Anything exciting coming from Canon?

MalVeauX wrote in post #16836334
Heya,

My only disappointment with the latest mid-tier primes, is that while they gained IS, they seem to roll in at F2.8 instead of F2, or even F1.8. I'm not sure how IS works, I'm guessing heavier larger glass for those wider apertures would be harder to move for their current IS mechanics, and therefore to ensure quality they made them lighter, coming in at F2.8. But I don't know that at all, other than a gut feeling which could be completely wrong.

I really want an EF 20mm F2 IS. Not a F2.8 IS. Granted, the current 20mm is F2.8 with no IS.

Then again, I really want 24mm F1.4, but I don't want to buy `L just to get it. And I'm not quite ready to go to a manual lens for it (Samyang 24 F1.4).

Very best,

Again, the new IS primes replace their old screw driven counter parts, I don't think the f/2.8 had anything more to do with it than just them making the lenses available at the same aperture as the one they replaced. The 24/2.8, 28/2.8 and 35/2 were all old screw drive entry level primes, all were replaced by updated (still entry level, albeit more expensive then before) IS primes of the same aperture value.

Also, Sigma has a 24/1.8 out right now for around $500 and it's decent, but not nearly as good as the 24mm IS from Canon (which is about the same price).

the problem is some guys want canon to make the exact lens they want at the price they want, and that'll never happen.

Why would you want an 85mm 1.4L when there is an 85mm 1.2L?

Canon offers lenses such as the 85LII, 135L and 24-70ii, AF that wont let you down and wireless flash systems that just work with no need for pocketwizards.

The Sony A7 might be interesting in 3 years time, Fuji might be interesting in a few years also but no one else offers such a complete system that works for professionals TODAY.

The only people who could want more are landscapers and video guys imo.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16836334
Heya,

My only disappointment with the latest mid-tier primes, is that while they gained IS, they seem to roll in at F2.8 instead of F2, or even F1.8. I'm not sure how IS works, I'm guessing heavier larger glass for those wider apertures would be harder to move for their current IS mechanics, and therefore to ensure quality they made them lighter, coming in at F2.8. But I don't know that at all, other than a gut feeling which could be completely wrong.

I really want an EF 20mm F2 IS. Not a F2.8 IS. Granted, the current 20mm is F2.8 with no IS.

Then again, I really want 24mm F1.4, but I don't want to buy `L just to get it. And I'm not quite ready to go to a manual lens for it (Samyang 24 F1.4).

Very best,

Ahoy,

What about a new 100-400?

Yo ho ho,

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16836667
Ahoy,

What about a new 100-400?

Yo ho ho,

Eh... don't really care about 400mm. I am on 600mm now, and still want more.

Very best,

If I was Canon's lens product manager for a day, these would be my top priorities this year...

L Primes:
- 35 f/1.4 L II
- 24 f/2.8 L (as sharp as 24 TS-E but at a lower price point for landscapes)
- 135 f/2 IS

Non L Primes
- 50 f/1.4 IS
- 85 f/1.4 IS

L Zooms:
- 24-70 f/2.8 L IS (at $2500, dropping non IS list price to $1800)
- 100-400 f/4-5.6 L IS
- 50-135 f/2 L IS (portrait lens - priority on center sharpness and bokeh)

Even if most of these are priced at Canons current ludicrous levels, I think there would be a lot of happy customers, retailers, and Canon executives, from the ensuing upgrade frenzy that would likely ensue.

^The 24mm f/2.8 IS should be plenty sharp for most people's landscape uses.

VirtualRain wrote in post #16836244
Let's see... a new 24, 28, and 35 with IS , but no 50, 85, or 135 with IS? Does that seem like the right priority to you?

And a new 24-70 f/2.8 without IS that costs twice as much as it's predecessor?

And they "replace" the super versatile 24-105 f/4 Kit lens with a less versatile 24-70 f/4 that costs a lot more?

These are three very good points. It seems like more often than not, Canon replacements are priced such that I want to hurry and buy the old model before it's gone and I am left with a new model that I can't justify spending that kind of money for. Since I bought my Rebel XT, there has only been 3 new lenses released by Canon that I am interested in and can also potentially afford: 35/2 IS, 100L and 70-200/2.8 II.

The rumored EF 17-50/4 IS sounds nice, but the price needs to be reasonable. I am thinking no more than $1200 but better at $1000. I also would like a 4 stop is version of the 300/4, 400/5.6, or 100-400L for a max of $2000

I would like to see a non-L wide angle zoom with wide aperture. Tokina has the 16-28 F2.8 for full frame, at a very good price. I'd love to see Canon compete with a similar non-L ultrawide with wide aperture. I just don't want to pay for the 16-35 f2.8 when I can get the Tokina I'd also like to see a 200 F2.8 IS that isn't an L and is also black.

Very best,[/QUOTE]
exactly well said,,,
out of the 1623 lenses that canon has developed over the years I think theres plenty of glass to do what we actually need ...

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16836390
Again, the new IS primes replace their old screw driven counter parts, I don't think the f/2.8 had anything more to do with it than just them making the lenses available at the same aperture as the one they replaced. The 24/2.8, 28/2.8 and 35/2 were all old screw drive entry level primes, all were replaced by updated (still entry level, albeit more expensive then before) IS primes of the same aperture value.

Also, Sigma has a 24/1.8 out right now for around $500 and it's decent, but not nearly as good as the 24mm IS from Canon (which is about the same price).

You know, the new f/2.8 IS primes aren't that expensive. I paid more than $600 for my original 24mm f/2.8, and that was in the last 6 or 7 years. I didn't get taken; I bought it from The Camera Store in Calgary after shopping around locally and online. The price dropped significantly after that when competition from Sigma and others became more serious and Canon flushed out the last of it's stock. The original is a decent lens. It's even made in Japan, if that sort of thing matters. The new one is even better and it has IS too. From what I've seen, it seems to compare well to the 24mm f/1.4L II, and it weighs much less. I have a feeling that it may be my choice for a new wide angle lens if I do decide I need a new wide lens. I don't really need f/1.4 and the IS would be very useful. It's a tempting lens.

Dillan_K wrote in post #16837208
You know, the new f/2.8 IS primes aren't that expensive. I paid more than $600 for my original 24mm f/2.8, and that was in the last 6 or 7 years. I didn't get taken; I bought it from The Camera Store in Calgary after shopping around locally and online. The price dropped significantly after that when competition from Sigma and others became more serious and Canon flushed out the last of it's stock. The original is a decent lens. It's even made in Japan, if that sort of thing matters. The new one is even better and it has IS too. From what I've seen, it seems to compare well to the 24mm f/1.4L II, and it weighs much less. I have a feeling that it may be my choice for a new wide angle lens if I do decide I need a new wide lens. I don't really need f/1.4 and the IS would be very useful. It's a tempting lens.

Exactly.

I feel like I'm the only person who remembers the lenses that Canon is actually replacing sometimes. I've thought about picking up the old 24/2.8, the sample thread from it looks pretty solid.

Canon is going to put its 200MB CMOS sensor into the newly MF body, which will be available before the 2014 Xmas

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Honestly, I'd take ANYTHING DSLR-related from Canon right now...even if it's not exciting.

VirtualRain wrote in post #16836216
It seems lately, Canon has been delivering lenses no body asked for or that have more compromises than the products they replace at a price no one can afford. Certainly nothing they've done excites me.

Thankfully I'm happy with my kit.

24-70 f/2.8L Mk II and 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mk II are certainly welcome. From 24-200, 2.8 constant in two lenses with excellent optical quality? If you've shot with either and weren't excited, I think you have a problem, not Canon. Can't afford quality? Well that's not Canon's fault either.

Numenorean wrote in post #16838765
24-70 f/2.8L Mk II and 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mk II are certainly welcome. From 24-200, 2.8 constant in two lenses with excellent optical quality? If you've shot with either and weren't excited, I think you have a problem, not Canon. Can't afford quality? Well that's not Canon's fault either.

Yep- those 2 are very nice lenses...as is the 70-300L from a few years ago. I have both the 70-200 2.8 MKII and the 70-300L.

But the 24mm IS, 28mm IS, and 24-70 f/4 are all recent lenses that don't have a whole lot of demand. I think many wish they would have first put those resources into a new 50mm 1.4, 100-400L, 17-40L, etc.

To be honest, the only really innovative lenses they've released lately were the 40mm 2.8 and the 200-400 f/4. For different reasons obviously.

I'm hoping a lot of those extra R & D resources went towards upgrading the "big white" lineup of lenses the past few years, and now they're focused on the rest of the EF lineup.