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:

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.


Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.


  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

Leave A Reply