Bad time to consider buying a new lens?

[michael_brant]

Greetings,

 

I've seen posts that discuss upcoming photography conventions in the

context of new cameras that may or may not be introduced.

 

I assume that these events can also feature the introduction of new

lenses. I'm considering the purchase of the Canon 300mm f/2.8L lens

and would hate to find out that I spent that much money when a month

or two later a) a new lens worthy of consideration is announced, and

b) this lens' price is now significantly reduced.

 

Should I wait, or do you think that the odds are that nothing is

likely to change?

 

Thanks,

-Mike

[rog21]

The only rumors I've seen are for a 50mm 1.2L and a second gen 85 1.2L. I'd be VERY surprised if Canon were to mess with the 300 2.8 L or the IS version of that lens as they are widely regarded as the best 300mm lenses you can get, period.

 

There has been some talk of a new 200mm 1.8L as well, but this would not have any effect on your target lens either.

 

The show is later this month if you are really worried. You could just wait and see....

[steve_dunn2]

<p>My track record at predicting Canon's announcements is somewhat spotty, but I agree with the previous response. It's highly unlikely that the 300/2.8 will be upgraded or replaced, or that anything else will be released which will impact its price. It's a fantastic lens, optically excellent, tough as nails, and really the only thing missing is the very latest generation of IS (as found in the 70-200/2.8L IS USM, with half the startup time and an extra stop's worth of stabilization). But Canon has never yet released a new version of a lens to add a more recent version of IS and I don't see them starting now.</p>

 

<p>I also agree that if you're that worried, and if you can do without the lens for a couple of weeks, it won't hurt you to hold off. Canon's practice is to announce things a little in advance of major trade shows, so likely by the middle of this month we'll know what they have up their sleeve.</p>

[ky2]

I hope I'd be proven to be wrong here, as I welcome new lens offerings every day, but...

 

WHY would Canon want to introduce these lenses? the 50/1L was killed for the same reason the 200/1.8L was eliminated: lack of sales and profit. The 85/1.2L is a great lens already. It seems to me that these self-spread rumors sprout out of thin air, and would most likely remain so. There is simply no market for these lenses at all.

 

Michael, the 300/2.8L IS is safe for years to come. Canon won't modify its production line for virtually no business benefit.

 

What Canon *MIGHT* do, is to better place itself against its formidable opponent in the prosumer DSLR market: Nikon. Nikon's "DX" offerings are simply better (17-55, 18-70, 18-200) AND there's much more money in this segment, and this is where Canon would most likely improve its offering. Just like Nikon, I believe the emphasis would be on zooms-- because this what sells today (and NOT to my liking, alas).

 

I'd appreciate if Canon would upgrade its consumer-level primes to USM (not gonna happen), ship a 200/2.8 (f/2?) IS version (Highly unlikely), and/or release a 24-105/4L zoom with no IS for $450 (pure fantasy). But I'm not going to spread these rumors around.

[dcheung]

"WHY would Canon want to introduce these lenses? the 50/1L was killed for the same reason the 200/1.8L was eliminated: lack of sales and profit. The 85/1.2L is a great lens already. It seems to me that these self-spread rumors sprout out of thin air, and would most likely remain so. There is simply no market for these lenses at all."

 

Lack of sales and profit is a results from underlining reasons about the lens. To say canon doesn't make those lenses anymore because of lack of sales and profit is as useful as saying it's because "canon doesn't want to make those lenses anymore." One of the biggest reason 50 1.0 was eleminated was due to slower AF and expensive. The reason 200mm 1.8L was gone was cuz it was too expensive. However, if Canon improved the AF speed and made a 50 1.2L with very fast AF at a decent price (technology growth over the years reduces manufacturing prices), then people would buy it. Same goes for the 200mm 1.8L. It's an excellent lens optically, but just bloody expensive. Reduce the price to $2500 and it'll sell.

 

You seem to also think there is no use for these lenses. Well, 200mm 1.8L is an excellent lens for shooting indoor volleyball.

 

Weiyang

[jim_larson1]

Yaron said (and I quote) <I>The 85/1.2L is a great lens already. It seems to me that these self-spread rumors sprout out of thin air, and would most likely remain so. There is simply no market for these lenses at all.</i>

<p>

But the 85/1.2L has horrible AF . . .if they were to improve the AF for this lens, then many people will choose this lens (at a premium) over the 85/1.8. Note that the 85/1.2L currently lacks distance feedback for ETTL-II.

<p>

And part of the reason the 50/1.0L failed was because it had a bad optical reputation. A 50/1.2L with better optics will sell. (BUT. . .with a 50/1.4 sitting out there. . .It doesn't make sense).

<p>

The only way I see the increasingly popular 50's being updated are if you retire both the current 50/1.4 and 50/1.8. Release a 50/1.8 with metal mount for $350. Release a 50/1.2L for $1200. Both with ETTL-II compatible distance feed back and USM motors. Otherwise. . .I don't see Canon bothering.

<p>Yaron further said:<i>I'd appreciate if Canon would upgrade its consumer-level primes to USM (not gonna happen), ship a 200/2.8 (f/2?) IS version (Highly unlikely), and/or release a 24-105/4L zoom with no IS for $450 (pure fantasy). But I'm not going to spread these rumors around.</i>

<p>I concur. Ain't gonna happen. A 24-105/4L COULD happen. . but won't. If it did. . .it would certainly cost $900.<p>My prediction is for a 70-280/4L-IS for about $1500. (and I would not buy it)

[thomas_sullivan]

I still want a Canon 22mm f/1.8 so my 20D has a fast prime equivalent to a 35mm f/2 (or faster) film lens. With the popularity of the classic 35mm f/2.0 or faster lenses in the film world I just don't get why manufactures, especially Canon and Nikon, aren't doing something for the 1.6x/1.5x digital formats. I realize there are 20mm and 24mm out there (I already own the sigma 20mm)...but for precise from the hip shooting those two are either too wide or too narrow. My brain and body have really gotten use to that 35mmfilm field of coverage....and I would like to go back and forth between film and digital and keep that same "view" in my head.

 

Anyhow, to the original post, It's only 24 days til the convention...I'd wait to see exactly what happens.

[rog21]

Maybe it doesn't make sense, maybe it does (to Canon).

 

In the FD days, Canon sold the 50mm 1.8, 1.4, 2.0, 3.5 Macro, 1.2 and 1.2L all at the same time.

 

I had the 1.8, 1.4, 3.5 and 1.2L all at the same time (though I got rid of all but the L and macro eventually).

 

A new EF 50 1.2L should sell at a price point between the 35L and 85L (based on how the FD version was sold) which would put it around $1200.00 (much more reasonable than the 1.0 was).

 

I for one, would have a 50 1.2L if offered and it had the image properties the FD version had (or better)....

[savas_kyprianides]

As far as the waiting game goes, you also need to factor in the time for early adopters to

buy the new lenses and report their findings. Or just proceed boldy yourself and place

pre-orders.

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>In the FD days, Canon sold the 50mm 1.8, 1.4, 2.0, 3.5 Macro, 1.2 and 1.2L all at the same time.</cite>

 

<p>But that was back in the days when everyone bought primes in general, and everyone bought a 50mm prime in particular. These days, everyone buys a 24/28-80/85/90/105/135/200/300 (or a digital equivalent thereof), and Canon has a gazillion zooms in those ranges. Most people won't buy a prime lens any more, so it's hard to justify bring one to market unless it's clearly differentiated from everything else that's already on the market.</p>

 

<p>Like I said in my first response, my skill at predicting what Canon is going to do is only mediocre. But I do wonder if the persistent rumour of a 50/1.2L or 55/1.2L is actually a rumour, or just the result of a few people saying "Gee, I wish Canon would produce one of these" which then gets repeatedly endlessly as an Internet rumour by the same sort of people who have been filling this forum with "When will the 20D replacement be out and what will its features be?" ever since about two weeks after the 20D was announced.</p>

[rog21]

I don't really disagree with you, however....

 

Why don't you think one is needed (forget the zooms for a moment). The 50 1.8 is sharp but suffers in the build dept. The 50 1.4 is soft wide open and has a questionable FTM focus ring (or clutch). Most pros that shoot sports like football or tennis have a long lens on one body, a 70-200 2.8 on another, and a 50 1.8 or 1.4 on a third. I'm betting they (and I) would love to have a 50 (or 55) 1.2 that is sharp wide open AND weather sealed along with all the other build features of L series lenses.

 

BTW, I'm crappy at predicting Canon stuff too :) I can sure want though....

[peter_white2]

Michael,

 

Canon will eventually replace every lens they currently make. Think about it. Find a Canon catalog from 1975. They make only a few items now that were in that catalog. For example, the 500D close-up lens and the tripod adapter for their tilt/shift lens were made then and are still being made today. But just about everything else has been discontinued and replaced by newer and perhaps better products.

 

So imagine how foolish all the people who bought Canon cameras and lenses in 1975 felt as the items they bought were replaced as the years went by? Don't put yourself in the same boat that all those people put themselves into. Everything Canon nows sells will suffer the same fate as 99% of the items listed in that 1975 Canon catalog. They'll be discontinued! They'll be replaced. Oh, the pathos! Oh, the indignity! Oh, the Humanity!

 

Don't buy anything. It's practically guaranteed to be replaced eventually? What's the point?

 

;-)

[jon_austin]

"My prediction is for a 70-280/4L IS for about $1500. (And I would not buy it)"

 

I'd buy one for $1,200. I don't use the telephoto range very often, but the lens Jim predicts would be a killer replacement for my 70-200/4, provided it lived up to the performance of the current 70-200 series.

 

Used, mint 70-200/4, anyone?

[ky2]

Don't get me wrong guys, I'd love a 50/1.2L-- for $500. Keep the IS.

[jim_larson1]

Yaron;

 

Hahahaha - Comon. . .you KNOW that a 50/1.2L won't be $500. It will be MORE than the 85/1.2L currently is priced. Especially if they make it EF-S mount.

 

Jon;

Yeah, I know you are itching for a 70-200/4L-IS -> and your pockets are clearly deeper than mine. Honestly though, if such a lens were really price at the $1500 level -> the 70-300/IS at $550 will look attractive indeed based upon the review that I have seen.

[yakim_peled1]

>> I'm considering the purchase of the Canon 300mm f/2.8L lens

 

Are you planning to buy a new lens (only IS model available) or a used one (both non-IS and IS models available)?

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[edgreene]

I shoot nothing but �fast� and or �pro� glass all the time. But hell, I�ve been shooting since 1956 and from 1966 to 1991, as a �pro�. <br>It took 19 months of savings for me to get my first two new "pro" level lenses (<I>70-200 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2.8 zooms</I>), and that was with the help of my company picking up 20% of the cost. Before then, I shot recycled �pro� glass, beat up looking but �pro� glass nonetheless, bought from the more senior �pros� on staff. All the while, what I wanted or needed new I bought by saving. "Too expensive" was not in my lexicon.<br>And once our children began bailing out of the house and my plastic gained more �disposable� heft, what I wanted was what I bought right <I>now</I>; �kerplunk� went the plastic, �Thank you� said the associate.<p>Serious photography is not now nor has it ever been �cheap�, nor a place for the faint of heart or the stuck up.<br> �Fast� glass costs and you ought to be willing to save for it or shoot what you can afford <I>today</I> while you save for the �Pro� or �fast� glass later.<br>Otherwise, lusting after fast glass will frustrate your shooting.<p>Speaking to �full frame� folks only (<I>film and digital</I>), this world is literally afloat with vintage quality but older �pro� EOS lenses like my own.<br>Less �IS�, they are still professional �L� lenses, all of them still kick-ass.<br>As newer IS lenses are issued, any person wanting �L� glass, primes or zooms-can have them, and at a greatly reduced price.<br>Too strapped to save, too stuck up to shoot or be seen with old �Pro� lenses? Then you must suffer with consumer grade and continue lusting.

[michael_brant]

Hi Yakim,

 

I'm thinking about new. I would prefer to buy a good quality used lens, but I don't know a source. Any suggestions?