 - I'm not sure if I sell mine I will be able to afford a DO version...

 

[Cthulhu]

How about an update to the 400 5.6? With IS this time..... ;D

Don't care about the 400 5.6, but would love an updated 300 f/4 is that played well with a 2x extender.

 

[AlanF]

How about an update to the 400 5.6? With IS this time..... ;D

why not go a little longer? 500mm f/5.6 IS USM L.

That would get my money!

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.

 

[YuengLinger]

The 200/2 and 800/5.6 are both due/overdue to catch up with the other MkIIs which are already (can you believe it?) nearly 7 years old, but in a perfect world we'd get the 600 DO and one of the rumoured lower cost non-L telephotos.

Even money on the 200 f/2 being up for a refresh.

 

[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.

 

[H2Oplanet]

The 200/2 and 800/5.6 are both due/overdue to catch up with the other MkIIs which are already (can you believe it?) nearly 7 years old, but in a perfect world we'd get the 600 DO and one of the rumoured lower cost non-L telephotos.

200/2 MkI is close-to-perfect... would MkII IQ get much better... not sure weight reduction alone would merit "trading up"

 

[Big_Ant_TV_Media]

didnt they mention a new 70-200 mark 3 was in the works??

 

[ahsanford]

didnt they mention a new 70-200 mark 3 was in the works??

They did, good memory.

But is that a 'big' white? Is a 70-300L a big white? There's a bit a price delta between a $1500-2000 zoom and the big dogs that are north of $5k...

- A

 

[Khalai]

didnt they mention a new 70-200 mark 3 was in the works??

They did, good memory.

But is that a 'big' white? Is a 70-300L a big white? There's a bit a price delta between a $1500-2000 zoom and the big dogs that are north of $5k...

- A

Why the hell would they upgrade 70-200 II for? That lens is stellar and quite recent. There are many others much older lenses due to upgrade. E.g. new 50mm prime

 

[ERHP]

600 f/4 IS w/1.4X TC built in. Or better, dual select-able 1.4X TC's built in.

 

[padam]

The other could be the EF-M 600mm f/5.6 DO IS lens.

 

[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.

 

[Maximilian]

didnt they mention a new 70-200 mark 3 was in the works??

They did, good memory.
...

Why the hell would they upgrade 70-200 II for? That lens is stellar and quite recent.

It is. But Nikon showed how to make it even better (although for a higher price).
And Tamron and Sigma are coming closer and closer.

and a 70-200/2.8 is a main workhorse to a lot of pros. So they are looking for the best available.

There are many others much older lenses due to upgrade. E.g. new 50mm prime

You are right here but the questions are which lenses are Canons cash cows, and where are they losing ground to their main competitor, Nikon.
I'd also like to see more new primes in the mid price range.
But as you mentioned the 50 mm lens you can see that Canon seem to feel no need to act, although the competition is there for several years now.

 

[Jopa]

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

 

[Khalai]

There are many others much older lenses due to
You are right here but the questions are which lenses are Canons cash cows, and where are they losing ground to their main competitor, Nikon.
I'd also like to see more new primes in the mid price range.
But as you mentioned the 50 mm lens you can see that Canon seem to feel no need to act, although the competition is there for several years now.

Sigma and Tamron are potent competition as well, considering recent Art or SP lenses. They come natively with EF mount, so many Canon shooters do not need to switch entire systems, just lenses.

Canon's 50mm dept. is quite outdated with recent offerings such as Sigma 50/1.4 Art, Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 or perhaps even Tamron 45/1.8 VC USD. While I really like my 50/1.2L, I would welcome improved sharpness and faster AF anyday for a 1/3 stop. Give me 50/1.4L, 55/1.4L or 58/1.4L with similar performance as 35/1.4L II and I'll be happy camper. And no aspherical design please, for smooth bokeh, while you're at it Canon, thanks. Take a look at Zeiss Milvus 85/1.4 please, they did outstanding job w/o aspherical elements there

 

[Khalai]

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

 

[Jopa]

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.

That's exactly my thoughts.