It's official: EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Announced!!!

I think that Canon are renewing their lens range from the most obsure first then to the more popular last. So expect the 100-400II L in a few years. Last year, Canon renewed their 14mm L, not exactly a high volume unit. The year before was the 85L warm over.
So far this year, we have the new 200mm f2 L, the new 800m f5.6 L, this new 24 II L and a EF-s 18-200 IS. That's Canon's 4 lenses per year roll out.
It's interesting that Canon have chosen the 14L first, then the 24L to overhaul. That would indicate that the 35L is next on their list. I doubt if they will touch the 85L again, but the 135L could do with weather sealing. I also wonder if Canon have thought about a 100mm f1.4 L, it's certainly do-able with a 72mm filter thread and it would bridge their
f1.4 lens gap. The 135L's f2 is quite a jump with nothing in the f1.4/f1.2 range above the 85L

MClassPhotography wrote in post #6322006
Hm.. I'm fine with my 24 L for now. I don't think it's worth upgrading...

Mikey... Are you the same guy on ISS forums? Curious to know... The M3 appreciation is somewhat evident... Holla!!!

- airbutchie

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #6324648
So far this year, we have the new 200mm f2 L,

Honestly, I never understood this bizarre form of marketing.
The 200/1.8L was a phenomenal jewel... they've discontinued it, waited about two three years and then came up with the 200/2. Why not just continue making the 200/1.8 or have a 200/1.8 II ? And, there is also was a huge price hike between the 200/1.8 and the 200/2.

• 200/1.8 = about $3500-$3800 out there
• 200/2 = about $5300 new

All this puzzles me. And everyone knows that the /2 ain't better... cause there's physically no way you can beat an already-perfect 1.8L.
(Yeah well the /2 has IS, that's right though).

Jman13 wrote in post #6324418
The biggest knock on Canon when discussing Canon / Nikon has been that Canon telephotos are the best in the world, but they are lacking in the WA department. Canon is out to make that false...thus the redesigns on the 14L, the 16-35L, and now the 24L. They are out to make the best AF wide angles in the world. Nikon, of course, has the incredible 14-24, but Canon is doing its work to establish great wide-angles.

As good as the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 is...it's not that usefull for portraiture or group shots. So for wedding work is not ideal. It's fantastic for architecture because of it's ultra corrected rectilinear design. But for serious landscapes shooters, it's lack of front filters is a serious issue. Try fitting a ND grad on that beast!

So, yes optically it's the best there is. But for real world shooting and professional shooting, it has some serious deficiencies.
The Canon 16-35 II L is a far more versatile lens, even though it gets creamed when shooting lens charts.

Rodinal wrote in post #6324684
Honestly, I never understood this bizarre form of marketing.
The 200/1.8L was a phenomenal jewel... they've discontinued it, waited about two three years and then came up with the 200/2. Why not just continue making the 200/1.8 or have a 200/1.8 II ? And, if I'm not mistaking, there also was a price hike between the 200/1.8 and the 200/2. All this puzzles me.

I belive that it was the lead solder and lead contained in the glass elements that killed of the 200mm f1.8 L. Europe had passed a law prohibiting the sale of goods that contained leaded glass in it's construction. It was probably easier for Canon to completely re-develop the lens. What i don't understand is why Canon made it and f2 and not f1.8 like it's original. A bit like the 50mm f1.0L, it got replaced with a f1.2L. The optical design world seems to be devolving and not progressing. Leicia have built a 50mm f0.95...expensive but very interesting.

The 200/2 is the same price as the 500/4...

With Canon promoting the FF 5DII, more WA goodies to attract the masses.

MMM, didn't read through the thread but a new 24L? YAWN
How about a new 100-400 or 300/4 .....It'll be nice though, so ....OK

Hell yeah.
Both of them with the latest 4 stop IS?
Sign me up!

thatkatmat wrote in post #6325170
MMM, didn't read through the thread but a new 24L? YAWN
How about a new 100-400 or 300/4 .....It'll be nice though, so ....OK

jdizzle wrote in post #6324408
HAHA! It's because you don't have it in your sig! I'll buy you one!

Deal!

the 24 has become a favorite of mine (despite my effort to sell it at one point) and i am looking forward to this new lens

Jaetie wrote in post #6323177
do you think its time to sell the 35L to make way for a 35L II?

35L is already perfection.

I know the lens was already good, but I am glad to see they are making the effort to always improve them.

I too am startled in regard to the 100-400, it seems the most likely lens to upgrade or replace of the entire bunch of lenses they make. Or to come out with a lighter 200-400 f4 IS like Nikon has.

Thoughts on the new 24L f1.4?

what are your thoughts folks on the new 24mmL lens???

apart from te new coating what's the differences?

I guess I'll just limp along with my 24 M.M. mark nuthin version, (sniff, sniff)