Rumor - Canon 70-200 f/1.8

[zogster]

That's what I hear. It'll be a zoom, not a fixed focal length.

[JaertX]

are you sure a 70-200 is a zoom?:rolleyes:

[Rumjungle]

No thanks, the f/2.8 is plenty heavy for me already. I can't even begin to imagine a f/1.8 zoom.

[PAFC2004]

Interesting first post...

[sti jaguar]

This lense is for the creepy night stalkers. :)

[AeroSmith]

No thanks, the f/2.8 is plenty heavy for me already. I can't even begin to imagine a f/1.8 zoom.

No kidding.

[CoolToolGuy]

AFAIK, Canon has yet to market their first f2.0 zoom, much less this monster. :shock:
I would much rather see a 24-70 f2.0L (or something similar in EF-S) first. :D

Have Fun,

[Rumjungle]

Now that sounds like a winner, a 24-70 f/2.0. I imaging it would be the size of a 70-200.

[Longwatcher]

Just to add fuel to the possibility, although unlikely.

Maybe it will be the first liquid focus lens, that could potentially save weight and still maybe get better quality.

Of course I think a liquid focus lens is still at least 5 years from being remotely pratical, but Canon has surprised us before.

[Sprout Crumble]

They certainly have. We all thought the 70-200/4.0IS would be $250 more expensive than the non-IS. Man, were we wrong...

[René Damkot]

:lol:

[Belmondo]

We all know what the 200 f/1.8L looks like. Add zoom to that, and you'll have something about the size of a bus.

[CyberDyneSystems]

24-70 f/2.8L = "The Brick"

70-200mm f/1.8L = "Ton of Bricks"

Thsi rumor was circulating before Photokina as well.. (August - Sept)

It seems now that the destiny of all silly rumors is they have infinite durability.. like the EOS 3D which set the standard for durability (going on six years now!)

[Tom W]

24-70 f/2.8L = "The Brick"

70-200mm f/1.8L = "Ton of Bricks"

Thsi rumor was circulating before Photokina as well.. (August - Sept)

It seems now that the destiny of all silly rumors is they have infinite durability.. like the EOS 3D which set the standard for durability (going on six years now!)

I was just thinking that the 70-200 f/1.8 would mate up nicely to the 3D. ;)

[Rumrunner]

That's what I hear. It'll be a zoom, not a fixed focal length.

Is that the one that was going to have the plasma lenses :D

[JaertX]

there is this lens: (oly f/2.0 zoom)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=8457&A=details&Q=&sku=404517&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

but it doesn't cover FF and you have to use it on olympus cameras :)

[BradT0517]

like said elsewhere I would like a 17-70 f2.8 IS L

[bildeb0rg]

I don't understand your issues with size and weight of lenses. Surely if it makes the shot possible, it's worth any penalty? I've tried the 70-200 f2.8 IS , and loved it. Couldn't afford it, but loved it. F1.8 version? Bring it on, tho I would rather see a 100-250/300 range, purely as it's more suited to what I shoot. I Wouldn't even baulk at something the size of the 300 f2.8, if it meant the difference between shot, or no shot.

[Rumjungle]

I don't understand your issues with size and weight of lenses. Surely if it makes the shot possible, it's worth any penalty?

That's understandable as 3.5lbs is probably the heaviest lens that you've worked with. You must understand however, that we're talking about a 11lbs+ lens here.:shock:
While the speed would allow some additional shots to be possible, the weight alone would make other types of shots impossible.

[canoflan]

Interesting first post...

No, really. I have a 50-200 1.5L IS prime lens on my 5.3D FF+2 sensor.

[Longwatcher]

Based on some straight math (not related to reality)
Given that a 200/2.8L prime weighs in at 765grams and a 70-200/2.8L at 1310 w/o IS and 1470 with IS

and given that 200/1.8L weighs in at 3000grams (or about 1000 way too much)
a 70-200/1.8L with IS would come in at around 6000 grams (or about 13.2lbs) give or take a bit. Which is now 4000grams too much to handhold for anything more then one or two shots before your arm falls off from the weight. :)

I have no problems holding my 70-200/2.8L IS for several hours, but that is approaching my limit for extended use. I figure I could probably handle the 28-300L for about an hour at most which is the heaviest lens I am likely to use not mounted on a tripod.

[Belmondo]

Based on some straight math (not related to reality)
Given that a 200/2.8L prime weighs in at 765grams and a 70-200/2.8L at 1310 w/o IS and 1470 with IS

and given that 200/1.8L weighs in at 3000grams (or about 1000 way too much)
a 70-200/1.8L with IS would come in at around 6000 grams (or about 13.2lbs) give or take a bit. Which is now 4000grams too much to handhold for anything more then one or two shots before your arm falls off from the weight. :)

I have no problems holding my 70-200/2.8L IS for several hours, but that is approaching my limit for extended use. I figure I could probably handle the 28-300L for about an hour at most which is the heaviest lens I am likely to use not mounted on a tripod.

Tim, you have too much time on your hands.

No, really. I have a 50-200 1.5L IS prime lens on my 5.3D FF+2 sensor.

Canoflan, you have too much time on your hands.

[Longwatcher]

Tim, you have too much time on your hands.


What I have is a print out of the Canon lens chart, which saves me a lot of time. Meanwhile I KNOW you have too much time on your hands Or at least you are supposed to by now. :) 8) :)

[Belmondo]

What I have is a print out of the Canon lens chart, which saves me a lot of time. Meanwhile I KNOW you have too much time on your hands Or at least you are supposed to by now. :) 8) :) Erk! Not the last 6 months. We've sold/purchased 15 houses in Indio, and are currently in the process of getting them all rented out---not an easy thing to do in December when nobody wants to move.

[Lawrence88]

They need to re-produce that 200mm f/1.8 with a white barrel...

[liza]

They need to re-produce that 200mm f/1.8 with a white barrel...

Or just reintroduce the lens. It produces some of the most beautiful images I've ever seen. The bokeh brings tears to my eyes. :)

[BradT0517]

Or just reintroduce the lens. It produces some of the most beautiful images I've ever seen. The bokeh brings tears to my eyes. :)

Well why not just come out with a 200 1.2L

[basroil]

Well why not just come out with a 200 1.2L

because that would have an opening the size of the 1200mm 5.6 and it would weight nearly as much :rolleyes:

[joegolf68]

Generic offer:
Won't happen. Think it might? Bet me. I buy you one if there is one in two years. If not, you buy me a 300 IS.

[canoflan]

Well why not just come out with a 200 1.2L

Naw...my 50-200 1.5L covers that fine. It has a purple ring, not a red one; being next generation and all.:D

[Photolistic]

No thanks, the f/2.8 is plenty heavy for me already. I can't even begin to imagine a f/1.8 zoom.

As technology progresses things get lighter and smaller. 10 years ago a 28-70 2.8 was SOOOOO fast and weighed almost 3 pounds!!!

[jcw122]

meh, a 70-200 1.4 would be nicer.

[Photolistic]

meh, a 70-200 1.4 would be nicer.

Soon my friend.... within 3 years for sure.

[metalman1010]

They need to re-produce that 200mm f/1.8 with a white barrel...

To throw some white gas on these flames...What about the introduction of a 200mm 2.0 IS to match what the N company has introduced?

Seems they always go back and forth trying to up the ante just a smidge over each other. Similiar to the idea the 1D MK III will match the D2X.

Ross

[Billginthekeys]

:lol:

[Collin85]

Interesting first post...

I'll say.

[CoolToolGuy]

I'll say.

The thread was started in November, and the OP still only has 1 post. I think that would make it not only an interesting first post, but an intersting only post. . . :rolleyes:

I didn't think we were that intimidating, but different strokes for different folks.

Have Fun,

[blackshadow]

They need to re-produce that 200mm f/1.8 with a white barrel...

I'm advocating a white barelled 200mm f1.8L IS.

[blackshadow]

like said elsewhere I would like a 17-70 f2.8 IS L
Sounds good but I'd be surprised if this lens ever happened and if it did it would be about the size of the 70-200 f2.8L IS and at least twice the price (as it would be replacing two f2.8L lenses, the 16-35 and 24-70 covering that focal range) as Canon would not want to lose revenue by losing sales of other lenses.

[MrChad]

Oh yes, Canon clearly needs another 70-200mm lens to choose from. :rolleyes:

[bsmith6280]

Oh yes, Canon clearly needs another 70-200mm lens to choose from. :rolleyes:

Agreed but we need IS on it too!

[mxwphoto]

A revival of the 200 1.8 would be awesome, but I'll be satisfied if Canon would just drop the prices on all its lenses by a notch (say 10-15%).