100L IS macro, 15-85 IS, 18-135 IS - What is next ?

[sebr]

Title says it all. What is next ?

[cccc]

nothing for a long time...

[sebr]

nothing for a long time...

Lol

[fWord]

Would like to see a new 100-400mm zoom with more consistent IQ, hybrid IS, weather sealing. Even keeping the same aperture values would be fine. It would make the perfect travel telezoom.

[Digital Aurora Photography]

Ohh I would LOVE a new 100-400mm lens. Also I would LOVE to have a 24-70 f2.8 with IS.
However I know I'm dreaming on both count, ohh... wouldn't they be great lenses?

[AngryCorgi]

EF-S 28mm f/1.2 is the next on the roadmap, IIRC.

[amfoto1]

I don't get it. Why do people think they need IS on a 24-70mm lens? Hey, I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I just can't understand why some people seem think this would be particularly useful. Weighed against the cost, size, weight and complexity it's bound to add... I'd skip it on this zoom.

Those focal lengths are already easily hand holdable at relatively low shutter speeds. And higher ISO capable cameras are here, no doubt with more & better ones in the works... Which offsets the need for IS, particularly on shorter focal lengths.

Hey, I can understand why Canon put IS on 17-55, 18-55, etc. I'm pretty sure this is a competitive thing more than anything else. Other makers started offering in-camera stabilization, which effecively means it's available on all lenses, no matter what focal length. To cater to the entry level and first upgrade market who feel stabilization of some sort is a must on everything, whether it does any good or not, Canon essentially had to put IS on these lenses to keep the consumer from going elsewhere.

But, the 24-70 is largely aimed at pro use, and most pros are aware that IS isn't particularly helpful on this range. Hey, if it were free in all respects, I wouldn't complain. But I'm sure it will add cost, size, weight and complexity... so I say forget it. I'm pretty happy with the 24-70 already (quirky design, huge lens hood and all).

Besides, there's also the 24-105 IS, for those who feel they really, really gotta have stabilization. Also the 28-135, for those who don't want to pay for an L-series. (And these are beginning to get into focal lengths where IS is actually more useful).

I'm not even sure I'm sold on putting IS on a 100mm macro lens. Now Hybrid IS might do more than standard IS will with macro shooting (as Nikon learned with their 105mm VR)... But, I'm going to have a tough time justifying buying a 100mm macro with IS unless the new lens has a major increase in image quality, too (which is pretty hard to imagine considering the IQ of the current 100/2.8 USM Macro).

This is not to pan IS at all, either. I've used it on 70-200, 300 and 500mm for 8+ years now and really love it on longer teles.

As to the original question... "What next"...

Canon probably should update the 100-400. But there are plenty of other things I think they need to address, too:

24mm f2.8 or f2.0 USM (build quality similar to 28/1.8 etc.)

35mm f2 or f1.8 USM (build quality similar to 28/1.8, etc.)

50mm f1.4 USM Mark II (ring type USM)

135/2 IS... Here it would be more useful!

200mm f2.8 III IS... Here, too.

300/4L Mark II, an update with more current version of IS (uses about a 15 year old design, one of the first IS lenses).

400/5.6 IS Should be able to keep it affordable, too. IS costs a lot less to implement now.

EF-S 12-24/4 (Pretty much everyone else offers one. I think it would be a good lens for Canon to consider, too, and that it wouldn't necessarily effect 10-22 sales.)

EF 14-24/2.8L (Yeah, this is Nikkor envy. Not likely though... Who would need the 14/2.8 II if Canon made this zoom, too?)

I'm expecting Canon will soon come out with updated versions of the 45mm and 90mm TS-E lenses, that have the same functionality as the 17mm and 24mm II TS-E. It just makes sense and probably doesn't mean much optical redesign.

I suspect we'll soon be seeing Hybrid IS appear on some non-macro lenses, too. Probably the most likely would be upgrades to the two current 70-200s with standard IS. If Hybrid IS is a hit, more current IS zooms and primes will no doubt be upgraded over time.

But, right now, overall Canon already offers more and better choices than anyone else.

[tupper]

I would like to see an update on the 50 1.4, try and make it a big stronger.. so that people don't experience focus failure..

[krepta]

I would like to see an update on the 50 1.4, try and make it a big stronger.. so that people don't experience focus failure..I think the build of the 50 1.4 is aceptable, but it definitely needs ring USM instead of micro USM.

[simply.blue]

I think the build of the 50 1.4 is aceptable, but it definitely needs ring USM instead of micro USM.
I think Canon can do something about corner softness on the current 1.4 and of course the USM motor.

[Jim G]

As to the original question... "What next"...

Canon probably should update the 100-400. But there are plenty of other things I think they need to address, too:

24mm f2.8 or f2.0 USM (build quality similar to 28/1.8 etc.)

35mm f2 or f1.8 USM (build quality similar to 28/1.8, etc.)

50mm f1.4 USM Mark II (ring type USM)

135/2 IS... Here it would be more useful!

200mm f2.8 III IS... Here, too.

300/4L Mark II, an update with more current version of IS (uses about a 15 year old design, one of the first IS lenses).

400/5.6 IS Should be able to keep it affordable, too. IS costs a lot less to implement now.

EF-S 12-24/4 (Pretty much everyone else offers one. I think it would be a good lens for Canon to consider, too, and that it wouldn't necessarily effect 10-22 sales.)

EF 14-24/2.8L (Yeah, this is Nikkor envy. Not likely though... Who would need the 14/2.8 II if Canon made this zoom, too?)

I'm expecting Canon will soon come out with updated versions of the 45mm and 90mm TS-E lenses, that have the same functionality as the 17mm and 24mm II TS-E. It just makes sense and probably doesn't mean much optical redesign.

I suspect we'll soon be seeing Hybrid IS appear on some non-macro lenses, too. Probably the most likely would be upgrades to the two current 70-200s with standard IS. If Hybrid IS is a hit, more current IS zooms and primes will no doubt be upgraded over time.

But, right now, overall Canon already offers more and better choices than anyone else.

I'll agree with everything there bar the 200 2.8 IS - given the multitude of IS 200mm options (well, the two other options, really) I don't see that having a huge market...

I'd love to see a new 90mm TS-E out - I'd be all over that one in no time for product stuff in the studio. And a 24mm f/2... now that would be dreamy... or a 50 1.4 that was actually somewhat sharp wide open with real USM.. Mmm....

[RyanQ]

I don't get it. Why do people think they need IS on a 24-70mm lens? Hey, I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I just can't understand why some people seem think this would be particularly useful. Weighed against the cost, size, weight and complexity it's bound to add... I'd skip it on this zoom.

Those focal lengths are already easily hand holdable at relatively low shutter speeds. And higher ISO capable cameras are here, no doubt with more & better ones in the works... Which offsets the need for IS, particularly on shorter focal lengths.

Hey, I can understand why Canon put IS on 17-55, 18-55, etc. I'm pretty sure this is a competitive thing more than anything else. Other makers started offering in-camera stabilization, which effecively means it's available on all lenses, no matter what focal length. To cater to the entry level and first upgrade market who feel stabilization of some sort is a must on everything, whether it does any good or not, Canon essentially had to put IS on these lenses to keep the consumer from going elsewhere.

But, the 24-70 is largely aimed at pro use, and most pros are aware that IS isn't particularly helpful on this range. Hey, if it were free in all respects, I wouldn't complain. But I'm sure it will add cost, size, weight and complexity... so I say forget it. I'm pretty happy with the 24-70 already (quirky design, huge lens hood and all).

Besides, there's also the 24-105 IS, for those who feel they really, really gotta have stabilization. Also the 28-135, for those who don't want to pay for an L-series. (And these are beginning to get into focal lengths where IS is actually more useful).

I'm not even sure I'm sold on putting IS on a 100mm macro lens. Now Hybrid IS might do more than standard IS will with macro shooting (as Nikon learned with their 105mm VR)... But, I'm going to have a tough time justifying buying a 100mm macro with IS unless the new lens has a major increase in image quality, too (which is pretty hard to imagine considering the IQ of the current 100/2.8 USM Macro).

This is not to pan IS at all, either. I've used it on 70-200, 300 and 500mm for 8+ years now and really love it on longer teles.

As to the original question... "What next"...

Canon probably should update the 100-400. But there are plenty of other things I think they need to address, too:

24mm f2.8 or f2.0 USM (build quality similar to 28/1.8 etc.)

35mm f2 or f1.8 USM (build quality similar to 28/1.8, etc.)

50mm f1.4 USM Mark II (ring type USM)

135/2 IS... Here it would be more useful!

200mm f2.8 III IS... Here, too.

300/4L Mark II, an update with more current version of IS (uses about a 15 year old design, one of the first IS lenses).

400/5.6 IS Should be able to keep it affordable, too. IS costs a lot less to implement now.

EF-S 12-24/4 (Pretty much everyone else offers one. I think it would be a good lens for Canon to consider, too, and that it wouldn't necessarily effect 10-22 sales.)

EF 14-24/2.8L (Yeah, this is Nikkor envy. Not likely though... Who would need the 14/2.8 II if Canon made this zoom, too?)

I'm expecting Canon will soon come out with updated versions of the 45mm and 90mm TS-E lenses, that have the same functionality as the 17mm and 24mm II TS-E. It just makes sense and probably doesn't mean much optical redesign.

I suspect we'll soon be seeing Hybrid IS appear on some non-macro lenses, too. Probably the most likely would be upgrades to the two current 70-200s with standard IS. If Hybrid IS is a hit, more current IS zooms and primes will no doubt be upgraded over time.

But, right now, overall Canon already offers more and better choices than anyone else.

I want to see the EF 50mm with USM RiNG

[Phrasikleia]

I don't get it. Why do people think they need IS on a 24-70mm lens? Hey, I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I just can't understand why some people seem think this would be particularly useful. Weighed against the cost, size, weight and complexity it's bound to add... I'd skip it on this zoom.

A tripod is always better to be sure, but for those places where tripods are either forbidden or are utterly impractical, having IS is a huge boon. I don't see why the lens would be so very large; the 17-55 is EF-S, but its focal lengths are also wider, and it's easily held by hand. A 24-70 would be heavier, but surely not unbearably so.

Those focal lengths are already easily hand holdable at relatively low shutter speeds. And higher ISO capable cameras are here, no doubt with more & better ones in the works... Which offsets the need for IS, particularly on shorter focal lengths. I can get sharp shots with my 17-55 at 1/4s handheld. That would not be possible at any of its focal lengths without IS. And higher ISO will never be preferable to base ISO + stabilization. Period.

Hey, I can understand why Canon put IS on 17-55, 18-55, etc. I'm pretty sure this is a competitive thing more than anything else. Other makers started offering in-camera stabilization, which effecively means it's available on all lenses, no matter what focal length. To cater to the entry level and first upgrade market who feel stabilization of some sort is a must on everything, whether it does any good or not, Canon essentially had to put IS on these lenses to keep the consumer from going elsewhere. Yeah, the $1100 17-55 is oh so entry level. :rolleyes:

But, the 24-70 is largely aimed at pro use, and most pros are aware that IS isn't particularly helpful on this range. Hey, if it were free in all respects, I wouldn't complain. But I'm sure it will add cost, size, weight and complexity... so I say forget it. I'm pretty happy with the 24-70 already (quirky design, huge lens hood and all). Perhaps handheld low-light shooting is a niche endeavor, but I think plenty of pros (many of them posting on these forums) recognize the need for such a lens.

Besides, there's also the 24-105 IS, for those who feel they really, really gotta have stabilization. Also the 28-135, for those who don't want to pay for an L-series. (And these are beginning to get into focal lengths where IS is actually more useful). Yeah, but those are relatively slow lenses.

I'm not even sure I'm sold on putting IS on a 100mm macro lens. Now Hybrid IS might do more than standard IS will with macro shooting (as Nikon learned with their 105mm VR)... But, I'm going to have a tough time justifying buying a 100mm macro with IS unless the new lens has a major increase in image quality, too (which is pretty hard to imagine considering the IQ of the current 100/2.8 USM Macro).Clearly you don't need the IS or the weather sealing, so you should stick with the lens you have.

I suspect we'll soon be seeing Hybrid IS appear on some non-macro lenses, too. Probably the most likely would be upgrades to the two current 70-200s with standard IS. If Hybrid IS is a hit, more current IS zooms and primes will no doubt be upgraded over time. This trend is what I'm hoping for.

But, right now, overall Canon already offers more and better choices than anyone else.I think I can agree with that statement. ;)

[TweakMDS]

I'd love to see something like a 90mm TS-E that is native macro (or infinity - 1:2 or so). Many people seem to use it with tubes for professional product photography.

Also: a variety of EF-S lenses; like a 35 1.8, 24 1.8, 50-150 / 50-135 2.8 IS (I'd buy that tomorrow if it were out). Since Canon has shown with the 7D that they take the crop market serious, also on a sort-of professional level, they could introduce an L-like line of crop lenses. I'd really like a 28mm 1.8 / Sigma 30 1.4 alternative but consistent and not as expensive as the 35L/24L... why pay for full frame glass when I use a 40D. Eitherway, Nikon's one seems to be doing well...

[imsoft]

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/Lens_Extender_chart_new.pdf

EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM †
EF 20-35mm f/2.8 USM †
EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L USM †
EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM †
EF 50mm f/1.0L USM †
EF 200mm f/1.8L USM †

it will be new canon lens?

[sebr]

I think the build of the 50 1.4 is aceptable, but it definitely needs ring USM instead of micro USM.

I think Canon can do something about corner softness on the current 1.4 and of course the USM motor.

I want to see the EF 50mm with USM RiNG

+ 1 for Ring USM on the 50/1.4 !!!

[ddong]

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/Lens_Extender_chart_new.pdf

EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM †
EF 20-35mm f/2.8 USM †
EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L USM †
EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM †
EF 50mm f/1.0L USM †
EF 200mm f/1.8L USM †

it will be new canon lens?

50mm f1.0??? WOW