Still waiting for the new 28-70L IS :)

JayStar86 wrote in post #9938518
valid point you make... but still i think a lot of people will be disappointed at the 4mm loss on the WA.....

It's called smart marketing by Canon. If they did this they would probably sell more 16-35 glass.

K6AZ wrote in post #9938740
It's called smart marketing by Canon. If they did this they would probably sell more 16-35 glass.

aint that the truth man.

oh well.. i guess it is what it is.... ive seen a couple other places reporting this lens in-fact being in existence for-real..... with reported valid sources..... lets see what happens.... its he said she said at this point.

JayStar86 wrote in post #9940770
aint that the truth man.

oh well.. i guess it is what it is.... ive seen a couple other places reporting this lens in-fact being in existence for-real..... with reported valid sources..... lets see what happens.... its he said she said at this point.

At this point it's not going to matter to me. I already had the 17-40, 70-200 f/4 non-IS and 400mm f/5.6. I bought a 1.4x teleconverter, the 24-105, 24-70 f/2.8, the 35L and the 50L. I'm not going to the 85L, the f/1.8 works very well for me. After this spree if I can't do what I want to do I just plain give up.

K6AZ wrote in post #9938740
It's called smart marketing by Canon. If they did this they would probably sell more 16-35 glass.

Does this decrease the likelihood of a 14-24? It would seem strange to have a 4mm gap in the top-of-the-line glass.

YankeeHotelFoxtrot wrote in post #9950460
Does this decrease the likelihood of a 14-24? It would seem strange to have a 4mm gap in the top-of-the-line glass.

nice catch... maybe it does reduce the possibility

YankeeHotelFoxtrot wrote in post #9950460
Does this decrease the likelihood of a 14-24? It would seem strange to have a 4mm gap in the top-of-the-line glass.

I don't know, I would think Canon would want to directly compete with Nikon on this FL range. I know if Canon produced an equivalent to the Nikon 14-24 I would buy one in a heartbeat.

cccc wrote in post #9936707
size, size, size, size.

24 -70 size >> 28 - 70 size.

Hmm, if they had a 28-70L f/2.0 IS then I really would be excited. I'm super happy with my latest 'mkI' 24-70L so unless they come up with an f/2 I won't feel interested at all

echo wrote in post #9959093
Hmm, if they had a 28-70L f/2.0 IS then I really would be excited. I'm super happy with my latest 'mkI' 24-70L so unless they come up with an f/2 I won't feel interested at all

man that would be a very big lens.... rename the brick to the hulk, lol.... but i agree... i would sell my left kidney if that lens came out.

echo wrote in post #9959093
Hmm, if they had a 28-70L f/2.0 IS then I really would be excited.

I'd be really happy with a 28-70 f/2 L NON-IS. An f/2 zoom covering the "normal" range would really be nice. I'd even give up a bit more wide-angle for a little more telephoto. Say, a 35-105 of something of that sort. A portrait/low-light zoom!

Tom W wrote in post #9966615
I'd be really happy with a 28-70 f/2 L NON-IS. An f/2 zoom covering the "normal" range would really be nice. I'd even give up a bit more wide-angle for a little more telephoto. Say, a 35-105 of something of that sort. A portrait/low-light zoom!

Now I'm no lens designer but if I'm not mistaken a f/2 zoom in that range would take over the title of 'brick'.

K6AZ wrote in post #9966635
Now I'm no lens designer but if I'm not mistaken a f/2 zoom in that range would take over the title of 'brick'.

A brick that I'd gladly carry!

Tom W wrote in post #9966615
I'd be really happy with a 28-70 f/2 L NON-IS. An f/2 zoom covering the "normal" range would really be nice. I'd even give up a bit more wide-angle for a little more telephoto. Say, a 35-105 of something of that sort. A portrait/low-light zoom!

im thinking a bit in the oppositte direction.... imagine a 17-85mm f2.0L USM..... youza

now that would be a lens loved by the crop and FF crowd... unfortunately it will never happen as it would almost defeat the purpose of the Canon 17-40L and 16-35L... at end of the day its all about dough!

JayStar86 wrote in post #9967276
im thinking a bit in the oppositte direction.... imagine a 17-85mm f2.0L USM..... youza

now that would be a lens loved by the crop and FF crowd... unfortunately it will never happen as it would almost defeat the purpose of the Canon 17-40L and 16-35L... at end of the day its all about dough!

Yeah, and right about now Canon has a wad of mine!

K6AZ wrote in post #9967404
Yeah, and right about now Canon has a wad of mine!

i think Canon has a whole lot of that from everyone on POTN, lol.

JayStar86 wrote in post #9967276
im thinking a bit in the oppositte direction.... imagine a 17-85mm f2.0L USM..... youza

now that would be a lens loved by the crop and FF crowd... unfortunately it will never happen as it would almost defeat the purpose of the Canon 17-40L and 16-35L... at end of the day its all about dough!

I think that such a lens would be extremely difficult to design and manufacture. We don't see any ultra-wide to telephoto lenses out there now. Were it easily feasable, instead of the 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 lenses, we'd have a 16-70 f/2.8 lens. Problem is, the design characteristics of an ultrawide lens are much different from those of a normal/telephoto lens. As it stands, they're hard-pressed to make an ultrawide zoom without having the added burden of transitioning into the telephoto range.

That's not to say that something like a 17-85 f/2 lens wouldn't be desirable - I'd certainly use it as my "walkaround" lens provided it had good image quality.