Canon Lens Rumors

New Lenses

Canon Rumors
Canon Rumors
155 Comments
0 Min Read

From NL
Over at NL they’ve been told to expect Canon to answer to demand with the upcoming lens announcements.

24-70 f/2.8L IS I predict is the most wanted lens to Canonites.

Or is it?

[poll id=”7″]

cr

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.
TAGGED:
Share This Article
Previous Article A Little 60D Info [CR2]
Next Article Adobe CS5 Available
155 Comments

  • A nervous smoker with severe nicotine cravings, or someone with Parkinson’s disease?

  • 24-70 f/2.8L IS
    35 f/1.4L II
    100-400 IS II
    50L II perhaps

    The 200-400 f/4L IS is OK in theory, but it’s not a lens I could afford (if the price is anything like the nikon). Well maybe I could “afford” it, but justifying spending the money is another thing.

    14-24 2.8 is OK in theory too, but my 16-35 II is well good enough for my WA (FF) needs… which aren’t that much.

    24-70 would be a very useful length to go with my 70-200 2.8L IS II.

  • Yeah, actually that’s a pretty needed update. More than the 35L to be honest (though personally I’d probably like the 35L to come out first, but that’s being selfish. ;)

  • 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 II & 200-400 F4 along with the new 70-200 2.8 is a drool worthy lineup. If Canon had these lenses, I’d buy a 1D1V tomorrow morning!!!!

    The 35L needs an update for sure but it still has IQ that crushes most lenses today, it can hold on a little while longer…..

  • My vote is for a new fisheye. Broke my last one after 8 years and have been holding out for the announcement of the updated 15mm…still waiting patiently.

  • I want a a EF-S L, most importantly with L quality weather sealing. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is awesome but needs better weather sealing.

  • 24-70 IS winning poll is not terribly surprising, though I am disappointed that 100-400 II doesn’t rank higher.

  • I voted for the EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS, but the EF 100-400 IS II without the push/pull zoom would be my close second (esp. if it was sharper at 400mm)…

  • I don’t care about DO lenses because the bokeh in DO lenses always looks nasty.

    A 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom to counter Nikon’s would be very cool.

  • I would really like to see a new 90mm T/S with all the features of the new 17 and 24 t/s lenses. It is very limiting when doing product work to have choose between control of the focal plane or control of perspective.

  • how about none of those… a 200-500/5.6 L IS would be dandy though… or a 600/5.6 IS (zoom or prime)… making the 600/4 a DO would just make an incredibly expensive lens that much more expensive and Im not sure what it would do for its IQ. Canon has a 1 stop slower line up (2.8 vs 4) of zooms in the lower focal length range. How about giving some slower/lighter options in the true super telephoto range (yeah I know there is the 400/5.6 but its just not long enough on FF and Im sorry, but I like my FF so dont tell me to go back to 1.6x :P )

  • Well, I gotta tell you. It surprises me.

    I know that’s a super-quality lens, but I never understood the attraction for that zoom range. That’s a really narrow range, and I never seem to have pressing need for f/2.8 at the short focal lengths. My 24-105 f/4.0 gets used every single day, though. Since it overlaps part of the 70-200mm zoom range, the big lens can often stay in the bag while the smaller, easier to handle 24-105 does the work.

    Despite the f/4.0, I find it super easy to manual focus, and it has IS.

  • I had the same feelings about the 100-400 not ranking higher, but I also agree with drummstikk in that I do not really understand why everyone is so much after the 24-70 FL range, but I am no FF user. But I do have the 24-105 on crop and love it — in particular the ability to get pretty close to your subject for unexpected and non-posed across the room portraits.
    I currently have most of my (amateur, APS-C) lens needs covered, all that I still need is a long telezoom (i.e., longer than the 70-200 f4 IS that I have). And since the existing third party alternatives don’t seem to cut it IQ-wise (120-400 OS, 150-500 OS), have okayish IQ but no IS and/or no USM(-equivalent) (Tamron 200-500, Bigma), or are just way to big/heavy and way too pricey for a third-party alternative (the “BigmOS” 50-500, of whose IQ not much is know at this point, BTW), all that is left is the Canon 100-400. But I simply refuse to buy a 10+ years old lens with an ancient IS and a reputation of considerable sample variation, in particular given my luck with lenses. So Canon: Bring an updated 100-400 with 4-stops IS, get you QC up to speed, don’t get to greedy with the pricing, and you will (again) get my money.

  • A new moderately-priced long tele prime would really make a lot of sense. The 400 f5.6 may be a good lens, but it is in serious need for a modern IS unit. But if I were to choose between an updated 100-400 and the 400 with IS, I would definitely pick the former.

  • Never gonna happen. EF-S lenses, by the very nature of the bodies they’re designed for, just aren’t playing to the same market as the L lenses.

  • Yes, that would be a cool lens, but it would also be the ultimate weapon for hand-to-hand combat, given that the 24-70 already weighs a ton (well, “only” 950 grams, but it’s close enough ;-)).
    And I guess such a lens would cost 2000++€.

  • yea, the 7D is the only one with some sort of weather sealing… why would they add it to it?

  • For those wanting a better EF-S lens there is on coming and I have been saying it for ages but no one is listening there will be a new constant f/4 EF-S lens with a build similar to the current 15-85mm IS but with an optical formula like the 17-55mm IS. It will take 77mm filters like the 17-77mm IS and have to same IS system as the 15-88mm IS. Size wise it will be slightly longer than the 17-55mm IS. The focal length will start at either 17mm or 15mm and end at 70mm so assuming it starts at 15mm we are looking at an EF-S 15-70mm f/4 IS USM.

    You heard it here first.

  • What’s wrong with the current 135? It’s a pretty amazing lens.

    Maybe add IS, but I can’t see improving on the current non-IS version.

  • If this is for real, when can we expect to see this lens? It would keep me from buying the 15-85 for my 2nd body. But it doesn’t make sense to me to have 3 EF-S lenses in roughly the same focal range, maybe if they replaced the 17-55 IS with a a 15-70 2.8 it would sell, that would be a killer lens for crop bodies………

  • I dont know what to expect.
    The 24/1.4 II was just released, yet its results are disappointing (cf. photozone among other reviews).

    What level of improvement can we really expect from a new 50/1.4 ii?

  • I’ve got a 5D mark nothing, but the 24-105 spends most of it’s time on my 40D and 7D. 24mm is “wide enough” and 105mm gives you plenty of room to catch natural expressions from a discrete distance.

    I’m lucky enough to work in a couple of college gyms with permanently mounted Elinchroms, and I light other places with my White Lightnings, so the 24-105 on 40D/7D combined with 300mm f/4.0 on 5D is a killer combination for basketball, volleyball, and wrestling.

    I don’t think the 24-70 wouldn cut it for that. (But then, the 24-105 f/4.0 wouldn’t cut it without the flash.)

  • All 3 50’s need updating, the build quality of both the 1.8 & 1.4 suck.
    the 50L needs to lose the focus shift.

    35L & 135L can both use updating to the 24LII standards.

    14-24L & 24-70LIS & 200-400(100-400 constant f) = YES PLEASE.

  • we have a 24-70 and 100-400, what we don’t have is a 14-24, the ultra wide angle zoom is suffering, maybe the EF-S rebel/50d boys didn’t vote on that since they have their 10-22 lens.

  • Why everybody wants “L” lens.
    I hope a :
    – 35mm F2 II
    – 50mm 1.8 III
    – 17mm F3,5
    – or a 14mm F4
    – or a 20mm 2.8 II

    For under 1000$, with canon, you can have :
    35mm F2 + 85 mm 1.8 / 100mm F2 + 50mm 1.8 + 200mm 2.8L II
    I just want something wide under 35mm

    If i have money, i would take :
    14mm 2.8II
    24mm TSE II (for movies)
    35mm 1.4
    85mm 1.2
    135mm F2
    70-200 2.8 IS II (i have this one :D)

  • Nothing. But people who don’t have it might want a version II right?!

  • Mmm I would want the “focus” to be sharp. Perhaps butter bokeh… :P

  • I would vote for all.. :)

    but here is what I would like to have:

    First, 24-70mm F2.8 IS (I’m sick of waiting!)

    Second, 14-24mm F2.8 (would work great with a 1d behind the net)

    Third, 600mm F4 Do (I would be buying this but I imagine that lots of Birders would be happy)

  • 17-55mm f/2.8 would more than likely continue as is or be replace by a 15-50mm f/2.8 IS USM probably early next year. Giving an EF-S line up of

    EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

    EF-S 15-50mm f/2.8 IS USM

    EF-S 15-70mm f/4 IS USM

    EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

    EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

    EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

    EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

    EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

    EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM (rumored to be updated with IS)

    Possibly a EF-S 50-150mm f/2.8 IS USM would be added at some point to complement the 15-50mm f/2.8.

    The EF-S 15-70mm f/4 IS USM would pair up with the existing EF 70-200mm f/4L IS.

  • +1

    I am looking for a supertele for wildlife, mostly birds.

    In the current lineup, the 500 f/4 is the best match, but I would consider a 200-400 f/4 or 600 f/4 DO if they are anywhere near my budget.

    At present I use a 300mm f/4 with 1.4 TC, and that just does not reach far enough in many (most) situations.

  • So far there are only two DO lenses, and both are first generation.
    There is still much more margin for improvement in the new DO technology than in centuries-old glass optics, even with decades-old aspherical surfaces.
    So I’d love Canon to continue developing that technology, hopefully bringing out second generation DO lenses with very good IQ, as compared to just good in the first generation.

    Personnaly, I have no use for a 14-28.

  • Yes. The 400 f/5.6 prime has hardly any advantage over the zoom. Maybe size and weight.

    A 500 f/5.6 IS or 600 f/5.6 IS would be interesting, but then again a 400 f/4 IS with 1.4 TC would be more flexible.

    Finally, I see no reason why a DO technology lens should be much more expensive than a non-DO version. What you pay more for the DO element(s) you save in size and other elements needed to correct CA. Check the price of the 400 f/4 DO compared to the 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4 – it is right in line.

  • ahh. were back to the Unobtainium technology.

    But seriously, a 24-105 f/2.8 would probably be the size and weight of the 70-200 f/2.8 – probably a bit shorter but larger diameter.

  • Get a 300 f/4 and a 1.4 TC.

    f/5.6 + 1.4 TC gives f/8 and your AF is out of luck.

    I’d much rather see the 400 f/4 DO or 500 f/4 updated.

  • I like this suggestion… a wide non-L prime with performance better than a non-L zoom at the same length.

  • I agree with the people who point out the full-frame bias of this survey.

    Surely there are enough amatures (like me!) that would like some lenses more suited to APS-C at a price that doesn’t require us to sell an organ.

    Top of the list has to be an EFS 30mm f1.8. Nikon’s 35mm f1.8DX has been flying off the shelves, we’re left with the outdated 35mm f2.0 or an expensive Sigma that has dodgy focus and soft corners (standby, incoming from Sigma owners!) Come on Canon -a ‘normal’ prime for APS-C at a reasonable price please, Nikon can do it for sub £200 (yes I’m in rip-off Britain) with good optics, build quality and USM.

    I think that the prime would be a great commercial success for Canon, but my ‘pet’ lens would be a 50-135mm f2.8IS. I have a 70-200mm and find that it is a bit too long at the short end for APS-C and the f2.8 varients are a bit heavy for people that aren’t being paid to use them! I keep eyeing the used Pentax 50-135mm f2.8 in the window of my local camera shop with envy -it’s so small and well built it’s not fair!!! (Yes I know Tokina do an EF mount version -but I would rather have Canon USM and IS).

  • How about none of the above? What I would most like to see is a 70-300mm L range lens, with razor sharpness at 300mm. The only existing lens that comes close is the 70-300m DO lens, which is widely regarded as soft at 300mm.

  • Seems like a lot of duplication to me.

    If they were planning two different constant aperture zooms covering the normal range I don’t think they would have bothered with a variable aperture zoom with premium build quality.

    A step up from the 55-250 with ring USM would be nice.

  • what’s wrong? I want better weather sealing and 1.8, IS would be a plus.
    On CanonUSA’s website it says “The fastest 135mm telephoto lens in its class.”

    What BS, the Sony/Zeiss is faster at 1.8 with in-camera IS to boot!

  • Advantage the 400 5.6 prime has over the zoom is the faster AF to capture action/motion. A good example, if I were to be shooting birds in flight, I would definitely get the prime over the zoom for this.

  • As I’m for the foreseeable future am stuck with EF-S I would actually like an EF-S f/2,8 tele. 300mm (or 400mm if I can keep on dreaming)… Should use less glass than an EF-lens an so be cheaper to manufacture…

  • None of the lenses mentioned really excite me. I’d love to see an EF-S 30 f/1.4 or EF-S 35 f/1.4 lens but knowing Canon they’ll just create some other stupid, slow EF-S zoom like an EF-S 15 – 500 or something crazy like that.

  • Agreed,

    Canon seem to think that slow zooms are all that the APS crowd want. I think it’s a conspiracy to get us all to buy full-frame. It may just work.

  • Why not, having two constant aperture lens’s plus a variable aperture lens’s give the best choice. A cheapish premium walk around zoom, a fast constant walk around zoom and a faster portrait zoom.

  • I am one of those Siggy 30 1. 4 owners… one that was sick of waiting for Canon’s equivalent to the Nikkor 35 f1.8 and bit the bullet. But nothing incoming from me, as I can confirm the dodgy focus (no complaints about corner softness, as I never even bothered to test my sample for corner softness, as this is only an issue for people shooting brick walls at f1.4).
    Still, if Canon decided to introduce an EF-S normal equivalent prime at a price similar to the Nikkor, I would definitely buy one (unless reviews were abysmal), compare it against the Siggy, and keep the better one.
    And aside from dedicated EF-S primes something like Sigmas 50-150 2.8 (as you suggested), but of course with an IS, would be really nice, although I probably wouldn’t get one as I have the 70-200 f4 IS.

  • The 17-40 could be a lot sharper, I voted for a new version.

    IS would be usefull, as long as it doesn’t get in the way of sharpness.

    BTW, 17-50 would be even more versatile.

  • Isn’t this survey a bit conservative ? Either existing lenses or Nikon innovations (except the “f2”).

    I’d like some innovation in the ranges : 24-85, or 21-70, or 17-50…
    After all, the industry got from 35-70 to 28-70, then 24-70. Why stop there ?

    (It’s the same for teles, why not a 50-200 instead of 70?)

  • Great thought. Canon seems to make zooms that just “line up” and fill in all the gaps. If the 14-24 rumor is true, we’d have 14-24, 24-70,70-200.

    The above line up “fills in all the gaps,” but the zoom ranges may not be suitable for what an individual photographer shoots. I posted above about how a 24-70 falls flat with me and I’d much rather sacrifice f/2.8 for the 24-105 zoom range, even though it leads to overlap of zoom ranges.

    If you frequently switch from 24-70 to 70-200 only because you need 85mm or 100mm, the 24-105 is probably a better range for you (assuming f/4.0 is not a dealbreaker for you). The more often you switch lenses, the more chance for dust to enter the sensor, more chances to drop the lens. . .

    I posted in another thread about the benefits of a 2.8 zoom that goes beyond 200mm. If a zoom would go to 250mm or 280mm, that would give stiff competition to the Nikon 200mm to 400mm f/4.0. with a 1.4x, you’d have 350mm or 400mm at the long end, AND you could remove the 1.4x to have f/2.8 available for low light.

  • 7D its in the semi-pro line…personaly i agree cams like 7D and 1D(crop) series need some wide+L quality+weather protection.

    a good way to cover semi pro and pro 1D(crop) line

  • I would like to vote for both a quality 14-24mm f/2.8 L and one of the zoom lenses ending at 400mm.

    Another question is prices – considering the price of the parallel Nikkor lenses, I might very well settle for 14-24mm f/4 L and 200-400mm f/5.6 L (which would have the benefit of possibly being fitted with 77mm filters)

  • I would like to see a Canon circular fisheye, but will have to settle on one by Sigma.

  • I voted for the 24-70 2.8L IS – but to be clear, all I really care about is having a version II in some form of this lens. The terrible QC on this lens in particular is infamous. I have tried two copies and have not been satisfied with either of them. A new 24-70 will find a happy home in my bag, assuming it actually focuses properly.

  • Sorry, been shooting Canon for years & will continue to do so. I have no desire to switch, plus the really good Nikon glass is far more expensive….

  • I have a couple of friends who shoot w/the 15-85 so I have seen its images 1st hand. It is slow, equivalent in speed to the kit lens, but optically, it’s very good and incredibly sharp. I want a general purpose walkaround that stays on my rebel 90% of the time. I already have this range covered on my other body….

  • If its constant apeture, and such a short focal range, then might it be an L lens? perhaps this is the 1st L lens for APS-c camera’s and matches the 24-105 L for FF camaras ?

  • I have one and so far it’s been pretty good for me. Then again, it’s a very recent one, 11/2009 based on the date code on the back.

    They’ve apparently had some QC problems with this lens for some reason. There are plenty of people on both sides. Maybe I was lucky?

  • Interesting to see the 200-400 F4.0 at third position, a lens that would sell maybe 1% of the 100-400, and probably less than aq 600mm F4.0

  • I think a big reason the 100-400 isn’t garnering more votes is because the 200-400 4 on that list. The 200-400 is a far less realistic new lens from Canon, but so long as we’re wishing it got my vote that otherwise would’ve gone to the 100-400.

  • I voted for the f/2 zoom.

    EF-S 50-135/2 IS would be really cool – essentially the 70-200/2.8 IS for crop. It would have the same size and price tag.

    I think EF-S 50-135/2.8 IS USM would be more likely though. Kinda like my Tokina 50-135/2.8 which is a nice lens but lacks IS and ring-USM focus.

  • Good post.

    I too sprung for the Sigma 30/1.4 (happy owner) and the Tokina 50-135/2.8 (convenient, awesome image quality).

    Canon, you dropped the ball. Could’ve had me as a customer. But I had to go 3rd party because there was really no other choice. Probably would have picked the Canon option if it was available (better AF, IS on the zoom). But it wasn’t.

  • In today’s paper, Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II $2000 US a $400 discount, 24-70 2.8 $1590 US a $300 discount. All instant rebates.

    Also note Canon only has 1 yr USA warranty, Nikon’s come with 4 yr USA standard warranty. Sometimes you get what you pay for.

    If Canon does not put pro Af in 5D3, I will most likely move to Nikon.

  • I had a 17-55 2.8 IS, great lens, sharp, IS was fantastic, but in 2 weeks it was so full of dust I returned it and bought a 24-70 2.8 instead, and no dust problems.

  • Rather unimaginative/unrealistic choices above.

    Some more doable:

    EF-S 30 f/1.4 USM

    EF 15-60 f/4 IS USM (4x zoom, constant f/4, IS, to replace the old 17-40L)

    EF-S 10-22 or 10-24 constant f/4 USM

    EF-S 8-16mm constant f/2.8 USM

    EF 35/1.2L USM (to complete the holy trinity of f/1.2L primes, also to replace the 35/1.4L)

  • I’d like:

    EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
    EF 50mm f/1.0L II USM
    EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
    EF 125-500mm f/4L IS USM

  • I guess I’m probably the only guy who would like a 35-85 f2.8 IS for full frame.

    That would be my ultimate all-purpose zoom.

  • I don’t know how some guys get so much dust in this lens. I installed a filter when I unboxed it, and used it in all conditions for over a year, and no dust. I’d have to examine it with a microscope to find any dust.

    Maybe they made some change and older models had problems. Anyway, I’ve heard people complain about this but I can only say that the 17-55 2.8 IS is one very sharp versatile lens. The sharpest zoom I’ve ever used (including 24-105, 16-35, and Tokina 50-135 2.8)

  • Most pros use zooms exclusively. A good zoom does most of what a prime does, but with a lot more flexibility.

  • I’m on hold until D700 II comes out, hoping for a few more MP’s, 18MP would be great, until then my current stuff works OK. I’m patient, I don’t chase the next new thing.

  • 24-70 2.8 IS is THE lens people want. Not a niche lens, a critical lens. 12-24 is far more niche.

    What we really need is a 1.4 version of the 24-70, now that would be a lens.

  • Yes, my 17-55 was very sharp, and I loved the IS, I sure wish I had taken a photo of the lens showing all the dust, you would not believe it, the WHOLE inside was covered, and I don’t live in a dusty area, Seattle does not have a dust problem. I also knew of the dust problem before purchasing the 17-55 and I just could not believe I would encounter the problem.

  • I have the 400 5.6 so I hear you on the reach. Fortunately, I can kayak during the summers and get up close. A 200-400 f4L would be great if it took a 1.4 TC well like the 70-200 2.8 can.

    I’m betting the 600 f4DO would be in the $7K-8K range to own but that won’t stop me from renting on occasion.

  • Sure, but it would be too big. So I’d be willing to sacrifice some wide in order to get a more useful portrait length, while still keeping the size and weight reasonable.

  • Good point.

    I guess in a zoom you have to shift more glass back and forth during focusing, that’s why it is slower.

  • Looking at the Nikon, a 200-400 f/4 would be in the same price range, ~7k$.

    I think all the superteles are designed to work well with the TCs. But since a TC does nothing else than magnify the center of the image you are bound to loose some IQ. A little with the 1.4x, and a bit more with the 2x

  • 35-135 F2.8L, perfect FF range for portraits

    and good midrange lens for crop. If too heavy a lighter 28-135 F4 would do

    In present lens range a full frame zoomlens is missing that zooms around the 85-100mm portraits range.

    70-200 sometimes not wide enough, 24-105 too short…

  • Actually, a 35-85 or longer (35-105) would make a nice combination with the 16-35 or 17-40.
    A 50-135 f/2 would be the ultimate portrait machine.

  • The only one of these that’d interest me is an f/2 zoom, though I’m sure it’d be out of the price range of what I’m willing to spend.

    I have all my wide to normal needs covered, so what I’d personally like to see is something like the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 with IS.

    Right now I’m considering the Canon 70-200 f/4 or the previously mentioned Tokina. Unfortunately Canon’s IS and faster offerings are too pricey for me.

    I’d also love to see some non-L primes updated as well. I’m not big on ef-s lenses, though some new primes might interest me.

    Right now I’m waiting to see what the 60D has to offer before I purchase any more lenses.

  • everybody talk about an 24-70 2.8L IS .. but why not an 24-105 2.8L IS ????

    If the 24-105 comes with F2.8 , it would be a perfect allround lens.

  • An current EF 24-70 f/2.8 weight almost a kilogram, and has a 77mm front element (I have no idea why it should be thrice the 70mm / 2.8 = 25mm ratio).

    An EF 24-70 f/1.4 would probably have to weight nearly two kilograms, and over 82mm front element ? Thanks, but no thanks.

  • I’d like to see a 28 f1.8L that was of the quality of the 24 1.4L II at a lower price and smaller size. Even if was double the price of the current non-L 28 1.8 it would still be a great value and probably a hot seller for Canon. Actually all of Canon’s non-L primes need updating, but this one would be on the top of my list to sart with.

  • I’d much prefer the 135/2.0 IS variant, if given the choice. Most of the time when I need a lens like this I’m limited to slower shutter speeds (1/100th or slower, often 1/50th or slower.) The f/1.8 aperture won’t do the job, whereas the IS most certainly will.

    A 200/2.8IS would be a sweet, light alternative to the heavy zoom, too. Put IS on the 135, bring along a 1.4x TC, and you’re good to go for two focal lengths.

  • A good really sharp 17mm F3,5 could be an great idea. The 16-35 is kind of crappy.

  • 200-400 F4.0 is a killer lens for sports. 100-400 would be an 5.6 and that won’t do the job.

  • Agree!

    It seems Canon have not made any good quality non-L EF-lenses the last 10 years or so. And why do they make non-USM lenses anyway? My 50 /1.8 did not last long, it was simply too weak.

    Something like a (reasonaly) well built, sharp 24, 28, 30 or 35 /1.8 USM would be lovely. Would buy a Sigma 30 /1.4 if it could be used on a full frame body.

    When thinking about what wide fast prime to get I concluded that Canon wants me to buy 16-35 /2.8 L instead of /1.8-2.8 primes. But I want a fast prime (to get background blur), and the 17-40 L is good enough (for me) when stopped down for landscapes. When I need flexibility, the 16-35 is not flexible enough, so I might just as well use a prime.

    Also, a sharp 1,7x extender?

    24-135 /4 IS? Perfect for flexibilty. The 24-105 L IS is a little bit expensive when considering its performance vs a 24-70, and really not very “long”. The current 28-135 seems to have issues with build quality. But I assume Canon

  • Who are “they” – Canon or just random internet people? Sources are great!

  • I think, the price of such a lense can be 3700USD or 4000USD and many users will buy it if there is a noticeable IQ improvement –> looking at the 70-200 2.8L II IS .

    So the 2nd thing you mention here is the weight. The 24-70 is 2002 on the market. It is 8 years till now and there is many improvement in this market –> new IS system. So I hope, that there are improvement too in the Lens producing technology. You can see in the new 100mm 2.8 L IS, the body of the lens different now and maybe Canon will use it for the new lens too. The build quality is so good like the old one, but it is still weather proof. Sorry for my bad english.

  • i meant :
    The build quality is NOT so good like the old one, but it is still weather proof.

  • i wish they would just stop making efs all together…can’t see any reason why. the 17-55 would be the perfect alternative to the 17-40 if it was full frame and it wouldn’t be that much bigger…

    you can’t tell me that a 35 1.8 efs would be that much smaller than a 35 1.8 full frame…

    why design lenses that only serve part of your base?

    there are tons of examples if you look where the efs/dx thing is nonsense trying to make people buy more lenses long term…

  • would really like a 20/2 at around 500 with better corners than the 20 2.8. or better yet a prime around 17 aside from the tilt…

    something smallish – not too expensive. 17 3.5 sharp wide open…that would be nice…somewhere around 600-700.

  • I’ve heard of several amature bird photographers who use the EF 100-400 L.

    Between the lines I gather it’s selected for it’s price even though it’s a little short (which could be compensated with an extender), but not being a bird photographer I could very well be misunderstanding.

  • The EF-S 10-22mm is equivalent to EF 16-35mm, and they have no EF-S equivalent to the EF 14mm or Sigma’s 12-24mm lenses.

    If they want wide, I’d guess they didn’t vote because there’s no option to vote on an EF-S lens that starts around 8.5-9mm

  • Out of sheer curiosity: how does a TS-E 24mm II with two EF 2x II extenders compare to the TS-E 90mm as far as image quality goes ?

  • Me too, though there are so many technical issues that would need to be overcome. I mean, why not add autofocus while we’re at it? :) (And couldn’t it be done with special zone AF selection points, and so on, heh heh.)

    A 35mm TS-E seems more realistic to me.

    Updates to the TS-E 45mm and the 90mm would be great (being able to rotate the tilt and shift both in relation to each other and to the camera is a great feature).

  • How old is the 100-400? An update is needed!

    How long as Nikon had a 200-400 and Canon hasn’t replied?

    IMHO both of these are needed.

  • I have to say my 100-400 on an xti does exactly what I need it to. IS is great and focus is quick. I like the push/pull although it did take a little getting used to.

    I’d like the 24-70 2.8L IS to cover the shorter end. My other lenses are kit, no IS and pretty poor overall.

  • I think the poll is wrong. I like to shoot with two APS-C bodies. My long lens is the 70-200 2.8 IS L. I have been campaigning for Canon to make a COMPLEMENT that starts at 95degrees. This would be about the equivalent of a 15-70 2.8 L Lens. Does any one agree? The current stable is all designed for full frame.

Leave a Reply

Latest Post

TAMRON completes the G2 Trinity, announces Ultra Wide-Angle 16-30mm F2.8 G2 Zoom
Industry News
Canon Summer Trade-in Event, Get up to $500 Trade-in Bonus
Deal Zone
Exploring The History of Innovation: The Canon EOS 5 Series
Canon EOS R
Lowepro Adventura Go BP 150 Backpack $29 (Reg $99)
Deal Zone
DZOFilm Pictor 14-30mm T2.8 Super35 Parfocal Zoom $1199 (Reg $2629)
Deal Zone
100 Years of Leica: Witness to a Century (1925–2025)
Industry News