8 New Canon Lenses in 2014!

jdizzle wrote in post #16443489
It's nice to dream about these lenses but, where are those new DIGIC sensors?

"This is a recording"

BS list.
Why?
16-50f4 and 17-40 f4 II? Why?
100-400 II? Yeah, its been rumoured for the past what, 50 years?
24-70 IS 2.8? Nah. Canon doesn't do that.
70-200 f4 IS II? Why? No 3rd party f4 70-200's out there for Canon, and the current one is already pretty much as sharp as you can get.

1Tanker wrote in post #16443642
"This is a recording"

Digic V is hot!

Shadowblade wrote in post #16442909
Unless the 16-50 is an EF-S lens.

You could be right, but then why not 15-50 after making the 15-85?

I'll believe the 100-400L Mark II when I see it. However, if it really comes out and they make it with the same IQ and IS as the 70-300L, it'll be worth the 2K price tag they'll probably slap on it.

Sirrith wrote in post #16443659
BS list.
Why?
16-50f4 and 17-40 f4 II? Why?
100-400 II? Yeah, its been rumoured for the past what, 50 years?
24-70 IS 2.8? Nah. Canon doesn't do that.
70-200 f4 IS II? Why? No 3rd party f4 70-200's out there for Canon, and the current one is already pretty much as sharp as you can get.

I 75% agree.

The only lens I can see coming out is the 24-70 F2.8 IS.

100-400 has been rumored since I got into Photography 3 years ago.
70-200 F4 IS is as sharp as you can get. Even the Nikon one that was just released is as good as the Canon one. And from some of the reviews, it's slightly sharper in the corner than the Canon but very very slightly.
16-50 and 17-40? Why spend time on two different lenses for the same focal length?

What's next? 65-200 F4?

Sirrith wrote in post #16443659
BS list.


100-400 II? Yeah, its been rumoured for the past what, 50 years?

the ever elusive new 100-400 II

It would be nice to see a new 100-400 buy unlikely.

If they did release a 24-70 f2.8 IS, I wonder what price point since Tamron came out with a f2.8 IS. Its not as sharp at the corners but at what price would people just say screw it and pick up a Tamron.

I'm sure this is a legit list and not a wish list.

the 16-50 f4 IS is a EF mount, it was rumored as a replacement for both the 16-35 f2.8 and 17-40 f4. I could care less if it's just added or a replace for one or both, I'll be buying it(assuming IQ isn't worse than the current UWAs). I've been having a hard time trying to find a standard zoom that meets all my wants/needs w/o having 2-3 of them, with lens going to 50mm and having IS I could easily settle on 1-2 standard zoom(I'd like to keep 71-105 range but also want f2.8).

The 14-24 f2.8 always sounded like something I'd want, but I find I tend already use my UWA more on the longer end and I already have a 14 f2.8 for when I want fast and stupid wide.

I really hope the 100-400 and both 400's happen, I'd likely get 1 or 2 of them budget permitting. If the 100-400 fallows the rest of the new zooms with near prime like IQ the 456 would however be pointless, especially if IS was still left off(the old one is already light/sharp/fast AF).

Yup, looks like a BS list. For instance, why replace the relatively new 200 2.0 IS before coming out with an IS version of the 135L? Is world really clamoring for an update to the 400mm DO lens? And why in the world would Canon come out with an update to the 400 5.6 without IS? Not to mention all of those overlapping normal zoom lenses.

Just a nice lightweight 600 f5.6 IS or 400 f4 IS will do fine thankyou. 100-400 MKII needs to happen also. 16-40 F4, sounds reasonable for landscape toggers.

Will never get to buy them. At least the prices of older versions will go down a bit, thats the best part of this if any of them are true!

BS list or not, I still like the sound of a Canon 14-24 2.8.