New lens for ef-s

[daniel flather]

<p>EF-S 40-125 f/2.8 IS. Crop camera version of the 70-200L 2.8 IS. Due out October 2009. </p>

[phule]

<p>Link?</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>40mm (64mm FOV)? I agree more on the wide end is better for this zoom. Hope it is smaller and lighter too, say 1.3 pounds?</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>And you know this how, Daniel? Not that it would surprise me after the introduction of the 17~55/2.8IS. Throw in a 9~20/2.8 and you've got a full professional setup for 1.6-factor bodies.</p>

[paul_russell1]

<p>Source of info?<br>

Seems like a hoax to me.<br>

50 or 55 would be the more obvious starting point to marry up with the EFs 17-55mm f2.8. The only other obvious lens to match it too would be the 17-40 f4, why would they?<br>

Different mounts? different back focus? different focal lengths? If true, it's not a crop camera version of anything, it's a completely new lens.<br>

One of the major benefits of the crop sensor is the effective increase in telephoto, why would canon negate this? Why would they make a high spec lens with a constant f2.8 etc without just going all the way and making it L spec (weather sealed etc)<br>

It's not a lens that would appeal to the average rebel buyer (price, zoom), the aspirational xxd user would probably just go for the L in anycase, put up with the 55-70 gap, get the build, sealing and lets face it, the kudos that goes with the big white lens.<br>

Without any verification, this is a definite hoax.</p>

[ed_v.]

Google search turns up nothing except this page and a couple of other forum sites.

[paul_russell1]

<blockquote>

<p><strong><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=565842">Robin Sibson</a> </strong><br>

Throw in a 9~20/2.8 and you've got a full professional setup for 1.6-factor bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Apart from the 1.6-factor body bit.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Paul, I was too polite to mention that limitation!</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>I'll get the link in a second, I saw it on some German site.</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Should I sell my 70-200 f/2.8 IS now?</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>Yes Donald you should, sell it to me for $850.</p>

[kclinton]

<p>Still waiting for that link .... 7:16pm</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>Such a lens would be extremely useful (for me). Which is why I doubt the rumor. But who knows? They might even give us an EF-S 30/1.8 and some updated primes. Somehow it's in the air.</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>Actually, it sounds great to me. Last week I was shooting indoor open stage dance performances in Joinville, Santa Catarina, Brazil. My 55-250 was too slow. My 24 2.8 was too wide. My 85 1.8 was too limiting due to fixed focal length. I thought it would be nice to have something like the Tamron 28-75 2.8 or the Tokina 50-135 2.8 or the Sigma 50-150 2.8. The 70-200 2.8 L would have been too long on the wide end to be of much use. So, for those of us who shoot 1.6 crop cameras, it would be nice to have a high quality optic that would serve us well. Who cares if it overlaps with the 17-55 a little. People talk all the time about not minding having a gap between 55 and 70, so why should it bother anyone if they have an overlap between 40 and 55? For me, an EF-S 40-125 2.8 IS would work very well. It may never come to be, but it would be nice.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>I also so it on this site, I think it was Bob A.com - can't remember...</p>

[paul_russell1]

<p>I also have an issue with EF-S lenses generally, if I was going to spend a fortune on a f2.8 telezoom then I'd want it to work on my EOS 3 and the 5DMk3 I might buy in 3 years time.<br>

So I'd buy an EF.</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>Hi Paul, the 5DMk3 is due out January 2011.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Spreading unconfirmed rumors... it's OK if you have those Top Icons?</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>So where is the link?</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Well Daniel no link yet?</p>

[kclinton]

<p>8 months later and still no link? WTH? o wait, it's past Oct. 2009 and I haven't seen this new<br>

lens yet...... bummer. Still waiting for that link.</p>