More reports of what’s coming in glass
We’ve already seen information for 2 lenses that are highly anticipated as well as expected.
The ever popular EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS and EF 60 f/2.8 IS Macro .
There is a report today at NL of an EF 200 f/4L IS Macro coming down the immediate pipe as well.
It would make a lot of sense to have the entire macro lineup redone (outside of the 50 compact Macro). That’ll be Canon set for the next 10 years.
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
71 Comments
I wanted to buy a 70-200 f/4 IS and later a 100 IS macro, maybe I’ll go with a 200 IS macro and a 85 f/1.8…. could be interesting.
“*entire* macro lineup redone”?
The 2.8/100 L USM is brand new…
What about the EF-s 8mm fisheye, EF-s 30mm f/1.4, and EF 70-300mm IS USM II?
It is an upgrade of the 100 f/2.8 Macro that has yet to be discontinued.
Seems the 100-400 is stillselling too well for Canon to consider upgrading it. So please folks:
STOP BUYING THIS 10+ YEAR OLD METHUSALEM OF A LENS.
Or we might never ever see an upgrade.
THX
So listen Canon: I refuse to buy the old one, give me a new one with better IQ wide open, better IS, and while you are at it: perhaps make it a twist zoom. Otherwise I will simply buy the 70-200 2.8 IS II with a 2x TC, haha!
Err… yes, that would leave you with 2500€ instead of a mere 1350€ of my hard earned cash, why?
d’ oh!
;-)
Where’s my new 50 f1.4? :(
I thought Canon would leave this lens as a side by side one, rather than to replace it completely. After all 100/2.8 nonL is a gem, some people don’t have the need to buy L version, while nonL version gives very very VERY similar optical performance…
agree :(
Can some give a view/comment on DXO lens ranking
Get rid of the 100-400 and make a 200-400. How bout some long glass updates. The current 400 2.8 is well over 10 years old.
I did that, the mark2 with the 2X TC, can’t say I’m terribly pleased with the results. Autofocus is slooowwww
I have to say of all the lenses I want, a 200 f/4 IS macro would be at the very bottom of the list.
Where’s the:
14-24 2.8
100-400 replacement
24-70 2.8 IS
135 1.8 IS
200-400 f/4 IS
50 1.4 II
85 1.4
And the 300 f4L IS mkII
14-24 2.8: Get the Nikon and a body if it’s that critical… unless you’re not pro and/or you can’t afford it… in that case, get a job :P
100-400 replacement: Borrrinnnggg! A 400 5.6 IS is a bit more interesting though.
24-70 IS: Yes… you can’t compete with other photographers without this lens, right? Oh wait a minute… no one has one!
135 1.8 IS: Again, if it’s that important, pick up a cheap a850 and a ZA 135. That lens is very nice too… (from personal experience). Surely if Canon made that entire list of lenses you mentioned available, you wouldn’t go running to the shop to bag all of them at once, right?
200-400 f/4 IS: Another boringggg lens… have you used the Nikon one? Take it from me… it is boring, heavy and for that 200-400 range, there are faster aperture, better lenses that’ll do the job much better… again, that is if you care about the shots. If you don’t care about aperture or you’re too lazy to carry the best gear then why not get a 50-500 OS instead?
50 1.4 II: Ok… no manufacturer has made a perfect fast 50, so there’s always room for improvement.
85 1.4: Have you tried using the 85 1.2 II? Anyone who has won’t complain. It’s better at 1.2 than all the current 85 1.4s out there. Plus the “slow” AF talk is pure BS… and I got the shots to prove it.
“14-24 2.8: Get the Nikon and a body if it’s that critical… unless you’re not pro and/or you can’t afford it… in that case, get a job :P”
I doubt Canon would be happy if customers start switching over to the competition over a single lens.
Based on a quick check in Amazon, a Nikon D700 body costs $2,400 and more than the lens. Buying an expensive body for the sake of the lens doesn’t sound like good investment.
agree, one where the AF works (as well as fails to not break within 6-18 months!!!!)
Slow AF on 85mm 1.2 II is BS?
I suppose slow is relative. But I sure don’t know of a lens that’s slower.
I rent it from time to time if I want extreme shallow DOF and know I won’t have room to back up far enough to use a 200mm or 300mm. But after I’m done, I’m always happy to return it to the rental counter and it’s never, ever entered my mind to actually buy this piece of. . . glass.
Optics: great.
Handling: abysmal.
AF in sports/action situations: adequate for competitive chess.
Buying a new camera body isn’t necessarily “switching over”… and who cares about the brand if it gets the job done?
I know a guy who just shot a 1 hour documentary, 5D2 & 7D but all manual focus Nikon lenses.
Old manual focus Nikon lenses are going up in price due to video demand on DSLR’s.
The Canon 85 1.2 AF is far too slow.
I tried the Sigma 85 1.4 in March, very nice, I’m waiting for it to hit the streets.
Yes, that seems to be the major gripe people have with this combo, while the actual sharpness at 400mm seems to be pretty good, at least if stopped down a little bit from f5.6.
I want good 400mm with decent AF, but I would also happily replace my 70-200 f4 IS with the new 2.8. Can’t we have the cake and eat it?
Hey general…….I take it you do your photography alone.
I agree that the current 50 1.4 is flimsily built and that many people are not too happy with the wide-open IQ.
But I still think what Canon needs even more is a a fast and affordable APS-C standard zoom. The Nikon folks have the new DX-only 35 1.8, while the Canon followers are left with either the ancient 28 1.8 with less than mediocre IQ (but apparently fast AF) or the Sigma 30 1.4 with decent IQ (in the image center) and the usual AF troubles. I chose the latter route and while qide-open IQ is OK, I can’t say I am too happy with the AF consistency in real-world situations, its just a bit hit and miss.
If Canon had a decent option in that area, price- and feature-wise (USM!) similar to Nikon’s offering, this could get a lot of casual DSLR buyers to try out the prime root. Like an entry drug to make people buy the expensive L primes afterwards.
I think with the improvements in lens design over the recent years, Canon could keep a replacement of the 100-400 with about the same focal range and still improve IQ considerably. Just look at what happened with the 70-200 2.8 IS II. And I personally would like to have that added flexibility.
Still hoping Canon will figure out what to do with the 50mm line. f/2.8 – true, the 1987 macro is as fast as macros get, but still too slow. f/1.4 designs seem to bring compromises in the sharpness / modulation transfer (resolution / contrast) though.
Would be nice to get a real f/1.4 IS macro, and make it sharp at f/1.4 too – ehh, one can dream right?
In all honesty it’s probably the TS-E 45mm that could use an update to the same spec as the other TS-Es. No autofocus though.
I would have thought the 100 f/2.8 non-L to IS L is the first step of overhauling the whole series.
Sooner or later, the 100 f/2.8 non-L macro will disappear, exactly *because* it is a gem, therefore people might decide that the expensive L is overkill…
The 200 f/4 macro would replace the 180 f/3.5. I wonder if it will be HIS as the new 100 L.
Any rumors on IS on the new 60 macro? There linear IS would probably make more sense than traditional angular IS.
…and the 50/f1.4 II and the 500 f/5.6 IS, and 35 f/1.4L II (35 f/1.2L) and and and
People’s wish lists are loooong.
I bought the 100-400 2 years ago and I like it. IQ is excellent, IS could be better. I got used to the push-pull zoom and now I really do like it.
I tested the 70-200 2.8 IS (mark I) with different TCs – there was no getting near the the 100-400’s IQ with a 2X TC.
Nothing about EF 14-24 mm????????
The EF-range is missing a ultra wide prime zoom lens.
I posted links to action shots done by the 85L but they didn’t appear (moderated?). If you want to see some, send me an email… which is my username @hotmail.com…
I understand that POV but a lot of those lenses have limited customer bases or have already existing quality lenses (like 35/1.4)..
The EF-S 30/1.4 is a good idea as when I look over at POTN for example (or just people I know) the Sigma 30/1.4 is HUGELY popular as Canon are not willing to provide an alternative.. It really is amazing how many people buy that Sigma lens (which IMO has a lot of weaknesses i.e. corners are never sharp)..
Nikon to provide an answer in their 35/1.8 which I thought was a great little lens and is owned by almost every Nikon user I know.
I think you said standard zoom when you meant standard prime :)
I bought the 35mm f2 for this and I’m pleased with it, although of course it is an even older design!
Do yourself a favour, buy the 85mm f/1.8 today. Best value lens in the line-up.
I have the 35 f/2 as well. It can be like a wasp in a jam jar when it is hunting for focus, but is it razor sharp…now. Mine had to go back to Canon and have its front element replaced, because of halation. It has been much better since. The only IQ issue I can fault it on is the colour tone. I find it a bit “cold” compared to my “L” zooms and the 85mm f/1.8.
I can’t argue with that. Neither will I hold my breath waiting for a “prime zoom lens”.
…and 14-24
It’s not switching over, but it’s the first step in that direction.
The Canon share holders hope Canon cares.
Well, but if I decide to buy a 100mm macro… a 100mm and a 85mm lens don’t make that much sense to me… :-/
I’m not sitting and waiting so long ;)
But the 14-24 mm will be a good “tool” in my range of lenses. For landscape in this time I compensate the missing wide angel view with 24-70mm + Nodal-Panohead …
It’s slower than the AF on the 85/1.8, sure. Slow IS relative, of course – the ring USM on the 85L is slower than any other ring USM, but on par with the micro-motor AFDs in consumer zoom lenses.
Personally, I’ve tracked small birds in flight with my 7D and 85L – the focal length was way too short, of course, but the AF on the 85L was up to the job.
Works for me!
if and when a new 100-400 arrives, it won’t a mere 1350€ of your hard earned cash. You will be paying for new R&D at current prices instead. Just look at other recent refreshes to have an idea
Yes, that was I typo, I wrote “standard zoom” and meant “standard prime”.
That 200/4L IS Macro will definitely cost more than 70-200/4 IS and 100/2.8L IS Macro combined IMO. And you do not know, when it will be released either.
I’d go for the abovementioned combo, as it is versatile and there is not much alternative in optics quality here :)
There is still a Sigma 12-24, when it’s really crucial :P
Tokina just announced a 16-28 F2.8 full-frame lens. If it’s as good as their 11-16 2.8 for crop sensor cameras (which I have owned for a couple of years now), it will be a very nice lens.
I’m still hoping for a 70-300mm L range lens. It doesn’t have to be fast, just razor sharp at 300mm.
With a beast like that, no cute little furry animal will be safe from me!
I wouldnt mind a 100-300 f/4 IS lens instead of 100-400…
Yeah…. but I just bought a 7D with the 15-85, and a tripod, and photoshop, and other stuff… I have to wait until I have enough money either way ;) Time to think… but thanks. =)
If you get a good copy of the current 100-400mm, it’s quite sharp wide open at 400mm. I’ve taken some real beauties at those settings. However, on a FF camera when you can get pretty close, I find that you need to stop down quite a bit for DOF anyway. My 100-400 usually stays around f/8. But I’m not afraid of f/5.6 at all with it.
f/4 is too slow to have much broader appeal than just straight macro. At 200mm, I’d like to see it be a lot faster to also appeal to the portrait crowd. Re-design the 200mm f/2L IS to focus at macro distances and then drop the price a couple thousand… I’d buy one!
In that case, get the EF 50mm f/1.8 II for a few bucks and see what you think of fast(ish) prime lenses.
A bit like you then!
Don’t know what a prime zoom lens is? It’s a zoom that outperforms primes!
before they stop their upgrades Canon ought to consider a newer 100-400is.. the old one I believe is from 1998 and needs an upgrade
RE: the old one I believe is from 1998 and needs an upgrade
So, by that logic, the lens most in need up upgrading is the 15mm Fisheye, since it was released in 1987.
BRING ON THE NEW FISHEYE!!!
Reality — what an interesting concept — but it will never fly here.
PIty it’s only 16mm with no filters… They should go up to 12/14mm if they abandoned the filter thread IMHO…
The 28/1.8 is fine. People like to say it’s crap because they’ve never used it or the corners aren’t sharp wide open. For all practicaly uses, it’s a good lens, if a little expensive for what it is.
Try the 100mm f2, I prefer it over the 85. Either is a great lens.
What you guys think the price will be for the new EF 24-70MM IS??
Hi all,
I want to buy the 24-105 f/4. Is this a good time to purchase? I don’t want a new one to come out and me be stuck with the old one. Thanks
Get one. I have one and use it all the time.It is an excellent lens as it is. Also, it is fairly recent, so an upgrade is not expected any time soon. Note that the 24-105 does not appear at all on people’s wish lists above.
I’d like to see an EF circular fisheye before Canon upgrades the diagonal fisheye.
At one time I thought Canon might not see any money in fisheye lenses, but if Sigma makes four of them (diagonal & circular for both APS-C & FF), then there probably is.
Your also CanonGarcon from photography on the net.
what kind of reply is that?? I asked a serious question. This lens will be out soon, if you think is time for jokes, then go post on a different site. Ass
Ass he may be, but his point is valid. In Feb, 2009 this was about to be released. In February, 2010 this lens was a CR2 ‘take it to the bank,’ it’s going to be announced next week release (we got printers announced instead).
So here we are in July, and it still has not been announced.
Canon charges $500 more for the 70-200 f/4 IS than the non-IS, and the difference for the f/2.8 was similar prior to the Mk II. Canon has charged up to $500 more for a Mk II which offered substantial improvements over the Mk I.
*IF* they ever release this lens, I’d bet $600 more than for the non-IS version – so, I’d guess $1900. But like I said… *IF*.
I think he was asking for our opinions on how much the new 24-70 might be. But I understand some of us canon rumors readers are just way too smart to be bothered with figuring out what someone actually means. You should stop reading this blog and leave us cretins alone so you can be a happier person.
That being said, this stupid lens seems like it’s been rumored for a long time. At least the 100-400 is still just firmly in shooters’ wish lists and imaginations. But the 24-70 IS was a sure think for over a year. I hope it does come out soon… and I hope it doesn’t have the price hikes like the new versions of the 70-200 and 100 macro had.
thanks guys. I was just asking for a little more constructive
reply like the ones you just gave.
CanonGarcon
You are CanonGarcon
We would to see Canon update it’s 100-400mm L IS lens with an all new design present version has very dated IS block. How about a high resolution DO version zoom with f4 constant aperture. Seems that this lens is over 12 years old. One of my favorites but old. Jw