Anything exciting coming from Canon?

I think (in digital era) we have more than enough to create a good photos. Photography is more than sharp crispy super extra coating lenses. Now, all what we need is: time to go out, good light and inspiration

adned wrote in post #16838867
I think (in digital era) we have more than enough to create a good photos. Photography is more than sharp crispy super extra coating lenses. Now, all what we need is: time to go out, good light and inspiration

I couldn't agree more. I shoot mostly vintage glass... rarely do I feel the quality of my lenses holds me back.

There aren't many holes left in Canon's lineup. Maybe a 14-24mm f/2.8 like Nikon has. Other than that, just updates of existing models.

What I think would potentially be a game-changing lens is a cheap fast normal prime with a simple optical formula. A focal length closer to the flange distance or sensor diameter, like the pancake, should work. How about a 43mm f/1.0L USM lens for about $1000?

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?

Product Management at Canon is drunk.

Or the average consumer is inebriated.

Belive it or not, some consumers think that overlapping your focal lengths is a waste. ie: having a lens which goes from 24-105 and then adding a 70-200 seems wasteful to them. Making their only choices a 24-70 then 70-200/300 makes the decision easier for low life, bottom of the barrel, can't take a decent picture to save his life but buys lots of stuff consumer. I obviously do not share that opinion.

btw, if you had the occasion to try Nikons kit lens for their D600, D610 (24-85 f/4) you would appreciate both the Canon 24-70 f/4 and the venerable 24-105 f/4. The Nikon kit lens, albeit cheaper by itself, is total trash.

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.

The 24-70 II was certainly much anticipated, but I think a lot of people (me included) were hoping for an IS version this time around.

And while not a big deal, the hood design on the original was very innovative and it's unfortunate to have it replaced with something much less effective. Although I suppose the plus side is that it packs in shooting position easier now.

The casing also uses more plastic now than metal, I suppose to keep the weight manageable which is understandable and appreciated by many, but it's certainly not exciting or innovative in any way (or in keeping with it's premium price tag).

Optically, it is notably better as you'd expect but not every copy lives up to it's reputation.

And then there's the price. It's not about affording quality... people like me and many others (including you by the looks of it) have spent more on a single focal length prime than this zoom costs... it's all about value, and that lens sits pretty darn high up the diminishing returns curve.

I am a bit confounded by the idea of IS in a 28 or 50 mm lens while at the same time the ISO sensitivity of the cameras with low noise has been improved so much. People successfully shoot in low light with long lenses without IS, why do you need IS in a 28 or 50 mm? I have the 50 1.4 and it's great, the IS is only going to add cost that may not really be needed? I have the 28 2.8 that I bought a few years ago to go on my 10D (to have a 44.8 mm close to 50 mm Prime to shoot with) and that was pretty pricy if I recall. IS would double it's cost. I would rather have a 28 with a wider aperture without the IS. I like to actually see what I am shooting thus the wider aperture makes composition easier. Us old bugger can't see as well as you youngsters....especial​ly in low light, but my hands are rock steady.

Aronis wrote in post #16843741
I am a bit confounded by the idea of IS in a 28 or 50 mm lens while at the same time the ISO sensitivity of the cameras with low noise has been improved so much. People successfully shoot in low light with long lenses without IS, why do you need IS in a 28 or 50 mm? I have the 50 1.4 and it's great, the IS is only going to add cost that may not really be needed? I have the 28 2.8 that I bought a few years ago to go on my 10D (to have a 44.8 mm close to 50 mm Prime to shoot with) and that was pretty pricy if I recall. IS would double it's cost. I would rather have a 28 with a wider aperture without the IS. I like to actually see what I am shooting thus the wider aperture makes composition easier. Us old bugger can't see as well as you youngsters....especial​ly in low light, but my hands are rock steady.

What makes you assume that IS doubles a lenses cost? If that's the case then why do kit lenses have IS? The fact of the matter is that it's not hard to implement and with all the mirrorless competition offering IBIS Canon would be foolish not to make all their future lenses have IS.

24-105 is not perfect, has many flaws...but for me it has many more advantages...I keep using it and keep getting good shots. Completely not tempted by 24-70 because I would hate to loose the reach.

14-24 that is as good or better than the one of Nikon is what I would love to get. It will make a difference for me.

I really like having less glass or gear in general.

For portraits I would be tempted to get a sigma 85 f/1.4 Art...super quality lens with exceptional bokeh for portaits

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16843815
24-105 is not perfect, has many flaws...but for me it has many more advantages...I keep using it and keep getting good shots. Completely not tempted by 24-70 because I would hate to loose the reach.

14-24 that is as good or better than the one of Nikon is what I would love to get. It will make a difference for me.

I really like having less glass or gear in general.

For portraits I would be tempted to get a sigma 85 f/1.4 Art...super quality lens with exceptional bokeh for portaits

There's currently no such thing as a Sigma 85mm "Art", but their 85mm is very nice.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16843830
There's currently no such thing as a Sigma 85mm "Art", but their 85mm is very nice.

I know, but I think it will be released.

One thing I do not like in art 35 and 50 is the busy, nervous bokeh.
For a lens to be called art, you need a better bokeh, like zeiss. I think sigma is stonger in other areas, just not bokeh.

The rumor is, zeiss will release otus 35 and 85 mm, but who cares if there is no AF

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16843883
I know, but I think it will be released.

One thing I do not like in art 35 and 50 is the busy, nervous bokeh.
For a lens to be called art, you need a better bokeh, like zeiss. I think sigma is stonger in other areas, just not bokeh.

The rumor is, zeiss will release otus 35 and 85 mm, but who cares if there is no AF

I agree. Right now I'd buy the old Zeiss Planar 1.4 before the new Sigma (largely because of its size though).

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16843883
I know, but I think it will be released.

One thing I do not like in art 35 and 50 is the busy, nervous bokeh.
For a lens to be called art, you need a better bokeh, like zeiss. I think sigma is stonger in other areas, just not bokeh.

The rumor is, zeiss will release otus 35 and 85 mm, but who cares if there is no AF

have you seen the bokeh of the S50A? Its smooth as silk..
I agree to an extent regarding the S35A bokeh, although I find it really depends on the background itself.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16843883
I know, but I think it will be released.

One thing I do not like in art 35 and 50 is the busy, nervous bokeh.
For a lens to be called art, you need a better bokeh, like zeiss. I think sigma is stonger in other areas, just not bokeh.

The rumor is, zeiss will release otus 35 and 85 mm, but who cares if there is no AF

50A bad bokeh? not sure what you consider good then. obviously it's not going to be 85L level, but it's damn smooth IMO.

Jerobean wrote in post #16843958
50A bad bokeh? not sure what you consider good then. obviously it's not going to be 85L level, but it's damn smooth IMO.

From several examples I have seen it is less smooth and creamy than 50L

I'd love for Canon to come out with something NEW that causes some stir.

Sigma is coming out with lenses that are shacking the scene, when was the last canon lens announcement that was exciting? Sure, their version II lenses are nice, but where is something like the 18-35 1.8...something that has never been seen before.