17-40 vr 2 coming.

[BEEEsH]

Can't say who informed me, but its in the works.

optimized 17-40 F4 + new IS.

[Mike55]

Can't say who informed me, but its in the works.

optimized 17-40 F4 + new IS.


Any word on price?

[felix21685]

i'm also interested in price...

but seems like its 500 bucks for IS so 1100 is probably a good estimate.

I don't know i think i'd still get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

[Livinthalife]

I agree, Why wouldn't they just make it a 2.8 as well, or perhaps make the 16-35 2.8 IS?

[BEEEsH]

I agree, Why wouldn't they just make it a 2.8 as well, or perhaps make the 16-35 2.8 IS?

They just re-did the 16-35, it would be a colossal waste of money for them to re-do it again. I didn't ask about the price.It'll probably cost 150$ more than the non IS version.

[gregster]

Why on earth would you want IS in such a short lens?

[JohnnyG]

Why on earth would you want IS in such a short lens?
Why not? IS always helps. I love it on my 17-55 and it enables me to get shots at much lower shutter speeds than without. If I owned Canon I would put IS on ALL LENSES particularly since they have a much cheaper way to do it now.

[JohnnyG]

They just re-did the 16-35, it would be a colossal waste of money for them to re-do it again. I didn't ask about the price.It'll probably cost 150$ more than the non IS version.
Biggest screw-up in my opinion was making the 16-35 without IS! Wow! Such fine optics without IS!:rolleyes:

[S.Horton]

Why on earth would you want IS in such a short lens?

Beat me to it........ ;)

[Tom W]

Biggest screw-up in my opinion was making the 16-35 without IS! Wow! Such fine optics without IS!:rolleyes:

Not a screwup at all - the 16-35 II is a very fine lens. I'm not certain that an IS version would share the same optical capability. There are some who think that the original 300 f/4L without IS is sharper than the newer version with IS.

The one thing I do know is that IS is far more useful on a long lens than it is on a short lens. That's not to say that it can't be useful on an ultrawide like the 16-35 - it's just to say that it serves a far greater purpose on long lenses where your shake is magnified.

[MrChad]

One thing to keep in mind is that every Canon lens with IS is longer the a 70mm equiv. focal length. The 17-55mm IS is actually a 27-88mm in 35mm terms.

The instruction for the 17-55mm EFS even say to calculate stops of improvement via:
1/(focal length x 1.6).

So in true 35mm terms the shortest lens with IS in the Canon line-up would likely be the 24-105mm IS, which again is a lens with a focal length longer then 70mm at some point.

A new 17-40mmL with IS would be the shortest IS lens by a huge order of magnitude. It would be the first lens ever without an effective 70mm focal length especially given the fact that his lens's intent would likely be for FF and not EFS.

If someone told me the 17-40L was being redone to use an 82mm front element for better corners on FF digital I might believe that. But the inclusion of IS is a head scratcher.

[FlyingPhotog]

It has to be coming out soon simply because I JUST BOUGHT a 17-40 f/4L

*Sigh*

[JohnnyG]

All of this theory, a few facts sprinkled here and there and a lot of opinion is all well and good and means a great deal but.....

The market is going IS and that's that! All of the manufactures are either already using it or will be very shortly. It's a buzz word, like live view, that is happening all over the place.

Why do you think Canon brought out the 18-55 IS and selling it for $175.00? Unheard of a year ago. Canon said something like they just discovered a cheaper way to make IS. Yeah right!:rolleyes: They had that technology for probably years just waiting for the market to catch up which it is so now they "discover" that "new" technology!

Canon has been making bundles on IS, charging an average of $500.00 more for each lens with it. Now, the tide shifts and you're going to start seeing much cheaper prices for IS and on lens shorter than the 70mm mentioned earlier. Why wouldn't they? If they don't, the competition will and eat them alive! You have to have IS now and that's that!
I'm sure they'll get away with not having it on some L lenses as they're made for the "pros" but I'm sure you'll be seeing it on most new lenses!

Also, start looking for IS in Canon bodies, it's not far away I'm sure!

The photography world is changing fast and only the companies that change will be left and I'm sure Canon will be one of those and on top of the heap as usual. They're not stupid for sure. They make stupid mistakes occasionally like the Mark III but they're fixing that one well. They'll make others because as I was taught years ago.... "You're not doing anything at all if you're not making mistakes!!" and Canon is doing a lot!

[danielyamseng]

17-40 is a slower brother of 16-35mm. if IS is there, I guess 16-35mm f2.8 would have IS as well:)

[amoergosum]

There's no need for IS on either the 17-40 or the 16-35.

[JohnnyG]

There's no need for IS on either the 17-40 or the 16-35.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it if you don't like IS but a lot of people do.

Personally, IS on ALL lenses would be welcomed especially the 17-40 and the 16-35. I have IS on my 17-55 and it's wonderful and very useful.

What I can't understand is why some people don't want something that works and IS works. I guess it's some kind of macho thing like not wearing seat-belts or something like that. No umbrellas, no neck scarves, etc. If it works and adds value then why not?

[cosworth]

I'll bite on this rumour.

17-40 IS? Dear god that would be welded to my camera. Anyone what to buy an ultra sharp 17-40 non-IS? ;)

[JohnnyG]

I'll bite on this rumour.

17-40 IS? Dear god that would be welded to my camera. Anyone what to buy an ultra sharp 17-40 non-IS? ;)
No thanks! :lol::lol::lol:

[JohnnyG]

So a 17-55 IS is okay but a 17-40 IS isn't? Strange and bizarre logic for sure!:rolleyes:

[Michael1116]

ALL my gear is IS, camera and lenses...

AFTER I down a couple of Jack Daniels shooters before every session.
:p

[Livinthalife]

What I can't understand is why some people don't want something that works and IS works. I guess it's some kind of macho thing like not wearing seat-belts or something like that. No umbrellas, no neck scarves, etc. If it works and adds value then why not?

HAHA!!!

Your right though, if it does work, then why not?

Of course non-IS would be cheaper, but as one said, IS is where everything is headed.

[JohnnyG]

HAHA!!!

Your right though, if it does work, then why not?

Of course non-IS would be cheaper, but as one said, IS is where everything is headed.
There are some people that probably got mad when roll film was invented because photographic plates were good enough for them and why did anyone need roll film. Then when auto-exposure came along they complained that they didn't need that because they were doing fine without it. Then auto-focus, I'm sure the cries could be heard all over, "We don't need no stinkin auto-focus because we can manually focus real good!".

It never stops. The anti-technology folks are lurking waiting for the next feature so they can jump up and down complaining and then using it when it comes out. It just never fails. I've heard those cries regarding live view, anti-dust technology, 3" screens, etc. etc. etc. I guess they want a pinhole camera with plates and that's that!

Canon is smart though, they put on-off switches on AF and IS so those that don't want them can have that choice!

I guess it all boils down to what my father used to say "they'd be upset if they hung 'em with a new rope!" For those that don't understand that quote, new ropes chafe the neck much more than an old rope.:lol::lol::lol:

[Livinthalife]

There are some people that probably got mad when roll film was invented because photographic plates were good enough for them and why did anyone need roll film. Then when auto-exposure came along they complained that they didn't need that because they were doing fine without it. Then auto-focus, I'm sure the cries could be heard all over, "We don't need no stinkin auto-focus because we can manually focus real good!".

It never stops. The anti-technology folks are lurking waiting for the next feature so they can jump up and down complaining and then using it when it comes out. It just never fails. I've heard those cries regarding live view, anti-dust technology, 3" screens, etc. etc. etc. I guess they want a pinhole camera with plates and that's that!

Canon is smart though, they put on-off switches on AF and IS so those that don't want them can have that choice!

I guess it all boils down to what my father used to say "they'd be upset if they hung 'em with a new rope!" For those that don't understand that quote, new ropes chafe the neck much more than an old rope.:lol::lol::lol:

I guess we are all guilty of that at one point or another. I mean, I had the XT, then XTi came out, and I found my self defending my ownership of the "old model". But anyways, looking forward to the new lineup of IS lenses.

I want an old rope ;)

[SOX 404]

So a 17-55 IS is okay but a 17-40 IS isn't? Strange and bizarre logic for sure!:rolleyes:
I don't think it's strange and bizarre logic. Remember 17-55 is EF-S that fits only on 1.6x crop cameras. This is about 27-65mm on FF camera which considered standard zoom. Moreover, 17-55 with f/2.8 is heavier, so it make sense to have IS. As comparison, 17-40 is lighter, only 500g. I agree with others that 17-40 IS does not make sense. Extra weight, extra $. With additional +/- $500 for IS, the price would be around $1.1k. This won't sell! I won't buy it, I prefer getting 16-35 by paying extra 100 or 200 bucks!

[Fobulous]

I don't think it's strange and bizarre logic. Remember 17-55 is EF-S that fits only on 1.6x crop cameras. This is about 27-65mm on FF camera which considered standard zoom. Moreover, 17-55 with f/2.8 is heavier, so it make sense to have IS. As comparison, 17-40 is lighter, only 500g. I agree with others that 17-40 IS does not make sense. Extra weight, extra $. With additional +/- $500 for IS, the price would be around $1.1k. This won't sell! I won't buy it, I prefer getting 16-35 by paying extra 100 or 200 bucks!

If this lens gets released, we'll have the 24-70/24-105 debate all over again. f/4 with IS, or f/2.8? I think Canon is just playing with us. :p

[Ixon]

Well if Canon so called going to add IS in bodies aswell then the 17-40mm wouldn't need a IS version of this lens as it be pretty much effective from the body itself with it being such a short focal lenght.

[FlyingPhotog]

If this lens gets released, we'll have the 24-70/24-105 debate all over again. f/4 with IS, or f/2.8? I think Canon is just playing with us. :p

I agree that someone is playing with us...but I don't think it's Canon. :rolleyes:

[Livinthalife]

Well if Canon so called going to add IS in bodies aswell then the 17-40mm wouldn't need a IS version of this lens as it be pretty much effective from the body itself with it being such a short focal lenght.

True, but who said they were putting IS in bodies?

[amoergosum]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it if you don't like IS but a lot of people do.

Personally, IS on ALL lenses would be welcomed especially the 17-40 and the 16-35. I have IS on my 17-55 and it's wonderful and very useful.




That's all I wanted to do...expressing my opinion.
I have IS on my 24-105L and I love it. But on an ultra wide it's not really necessary in my opinion because of its short focal length.

[felix21685]

guaranteed camera shake is less noticeable on short focal lenghts, but you can still get 3 stop improvement. so no matter what the focal length you still gain from IS.

[drjiveturkey]

There's no need for IS on either the 17-40 or the 16-35.

Of course there is. Being able to stop down to f/8 to take a scenic picture without the use of a tripod!! I'd buy it. Of course the tripod is better, but there are times when it's not practical to lug it around.

[Blue S2]

IS won't be added to the 17-40. 1/focal length... you can handhold a 17mm image pretty darn well without IS. Most IS lenses get you down to 1/15th, if you honestly need to 1second exposures...you are probably using a tripod. It's getting silly at that point.

Talking to a Canon Pro Service rep, the entire wide-angle line has been in review due to the full-frames. 14mm was released and is phenomenal. Just insane view on a full frame. The 16-35 was released with the 82mm front thread. This saved the lens IMO. When compared to the prior 16-35 or the 17-40, you can understand why they did this. The 24mm tilt-shift is on its way, much improved. I feel the 17-40 will be released with an 82mm thread as well. I've tried the entire lineup thats available now back to back and compared images on full frame. The 14 is clearly the best, and the 16-35 finally has bright corners. The 17 has major falloff at 17 in comparison. Within the next 2 years we should be seeing some much improved wide angles being released.

[John_TX]

Interesting indeed. This is the first I've heard with regards to a real legitimate need for refreshing the 17-40L.
Sounds good to me. Unfortunately, if they make the 17-40L 82mm, I highly doubt it will be the diamond in the rough anymore with regards to price.

[MrChad]

Interesting indeed. This is the first I've heard with regards to a real legitimate need for refreshing the 17-40L.
Sounds good to me. Unfortunately, if they make the 17-40L 82mm, I highly doubt it will be the diamond in the rough anymore with regards to price.

I would agree, much higher then $650 it sells for now you have to figure EFS users buying this lens will just commit to the 17-55mm.

I really could give two hoots about the corners on the 5D, from my past use you can fix most wide open issues with a RAW converter in 1 slider swing for the corners. Just leave the lens as is, the 77mm filters make L sharing easy and if you need perfect corners that bad just buy the better 16-35mm IMO.

[ed rader]

Can't say who informed me, but its in the works.

optimized 17-40 F4 + new IS.


no way dude. the 24-70L would be equipped with IS waaaay before an UWA zoom f4 zoom.

ed rader

[EspenW]

My guess:

New 24-70 along with the new 5D.


Espen

[Jim G]

My guess:

New 24-70 along with the new 5D.


Espen

I reckon that might not be too far off... a new one with 82mm filter threads, perhaps? :p

[John Hudson]

IS alone would not attract me to buy a revised 17-40mm.

However if it gave better image quality than the original 17-40mm then I would buy it immediately as this is the lens I use the most.

An 82mm thread would make me think twice though, that would represent a further investment in replacement filters.

John.

[JohnnyG]

IS alone would not attract me to buy a revised 17-40mm.

However if it gave better image quality than the original 17-40mm then I would buy it immediately as this is the lens I use the most.

An 82mm thread would make me think twice though, that would represent a further investment in replacement filters.

John.
IS on the 17-40 would prompt me to buy one. My wife has one and it's a good lens but I think it needs IS to complete. A larger filter size would be fine as I don't use filters anyway. 2.8 would also be nice but that would probably make it too expensive but not sure???

I would also love to see a 24-70 with IS even more. That is a fine lens already and would only get better with IS.

Another lens update would be an "L" 17-55. It's an excellent lens and updating and making it EF class would be wonderful too! I had one and it was my favorite lens but sold it because of wanting to get a 5D. Probably a mistake on my part as I look back at the photos it produced.

I expect we'll start seeing more and more IS in Canon's lenses at a much lower premium. IS on all lenses in the future will probably happen I would imagine and think it should, even the WA's. Why not if it doesn't cost much more???

[Tareq]

Why canon reproduce their old lenses for better performance later? why can't they just produce new lenses and finish, not so interested to remake old lenses with different features, like 2.8 to 2, xx-xxxmm MKI to MKII, i wish if they produce a lens of 10-50mm, EF15-70 IS or f2, 70-400 f2.8 [mix between 70-200/70-300 and 100-400].

[John_TX]

Why canon reproduce their old lenses for better performance later? why can't they just produce new lenses and finish, not so interested to remake old lenses with different features, like 2.8 to 2, xx-xxxmm MKI to MKII, i wish if they produce a lens of 10-50mm, EF15-70 IS or f2, 70-400 f2.8 [mix between 70-200/70-300 and 100-400].

I'd be all over a EF 15-70L! (24-112 in 35mm eq.)
For just about every major lens, except the 24-105L, canon has a comparable 1.6x crop version. A EF 15-70L would be a perfect lens for 40D users, as well as enticing 400/450D users into the L fever as well.

And to those of you who say we've already got the EF-S 17-55, there is significant difference between 24mm & 27.2mm on the wide end.

I currently don't have anything below 28mm at the moment and regularly find myself yearning for the 24mm width I got back in the film days.

While the EF-S 10-22mm is an option on crop cameras, I feel it's more of a special purpose lens with somewhat limited use. Although the 10-22 thread obviously proves that wrong!

[Blue S2]

You cannot stack filters on a 17mm lens anyways. You will get uncorrectable vignette. Its not lightfall off anymore...its the filter threading. An 82mm thread allows a larger filter that allows full corner light. If you start stacking...you might get away with an extra filter or two. 2 filters on a 77mm thread is already enough to see the filter barrel on anything less than 24mm.

Some one serious about wide-angle that needs multiple filter use is probably going to be using 4x6 rectangular filters anyways. You have room to adjust and move them around and still not have edge problems. It just comes to a point where some things aren't practical in use.

A 17-40 has a pretty wide hood to begin with. If its increased filter size is 82 after an upgrade, then you could probably add a step back down to 77 even with the hood on. You could leave this on and use a 77mm cap as well if you really wanted.

[Tareq]

I'd be all over a EF 15-70L! (24-112 in 35mm eq.)
For just about every major lens, except the 24-105L, canon has a comparable 1.6x crop version. A EF 15-70L would be a perfect lens for 40D users, as well as enticing 400/450D users into the L fever as well.

And to those of you who say we've already got the EF-S 17-55, there is significant difference between 24mm & 27.2mm on the wide end.

I currently don't have anything below 28mm at the moment and regularly find myself yearning for the 24mm width I got back in the film days.

While the EF-S 10-22mm is an option on crop cameras, I feel it's more of a special purpose lens with somewhat limited use. Although the 10-22 thread obviously proves that wrong!

Exactly my points, i have cropped and full frame bodies with different glasses so i know what i want now, so that i posted about those my futuristic lenses, i don't think that 17mm on crop body is sufficient, and i find myself to change between lenses if i go from wide to standard to telephoto and i regret that i don't have 2.8 or no IS and so.

[Tareq]

You cannot stack filters on a 17mm lens anyways. You will get uncorrectable vignette. Its not lightfall off anymore...its the filter threading. An 82mm thread allows a larger filter that allows full corner light. If you start stacking...you might get away with an extra filter or two. 2 filters on a 77mm thread is already enough to see the filter barrel on anything less than 24mm.

Some one serious about wide-angle that needs multiple filter use is probably going to be using 4x6 rectangular filters anyways. You have room to adjust and move them around and still not have edge problems. It just comes to a point where some things aren't practical in use.

A 17-40 has a pretty wide hood to begin with. If its increased filter size is 82 after an upgrade, then you could probably add a step back down to 77 even with the hood on. You could leave this on and use a 77mm cap as well if you really wanted.

i got too many problems of vignetting on my 77mm UWA/WA lenses whether on crop body or full frame using my P-series filters, so i went with 4x5 [or 4x4] filters to eliminate or reduce vignetting as much as possible below 20mm.

[shadowcat]

IS would be nice on the shorter lens for low light use but it's not needed in bright daylight.

[I Simonius]

Why on earth would you want IS in such a short lens?
Beat me to it........ ;)
and me;)

[JohnnyG]

Why on earth would you want IS in such a short lens?
Why wouldn't you?

I remember when auto-focusing was introduced to cameras and people asked the same question about AF! Why would you want AF when manual focusing works just fine???

That is a result of a technaphobe in action! Afraid of technology. After all, if it works then why not, no matter how short the lens is. I know I can't take a picture at 1/30 without IS at but I can with. Enough said.

I've taken sharp pictures at 1/15 and they were sharp because of the IS!

[I Simonius]

Why wouldn't you?

I remember when auto-focusing was introduced to cameras and people asked the same question about AF! Why would you want AF when manual focusing works just fine???

That is a result of a technaphobe in action! Afraid of technology. After all, if it works then why not, no matter how short the lens is. I know I can't take a picture at 1/30 without IS at but I can with. Enough said.

I've taken sharp pictures at 1/15 and they were sharp because of the IS!

I reglar like takes pics at 1/30th but I spuz yer roite fer any sorter depfe er field yud need it wooncher?:D
[translation:" I regularly take pictures at 1/30th but I suppose you are right for any sort of depth of field you would need it wouldn't you?"]

HH@1/30th

[gdl357]

I don't know i think i'd still get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

What would a guy with a 5D or film do with that lens?
I want an extra switch on my 17-40...

[I Simonius]

and another thing..........:p;)

Nikon's zoom 14-24 needs a response from canooon, i.e. that is one sharp bambino!

Hopefully there will be a MK2 of the 17-40 that is so sharp that it cuts the eyes, because the 14mk2 ain't all that, and they're hardly likely to upgrade it again so soon, so digits intertwined for a 17-40mk2:D

[surfjungle]

I agree Simonius - thats quite true of the 14-24 Nikon, saw a review on photozone and it pretty much destroys anything out there.

On the IS side. I really don't think it matters too much for ultra wides. You don't see canon putting IS into any of their primes up to 200 F2? IS may be difficult to integrate into certain lenses or designs may have to change on a lens by lens basis - which could me a complete redesign - so then what happens to the legendary quality of a great lens if it gets redesigned - there's no guarantee that it'll be as good again. Anyhow, there just possibilities. Putting IS in the body may only suffice for short focal lengths. There is a good post somewhere on potn detailing why this is if one were to search for it. Also, IS, from what I've read and believe, is generally best when integrated with the lens, as opposed to the camera body.

Anyhow, my 2 cents...

[I Simonius]

On the IS side. I really don't think it matters too much for ultra wides. You don't see canon putting IS into any of their primes up to 200 F2? IS may be difficult to integrate into certain lenses or designs may have to change on a lens by lens basis - which could me a complete redesign - so then what happens to the legendary quality of a great lens if it gets redesigned - there's no guarantee that it'll be as good again.

Anyhow, my 2 cents...


exactly. IS in WA and UWA is for newbies:p
Anyone worth their salt would use a tripehound (tripod;))for WA and UWA if they need that long an exposure. Most experienced photogs can HH a WA or UWA at 15th sec, certainly at 30th sec with no problems and IS isn't going to do much better for exposures longer tan that anyway... so a complete waste of space and money on a WA or UWA

The only shooters that rally want them are crop camera user but there are already IS WA zooms for the crop cameras. They could stick IS on the 10-22 I suppose but please leave the 'L' lenses alone;-)

NO need to risk ruining a perfectly good lens design (for FF use) by putting in IS just for the crop cameras:evil:

[Mystwalker]

Would rather have f/2.8 then IS.

Would love to have both.

[surfjungle]

Would rather have f/2.8 then IS.

Would love to have both.

Aha - but have you been reading the above? Of course 2.8 is great but IS:
a) may require a re-design (and it may not be as good next time)
b) is a great excuse to change much more money that its worth
c) wide angles don't need IS

[I Simonius]

Aha - but have you been reading the above? Of course 2.8 is great but IS:
a) may require a re-design (and it may not be as good next time)
b) is a great excuse to change much more money that its worth
c) wide angles don't need IS


seconded;):D

[fordmondeo]

Why on earth would you want IS in such a short lens?

Yes, why?

Apparently IS only helps at certain shutter speeds.

I am told, in some circumstances, IS may actually be detrimental.

[AngryCorgi]

People crack me up. Some of these posts act like Canon has an IS-Fairy that sprinkles magic IS-pixie-dust onto a normal lens and *poof*...an IS lens is created. Canon has perpetuated this silliness by making the 70-200/4LIS almost the same size as the 70-200/4L and improving image quality to boot. Unfortunately, one should not expect IS to simply be added to an existing optical formula with consistently outstanding results. Think about it. You are MOVING the optics in the lens! This is no easy task!

Oh well, if I ever explained in depth how your $50 inkjet printer head worked, some of you would freak out too!

[I Simonius]

Oh well, if I ever explained in depth how your $50 inkjet printer head worked, some of you would freak out too!

go on then you're obviously dying to!;):rolleyes::lol:

[AngryCorgi]

go on then you're obviously dying to!;):rolleyes::lol:

Oh yes, I'm dying to...

[Ash84]

No date still? ):

[I Simonius]

Can't say who informed me, but its in the works.

optimized 17-40 F4 + new IS.

corse you can't say - It was your Mum!

IS indeed:rolleyes:

[JohnnyG]

People crack me up. Some of these posts act like Canon has an IS-Fairy that sprinkles magic IS-pixie-dust onto a normal lens and *poof*...an IS lens is created. Canon has perpetuated this silliness by making the 70-200/4LIS almost the same size as the 70-200/4L and improving image quality to boot. Unfortunately, one should not expect IS to simply be added to an existing optical formula with consistently outstanding results. Think about it. You are MOVING the optics in the lens! This is no easy task!

Oh well, if I ever explained in depth how your $50 inkjet printer head worked, some of you would freak out too!
Thank goodness Canon knows how to add IS!

It will happen soon on the 17-40 and for that I'm grateful! I will order one as soon as available!

[AngryCorgi]

No date still? ):

My money is on never...

The title of this thread is a quick indicator that this is random guess work at best... VR2? really...

[cosworth]

Can't say who informed me

I think all rumour threads that start with this should be disallowed.

[John_TX]

This thread was obviously started by a Noink troll as "VR" is part of their vernacular (so I've been told...).

[I Simonius]

I think all rumour threads that start with this should be disallowed.

tat would kill them dead:lol::lol::lol:

[ANGUS]

This thread was obviously started by a Noink troll as "VR" is part of their vernacular (so I've been told...).

vr. means Version

[zeva]

Lol Whens the date on this thing....

[Jim G]

Lol Whens the date on this thing....

Sometime... in the future. Maybe. :p

[ANGUS]

Sometime... in the future. Maybe. :p

Really?!?!?! Ide never expect something thats going to happen but hasnt yet to occur in the Future! You sure!?!

[JohnnyG]

I think that all rumor threads that don't start with a rumor that didn't happen should be stricken from the rumor section but not if they haven't happened yet.

[surfjungle]

How very circular of you JohnnyG