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
100 Comments
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.