Canon's next lens?

[terry_henry]

Hi everybody.

 

Now Canon has announced the 50mm F1.2 L and 70-200mm F4 L IS (two lenses that

many on these forums had been wishing for), what do you think they will come up

with next?

 

It seems to me that apart from a possible replacement to the 100-400mm L, Canon

might look at it's wide primes. As someone who still uses a 300D but loves

primes, I would love it if they introduced an EF-S 12mm F2.8, but sadly I think

there is no chance of that. Instead perhaps they will finally update the 24mm

and 35mm with USM, or maybe make an exotic 20mm F2 L for all those people who

stick Zeiss lenses on their 1DS IIs. Or what about an EF-S replacement for the

once-popular 24-85mm and 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 lenses? Is this class of lens

(wide-to-short tele, decent optics, USM, but no Image Stabilization) something

Canon has given up on?

 

So - what do you think Canon will do next, and what would like?

 

Cheers.

[charles_lipton]

The Photokina show isn't until September 26th.... We can all just sit back and patiently wait to see what else Canon has up it's sleeves.

 

No use getting all riled up until after that.....

 

By the way... I'd like to see a new zoom telephoto or an update to the 1-4L IS. Darn.. and I promised myself to be patient!

[lovcom_photo]

Why do you ask for so little? An EF-S 12mm F2.8? Why not F1.4? You ask for a 20mm F2 L? All wide angle L primes are F1.4 with the exception of the 14L. I agree Canon should update their old wide angle EF primes.

 

As for the 50L, I'll be picking that one up for sure next year.

[terry_henry]

Not getting riled - just indulging in a bit of speculation. The only lens I will realistically be buying in the near future already exists - the EF-S 10-22mm, although as I said I'd be delighted if Canon came up with a super-wide EF-S prime.

[anthony_thornborough1]

in the light of the recently announced pleasing items and considering what's available, what I'd want and what might be offered are two entirely different things! But just for the hell of it, two L-series lenses...

 

a/ an 85 f/1.8 L using mostly existing lens design with one-piece rather than cemented aspheric, and other L-build quality parts and finish. The 85 f/1.2LII is simply too heavy, let alone pricey.

 

b/ a 24-70 f/4 USM L without IS. Just sharp --- and compact, without excessive telescoping beyond 70mm that generates dust and wobble! I have the 24-70 f/2.8 L already but would love a slower, compact companion model just for travel.

[terry_henry]

Haha

 

Dan - maybe just so there is a chance I could one day afford one of them!

[gdanmitchell]

I'd like to see Canon update some of the older non-L wide primes. Some of them are optically

Ok (35mm f/2) but mechanically dated. Others are decent but could be better and/or wider

(24mm f/2.8).

 

As a non-rich guy who often uses a tripod I don't really need more 1000+ big aperture wide

primes, but that's just me.

 

I wonder if they might put IS in the 24-70 L at some point?

[anthony_thornborough1]

I guess a 24-105 f/4 L without IS would make me happy, for e.300g less weight and less moving parts, and maybe 200 off the pricetag.

 

Still stuck in the groove of wanting reformulated primes though, especially an 85 f/1.8 L. It's not just the cost - it's the weight of the f/1.2 version of that, but reading the tea leaves Canon will probably do a 100 f/2.8 USM Macro with image-stab. (cf Nikon 105 VR).

Okay then, an L-series version of the 85 f/1.8 USM with IS added!

 

For now I'm happy saving pennies for the 70-200 f/4 IS and a D5 with a dust-removing sensor, which will probably follow next year (in some new incarnation such as a 3D or 4D).

 

Canon just get better and better, so I'll probably be happy whatever happens!

[bobatkins]

Why would you want USM on the 24/2.8? Wideangles focus fast anyway and by being non-USM it's probably $150 cheaper than a new USM version would be.

 

USM is always nice, but so is keeping down the price!

 

There's really no new lens I want from Canon that I could afford.

 

I'd like a really good 75-300/4L IS USM, but I'm not sure I'd pay the $1500+ that Canon would charge for it and since they have a 70-200/4L IS and a 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS already, they're not likely to make one anyway.

 

I might also buy an EF-S 30/1.8 if it was under $150, but that's not very likely either.

 

An image stabilized fast prime with the new 4 stop IS would be interesting too (50/1.4 IS USM, or 35/2 IS USM), but having just brought out the 50/1.2 L, I'd say the chances of that are slim to none.

 

Though I personally don't care about it, the 20/2.8 needs a redesign for better performance.

[anthony_thornborough1]

Bob, you are doubtless one of the rational-thinkers amongst us!

 

Nonetheless, I am on my third 85 f/1.8 USM (okay, I sold my second in a moment of idiocy some years ago), and have since bought a replacement. It would be nice to have an 85 portrait that lasted beyond either my stupidity or ageing vertebrae without the incumbrance of a 2kg monster 1.2LII.

 

And, before you say there do exist cures for acts of wanton stupidity, it would be less boring to have to replace like-with-like and aspire to a new lens that can do the job and add a little zest to our lives, hence the desire for an 85 f/1.8 L.

I still maintain:

 

a/ a lightweight, affordable L-quality travel standard zoom would be a boon, such as a 24-70 f/4 L (okay, realistically a 24-105 f/4 non-IS) and...

 

b/ a new 85 f/1.8 I've realised may only be realised in plastic-mount MkII or L-series-something, so it's the latter I would like to see. Maybe I just ought to look after my third 85U in case the MkII version does appear!

 

Those might be realistic, affordable and even sensible guesses, though I still believe we're in for a 100 f/2.8 Macro-IS we don't want.

[bobatkins]

But the 24-105/4L IS is the great middle range travel lens that you're looking for! Of course, like me, you're looking for something cheaper.

 

My middle range travel lens is the EF-S 17-85/4-5.6IS USM and I deal with its shortcomings at the short end via image processing by DxO. It's not an L lens of course, but it's not over $1000 either.

 

I don't know how you break the 85/1.8 though. I'd have thought it was tough enough for most use. Of course if you sell it, there's not much anyone but you can do about that! Makes no sense for Canon to make it an "L" series lens and compete with their own 85/1.2L. The image quality o fthe non-L lens is already good enough for 99% of users. Just hope they don't discontinue it and bring out the same lens with IS in it and double the price...(unless you really want an IS version).

 

Canon really do have the whole spectrum of lenses covered. It's not really coverage that most people complain about, it's price, but IS and USM and "L" construction don't come cheap and when you put all three together it just gets even more expensive.

[anthony_hicks]

<i>

"I might also buy an EF-S 30/1.8 if it was under $150"

</i>

<p>

Amen to that! Although personally I would be happy to pay more, and would prefer a non-EFS so I can use it on my 300X as well. Is it really so much to ask to have a decent standard lens for 1.6 crop?

[PuppyDigs]

I bet their next lens will be the EFs 18-55 MK III.

 

Personally I'd like an EF 24-70 2.8L IS USM.

[gdanmitchell]

Bob wrote: "Though I personally don't care about it, the 20/2.8 needs a redesign for better

performance."

 

Good illustrataion of the point I was trying to make about wide primes in the non-L category.

It would be cool if Canon eventually took the opportunity to update the optically and/or

mechanically, depending upon which lens we are talking about.

 

Dan

[michael j hoffman]

Lenses I'd like to see announced:

 

28/1.4L (why there isn't one yet, I have no clue)

 

24/2 USM/FTM

 

28/2 USM/FTM

 

35/2 USM/FTM

 

Michael J Hoffman

[terence_tong1]

What's wrong with us? Canon just brought a bunch of new toys and we are talking about what we want next...I thought we have the 24-85 in ef-s already no? that's the EF-s 17-85 IS?

 

For me, i want to see the 50 1.2 come down to about 850, i'll consider that for sure.

Another vote for 35mm f2 USM (I can't afford the L version. Bob's right, it focus fast, but AFD and the barrel design are out dated)

 

Also, i've notice a few comment saying the 50 1.2 is too expensive compare to the 50 1.4. Just wondering if you feel the same about the 85 1.2 vs 1.8? You know price vs performance, etc. Because the 85L mk2 is 9-10 times more expensive than the 1.8, whereas the 50L is 4-5 times more expensive than the 1.4 only...

[tjalf]

Another vote for a EF-S 30mm f1.8 for under EUR 200,-. I would definitely buy it! Would love a EF-S 15mm f2.8 for around EUR 300 as well.

 

Cheers, Tjalf

[neil_v.]

I'd like an updated 20mm/2.8, perhaps faster in addition, with a US street price of $300 to $450.

 

(I just spent $450 on a Tamron 17-50/2.8, and I felt a better match for my needs would've been a hypothetical new version of the Canon 20mm/2.8.)

[terry_henry]

"I thought we have the 24-85 in ef-s already no? that's the EF-s 17-85 IS?"

 

To me that's the EF-S version of the 28-135mm USM. Back in the days of film Canon had that lens, plus the 28-105mm and 24-85mm for people to stick on their EOS 5s/50Es/30s. Now all 1.6 crop-camera users have around that range is the 18-55mm (not in the same league), the 17-55mm F2.8 (lovely no doubt, but very pricy) and the 17-85mm. I for one might well be tempted from my Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 as a walk around zoom if Canon came up with a reasonably priced 16-60mm F3.5-4.5 USM, despite the slower max aperture. Having said that, if my Sigma had HSM that would be even better.

 

The idea of updating the primes and perhaps adding Image Stabilization to a 35mm or 50mm is more interesting. For me, in an ideal world, Canon's non-telephoto non-L prime line-up would look like this:

 

EF-S 10mm F2.8 USM (unlikely)

 

EF-S 15mm F2.8 USM (unlikely)

 

EF-S 20mm F2 USM (this could replace the current F2.8, with an EF 20mm L for full-frame users)

 

EF 24mm F2.8 USM

 

EF 28mm F1.8 USM II (improved optical design with less CA and perhaps with IS)

 

EF 35mm F2 USM (perhaps with IS)

 

EF 50mm F1.4 USM (proper ring-type USM, perhaps with IS)

 

Of course in the unlikely event that Canon made all or some of those lenses, the high prices they charge for new lenses would no doubt make me wish I'd never wished!

[ky2]

They're next lens? will be the same, only 20% more expensive.

[anthony_thornborough1]

Yakim, They're (their?) next lens will probably be chocolate and my EOS suddenly turns into liquorice.

 

In the late 1990s I was paying more for lenses in monetary terms (eg 330 UK sterling for an 85U vs the 270 UK sterling I paid recently) although recent price price hikes may make for uncomfortable viewing. I am assuming the quality remains constant?

[jeff_plomley1]

200/1.8 replacement; perhaps an IS version.

100-400/4 L IS. Nikon is kicking their ass here with the 200-400/4 VR lens which is

essemtially a 300-600 on a Nikon 1.5x sensor. Canon would sell truckloads of this lens.

[bobatkins]

The Nikon 200-400/4 VR is $5100. So let's assume that a 100-400/4L IS would cost more due to the increased zoom range. Let's say it costs $5500.

 

Just how many truckloads of them do you think they are likely to sell?

 

I'd take a 75-300/4L IS at $1500 over it any day, and that should be possible since the 100-400/4-5.6L uses similar sized elements and has a similar 4x zoom range. It sells for $1400.

[steve torelli]

I doubt we'll see a short focal length prime with IS anytime soon. What would be the point anyway? 1.8 and f/2 primes should be fast enough for just about any application and if the light is lower than that I doubt IS will help much. Adding IS to these lenses would raise the price and not much else. But maybe I'm overlooking something here. Why do people ask for 35mm primes with IS ?

[25asa]

I still want my 200-500 zoom. It can be L or just USM, but I'd like a Canon option instead of going Tamron or Simga for that range.