|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Direct quotes of lens info I've received
“Talked to the Canon EOS Rep today- was buying a 7D. He said, “By the way, our current stock of 70-200 F/2.8 IS USM are being sold at an extra special price of USD1450. I can't tell you why, and you didn't hear it from me, but I can get you a special price for it”. When subtly probed on a new lens, he gave the very cryptic “I can't talk about any of that… all I can do is tell you that if you want the cheap 2.8, its now.”
24-70, 70-200 & 100-400 (eternal rumors I'm afraid)
“The Canon 70-200 2.8 II will see the light of day this side of the year for announcement. Improved optics at 2.8 and new 5 stop IS. It was suppose to be announced with the 1D Mark IV but was delayed slightly. I don’t deal with pricing at all but expect it to be 30% more expensive than the current model.
In 2010 look out for the Canon 24-70 II with IS, announcement due with 1Ds IV. The 100-400 is scheduled for renewal sometime in early 2010.”
14-24 Patent?
From an FM thread and Northlight.
Patent Here: http://www.google.com/patents?id=lbTIAAAAEBAJ
CR's Take
I really hope this lens isn't true. Yes, Canon needs a kick butt ultra wide angle. The 17-40 is worth what it costs, the 16-35 is a relative disappointment beside the Nikkor 14-24. What I don't like, and a few of my photographer friends also don't like is that you can't filter a 14mm lens (yes, there may be some do it yourself solution). What I'd like to see is a 16-24 f/2.8 lens with the performance of the Nikkor 14-24. I want to use polarizers, grad filters, ND filters and all that.
I'm not sure if I'm in the minority in regards to filters.
cr
i’d love to see 70-200 IS II, and a new 100-400.
16-24 with filter capable and better corner performance will be great. Or else it will be a disappointment if there is a new filter-incapable filter lense, i would rather use current 16-35 instead.
I NEED THE 70-200 IS II xD
Love my 70-200 f2.8L IS and can’t see the need for a ‘better’ one!
But a 24-70 f2.8L IS sounds lovely. Been looking to replace my 24-105L with something faster. For now, a version 1 16-35 f2.8L will keep me very happy :-)
Maybe they could put the 14-24mm filter’s in the back like on 300mm and 400mm 2.8? It’s not the same of course, but it would be something. I’m not into filters using myself so it doesn’t matter to me personally if you can filter it or not, but I’d think they could come up with something for those who do.
me too! :)
I’d like more tele on the “standard zoom” 2.8, a 24-105 2.8 would be prefect, but I’d settle for a 24-90 2.8…and no I dont care how big it is, they could make it the size of the 70-200 if that’s what it took, though I doubt it would have to be that big.
> I’m not sure if I’m in the minority in regards to filters.
You are not minority.
When I bought Nikkor 14-24, my friends told me that the 14-24 for landscaper is a joke because of filters.
Anyway canon’s wide-angle is a joke.
I do not want much. I need fix these crap L first.
The 100-400 lens seems less likely to me as it is conspicuous by it’s absence in the October-January lens rebates — one would think Canon would want to clear the shelves before an “early 2010” intro.
Oddly, when I saw it excluded from the rebates, I finally quit putting it off and acquired it as I assumed no replacement was in the immediate pipeline. I have been thrilled with my copy — even pixel peeping on my pixel-packed 7D yields very pixel-sharp detail at frame center wide open (didn’t pixel peep the corners as the backgrounds are purposely OOF, which is how I always try to shoot).
Why did I wait so long to buy this? It is fantastic and fast focusing, with no micro-AF tuning needed. The zoom tension ring did take some getting used to, but a week after buying it the ring became second nature.
I am no longer stuck in a up-to-200mm world!
Apparently Tae-Ew hasn’t tried Canon’s 14mm 2.8L II – just added it to my bag and it’s on par with the 85mm 1.2L II as my favorite lens.
Ultra-wides aren’t just for landscapes guys, for photojournalism, environmental portraits and artistic work they rock.
As far as landscapes shoot a sweeping sky with a 14mm 2.8L II and get ready to fall in love.
If they get it right a 14-24mm 2.8L would be an instant classic.
If Canon fixes the 100-400, they should make it a 2-touch zoom. Push/pull was ideal for manual focus systems but is undesirable for autofocus systems.
Also, Canon needs to dramatically improve the image quality, especially at the long end. My 70-200 Sigma EX with a 1.4x Sigma TC is better than the 100-400 and my 300 f/2.8 with and without a Canon 1.4x TC is much better.
I cannot agree more with CR’s Take this time.
PS: the 14mm 2.8L II for architecture? Off the hook.
200×1.4 is 280, NOT 400.
5 stops IS! sweet
Yea, gonna have to say, i do love circ Polarizers, but the 14-24 would be INSANELY useful even if you couldn’t filter it. I know you filter guys say PP wont fix it, but I bet canon doesnt feel the same.
So???
Wouldn’t it be great if the CR poster could indicate where one might avail of this “special price”? Currently, BH is listing this at 1799, still 350 more than 1450.
Me 3 !
where can i get the 70-200 2.8L IS for 1450?
can you tell where can get 70-200 2.8l is for $1450?
this price much better than wait for II.
CP use with a wide angle lens can be tricky, the amount of polarization will often vary across the width of the shot. The good news is this can be fixed in Ps. :)
It’s a bigger problem with landscape panos, and much harder to correct for.
(CR Guy, the NL link points to the Google Patent site.)
Again, you’re not in the minority regarding filters. We want to use filters even on super wide angles and hand-crafted solutions aren’t what we want.
You can do things with a CP or ND filter that you can’t fake in Ps. No two ways about it.
I’m entirely in agreement with CR guy as to ultra-wide filter use. a lot of UW photography is landscape, and to me the key isn’t CP use; it’s grad ND filter use. given the limited dynamic range of digital sensors, it’s pretty key to be able to use grad ND or ND filters in a variety of situations.
16-24 f/2.8 L sounds very good indeed
John.B is correct. it’s not how you “feel” about it; it’s a simple fact. having a grad ND filter is entirely different than trying to recover blown highlights and bring up shadows in PP; it’s also totally different than HDR’ing the entire scene.
Back in July we had claims of seeing the 24-70 IS in the wild.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/07/odds-ends-7/
Why is it taking soooo long to be released (if the claims were true)?? I hate you Canon :(
He said, “By the way, our current stock of 70-200 F/2.8 IS USM are being sold at an extra special price of USD1450.”
Would also appreciate some details on this quote. I am in the market for a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM (have the f4.0 without IS and need something faster).
Thanks!
I would give more money if the upgrade is impressive. Canon should publish MTF charts with 10,20,40 and! 80 lines per mm at 70, 140 and 210 mm. Why not a distortion chart as well?
On my calculations Canon 5d MKII and Canon 7D will show up much more than 80 lines per mm.
Another vote for “where” can we buy the 70-200 2.8 IS for the “extra special price of USD1450”?
The Cokin X Pro Universal adapter X499 fits the Canon 14 mm and allows use of X Pro gradient filters without vignetting. It’s not significanltly more complicated to attach than the threaded adapter rings. This is not a do-it-yourself solution. I also find that my Canon 14 mm is one of my best lenses–no compromises there.
A new 24-70 would be so great, like that I would finally be able to get a 24-70 “ol” edition for a good price :)
From the other thread:
bushman Says:
October 31st, 2009 at 8:44 am
B&H’s new catalog has “call/log-in” for the price of the existing lens. I think they know something. The only other lens with the “call/log-in” designation is the efs 17-85…
Looking forward to 24-70is. It’s about time. I just hope canons qc gets it right so we don’t end up with alot of soft copies.
As for filters, there is nothing like a nice stack of cpl + nd. Perfect for lunch time shoots. So yes cr guy you are not in the minority.
nothing about 35LmkII?
I completely disagree, the 100-400mm L and 300 2.8 L are some of my favorite glass, they both have excellent image quality even with my 5D2 and 1Ds3 21 MP cameras. The only thing I want updated on the 100-400 is to get rid of the push-pull design and better weather sealing..
great for weddings and events too
Seriously, can you give some details on where you can get the 70-200 for the “extra special price”? Why come out with a statement like that and not give out any details.
I have the original version in mint condition. Very little use on it. I’ll sell it for $1650. Anyone interested post your e-mail address here (or some temporary yahoo, gmail, etc. address) and I’ll reply directly to that.
You COMPLETELY disagree??? Let’s see. We both like our 300’s and both want the 100-400 to get rid of the push-pull design, right? Our area of disagreement seems to be that you like you 100-400 a lot more than I like mine but then, I liked mine more before I got the 300 prime.
$1350
Yeah, you wrote “Canon needs to dramatically improve the image quality” and your “70-200 Sigma EX with a 1.4x Sigma TC is better than the 100-400 and my 300 f/2.8” and yes, I completely disagree.
No way your sigma is as sharp as an EF 300 2.8 L. As for the 100-400, it’s of course not as sharp as a great prime, but it beats the pants off most other 75-300 range zooms and a lot of 70-200 zooms too. So when you write Canon needs to DRAMATICALLY IMPROVE image quality on those lenses I dont know what the hell you are talking about.
Good luck trying to get it for that. So far you can’t even confirm the $1450. I’m offering a $150 discount off what is essentially a brand new lens.
The new version, if available anytime soon, will be even higher than $1800.
where can I get the 70-200mm for USD1450?
Not sure why so many people dislike the 16-35 II f/2.8, I use this frequently and like the results that I get. Having said that I rarely use it at 2.8, at f/5.6 sharpness is very good. Am I only photog that likes the 16-35?
Uh, there was a “is much better” after the “a Canon 1.4x TC”. Perhaps I should have added “than the 100-400 also”. As for the image quality of the 100-400, especially at the long end, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
No you are not the only one. Even at 2.8 I think it us pretty good.
The CPL effect can’t be done in PP (especially cutting through water). So the lacking of CPL on a UWA (landscape lens?) can be a problem. Grad ND is also very important for landscape photographers. So it depends on the need. I for one agree with CRG. Maybe I’m a minority… But have you seen the lengths some owners of the Sigma 12-24 are willing to go to in order to use filters (I’m talkin landscape photographers, not so much your “majority” :P
Sorry I thought you said CR guy was in the minority. LOL
24-105 f/2.8L IS please. lol
35 1.8 USM please. Much more needed than a new 24-70
Everything you wrote was in the context you defined as “Canon needs to dramitcally improve image quality” so when you wrote “is much better” without a teleconverter it sounds like you are saying its not as bad but still not as good as your sigma. Perhaps you should be more clear when writing what sounds like you are saying Canon L lens image quality sucks and even your sigma is better. I’ve owned several good sigma lenses but they are not better image quality in my experience.
As for the 100-400mm at 400mm, yep, I still completely disagree. I use the lens at 400mm quite often, and I just posted three shots of birds I took at 400mm, two are tack sharp, the third is slightly soft because I shot at 1/30th hand held, but it’s still good enough for web display. Obviously if you blow up pixels and compare it to a 300mm 2.8 L you can see the difference, but I dont want to carry that or the 400mm 2.8 around all the time. The 100-400 is a great lens to take out with me in a compact backpack in a three lens kit. I hardly ever leave it behind.
your the one who essentially needs the luck.
It’s a great lens, so my not giving it away for your lowball offer won’t be unlucky for me.
In the unlikely event you find someone willing to part with this lens for $1350 you better check it very carefully to find out what’s wrong with it.
Indeed, a 24-105 f/2.8L IS USM would be great :)
I cannot disagree less with neither of you.
A 14-24 mm lens is needed to have UW on the 1.3 crop lenses, so I hope its true.
Carl Zeiss just announced a 35mm F2 Shipping this month.
I deny the existence of the double negative because they cancel each other out unless you are holding down a direct print button which violates all the indeterminate laws of quantum mechanics and chaos unascertainment theory
But wouldn’t fixing it in post imply that you can simulate the CP adequately? (As I assume you would want correct the parts of the sky that weren’t filtered as opposed to undoing the parts that were.) But in that case, why not skip the CP entirely and do the whole thing in post?
I thought so too until I discovered HDR. And I don’t mean the super-overdone crap, but you can get exactly the same result as with a ND or grad ND. Of course you can’t have anything moving very quickly in frame, but that’s reasonably safe with landscape.
It’s different than how HDR is often employed, but you can achieve the same thing as a grad ND with multiple exposure and post-synthesis (provided nothing moves between the exposures, of course.) A grad ND isn’t fancy after all; it’s just two different exposures levels with blending at the boundary.
Now trying to recover lost detail from a single frame, I agree that is totally different.
No way that’ll ever happen, since Canon doesn’t want people pushing back purchases any more than they already are in anticipation of the new lens. Unless of course the new one isn’t any better, in which case Canon wouldn’t want to publicize that either ;)
No AF, dang. I don’t trust my little VF for MF. Plus it’s spendy! Might as well get the EF 35L if you’re going to spend that much.
Again, to be repetitive. I want an 18-70 IS 2.8 IS L lens as the complement to the 70-200 2.8 IS L. We APS-C shooters ought to be able to most of our work with two bodies and two lenses. Canon is ignoring APS-C shooters with the L series. Super Wides have always been ignored by Canon since APS-c was adopted.
I never thought the 70-200 2.8 wasn’t sharp enough wide opne…did you all think it is not good at 2.8?
Maybe because I was using a crop camera before, I gotta try now with 5d Mark 2 I guess…Do you all really think it needs an update?
B&H sells it now at $-150 off the regular price of $1949.95= $1,799.95.
I dont remember paying $1949.95 when I bought it..it must have gpne up since then (?)
Let’s talk lens price creep. It wasn’t that long ago that I say the 70-200L 2.8 IS lens for around $1500 (last year sometime). In alittle more than a year it has gone up over $450 dollars. Where will be in another year with all the prices of lens? I suppose this is because of the US weak dollar as compared to the yen but I don’t know about you, but my lens budget can only be streched so far before I will have to stop looking at new glass.
on 5D1 it’s look sharp but not on 5D2
side note you must see nikon new 70-200 at wide open. it’s fcuking amazing!
The original blog stated:
“By the way, our current stock of 70-200 F/2.8 IS USM are being sold at an extra special price of USD 1450″.
I’m about to put in an order, where can I buy it for USD 1450.
Tom
decline in US dollar? really? except lenses how come every other electronics goes down in prices over time? Canon and Nikon know that Photographers need lenses to do their job and they will certainly buy them. to put it simply, they are increasing the prices because they can and we don’t have an option
America is in more debt than any other country in the world… Statistically every American is $150,000 in debt.
I bought my 70-200 2.8L IS for $1,450 last November. In fact, if you purchased it last month it was $1,650. Got to love Canon rebate timing. :)
73% of statistics are invented.
You’ll sell it, not many of those used around. They tend to sell quick if the price is fair. Adorama has refurbished ones for $1699. On Craigslist I see a like new in box one for $1550, another listed for $1400 but it doesn’t list condition.
Personally I don’t buy used glass unless it’s a super deal, because it is a risk; you don’t if it ever got dunked in water and in six months you’ll be paying Canon to clean the fungus out of it or not. A store you can return things to, and your warranty starts from the day it was sold from a store with a reciept. I don’t know when you bought yours but if it was a year ago it’s off warranty and I dont even know if Canon is obligated to honor it if you dont include a copy of the receipt, so to only save $150 from a new one or $50 from a factory refurb with a warranty doesn’t make sense. One service at Canon and your $150 savings on a used lens is toast.
i would actually prefer it going the other way like 20-70 f/2.8L IS
now thas a lens i would buy
that includes mortgages on houses, which can be offset by equity in the house, and sure the equity can diminish when house prices drop but it always goes back up, so that’s not a fair stastic.
I too would be very interested in a 70-200 F2.8 IS USM at $1450 USD. Please tell more…..
The lens rules, people who say otherwise are idiots.
If you don’t want too pay the price an Zeiss 35/2 or an Canon 35 1.4 cost. Buy an 35/2 or some Sigma stuff and shut up.
well, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS for the EF-S mount is close to what you want (and the best walking around lens for the APS-C sensor cameras)
Just tell me, will there be a 17-40/4L HIS?
No, because they don’t call hybrid IS lenses HIS, just IS. :-P
No, you shut up!
LOL
Unless he’s on FF. ;)
Right, and where I am (Hong Kong) a grey market one costs less than a 2nd hand one. It doesn’t have warranty so I wouldn’t buy one, but if you want 2nd hand prices for a new lens, it’s the way to go.
Another thing… since when has this become a camera/lens marketplace?
???
Yep, most HDR sucks ;)
Or using a 1.3 crop camera which give your double negative more reach.
If you are using a CP to cut through reflective glare ( on water or glass and such) you can’t fake that in PS because the details just won’t be there.
If you’re using it to make blue skies, the you could fix it partially with cloning I suppose.
If you’re using it to cut through haze, then it would depend.
AFAIK a 24-105 is hard to make at 2.8 and keep the siZe reasonable.
im on a 7D BUT prefer a bit more on the long side
are you telling me it would be bigger than a 70-200 2.8? I doubt it.
I was just going to buy the 24-70 f2.8 next month but now there’s again rumors about a new version with IS. I think I’d rather wait and see if Canon finally decides to build this lens. Honestly, I’m pretty sure the lens would sell like hot cake, so if they’re able to build it, I can see no reason why the wouldn’t want to do it.
I’ve only a realistic hope: short time for the new version of 24-105 f4, with the correction of distorsion at 24mm that in full frame is now much disturbing (vignetting is solved by assistence replacing two lens, i’ve seen it done twice). I’ve heard rumors that the new version will be avalaible in 2010, so I’m waiting for…no one has more details?
I hope they move the IS button on the 70-200, it’s very easy to switch off without trying. It would be cool if you could activate the lens IS through controls in/on the camera body.
HIS might show up with the 24-70 2.8L, it’s awesome for semi-macro work.
I looked at the patent 14-24. Do we have to read patent documentation now to get all the data of the lenses? Why don’t they give us all the nice charts about distortion and other things at the web side? The charts wouldn’t be part of the patent documentation if they don’t carry important information. Why are the charts from Canon not part of the product information shipped with the lens. Zeiss has no problem with that.
not buying any landscape lens with no chance to use polarizer and nd filters
no way
yes in few cases having a 14 might get the pix more dramatic
but i prefer having 98% of other cases
when a polarizer or a nd or both will get you a better pic
Canon needs to update:
1) 50mm / f1.4 a great lens optically, except for the autofocus system (currently not the Canon normal, excellent, “ring type” USM motor), which breaks easily, even for those of us which look after our equipment.
2) 400mm / f5.6L. This lightweight & economical lens needs IS.
The f/1.4 is not optically great (wide open), it’s an outdated spherical design.
Yes, it certainly drops off wide open, but according to the MTF charts, so does the new 50mm / f1.2L. So as to be fair, when you compare both at f8, the old f1.4 has better contrast and sharpness. I realise that we would purchase it for the extra 1/2 stop of brightness & shallow DOF, but an interesting observation. Has anyone made a hands-on comparison?
Many people have alos become fans of Paul Smith Shoes since they came into the market. I also one of them , I very like Paul Smith Wallets and <a Paul Smith Belts,It designs very good.