New long lenses from Canon in spring?

Nikon have finally stepped up and released super-teles with IS.

I think we can safely say that the IQ and IS will be at least on a par with Canon's existing super-tele lenses. After all, most of them have been on the market over 8 years now.

This is great news for all users. Progress is a good thing whoever makes it. There is another option in the market now and Canon will hopefully respond somehow.

The question's are when and how?

I wonder if we'll see some updated long glass from Canon.

Nikon's 200-400 and the new 400, 500, 600VRs may have snatched away the only real lead Canon had left. Long lenses.

Could we expect revisions to the frankly ancient 100-400, 400/5.6, 300/4, 70-200/2.8 at PMA?

New IS in the super-teles too? - 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4?

Would be nice to see. Let's face it, any improvements in lens design should always be welcomed. A few will say they don't want to see any improvements because they already own some of the lenses that could be upgraded. That's not being objective.

Even though I own the Canon 300/4 and the 400/5.6; if I could put one lens on my wish-list it would be a 200-500/4-5.6 L IS with IQ like the 70-200/4 and optimised for the long-end of the range. Aperture change beyond 400mm (so you can shoot 400/4) would be really sweet.

It would (hopefully) obsolete two of my lenses, but providing significant benefits in one much more versatile package.

What lenses would you like to see revised?
What do you expect to happen? - A v different matter!

--
If we do it right the first time around, how will we sell the upgrade?!
Keep photography wild.

Progress Lover said:

Nikon's 200-400 and the new 400, 500, 600VRs may have snatched away
the only real lead Canon had left. Long lenses.

Click to expand...

No, Canon still has the fast primes: 24 / 1.4L, 35 / 1.4L, 50 / 1.2L, 85 / 1.2L

Progress Lover said:

Could we expect revisions to the frankly ancient 100-400, 400/5.6,
300/4, 70-200/2.8 at PMA?

Click to expand...

Possibly.

Progress Lover said:

New IS in the super-teles too? - 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4?

Click to expand...

Also possible.

Progress Lover said:

Even though I own the Canon 300/4 and the 400/5.6; if I could put one
lens on my wish-list it would be a 200-500/4-5.6 L IS with IQ like
the 70-200/4 and optimised for the long-end of the range. Aperture
change beyond 400mm (so you can shoot 400/4) would be really sweet.
It would (hopefully) obsolete two of my lenses, but providing
significant benefits in one much more versatile package.

Click to expand...

That's not going to happen. With the exception of the 50 / 1.2L, Canon seems intent on redoing existing lenses, not creating new ones.

Progress Lover said:

What lenses would you like to see revised?

Click to expand...

24 / 1.4L II, 50 / 2.5 II 1:1 USM macro, 100 / 2.8 IS macro, 135 / 2L IS, 200 / 2.8L IS.

I'm sure everyone would like reworks of all the shorter consumer primes (20 / 2.8, 24 / 2.8, 28 / 1.8, 35 / 2, 50 / 1.4), but I'd bet heavily against that -- not enough money or prestige in it for Canon.

Progress Lover said:

What do you expect to happen? - A v different matter!

Click to expand...

The 24 / 1.4L, 300 / 4L IS, 100-400 / 4.5-5.6L IS, and a 400 / 5.6L IS. Not all, of course, but any one or two of those would be my bet. They may put out a new high quality EF-S lens or two, like a fast wide prime and/or a 50-135 / 2.8 IS. If they come out with a new FF lens, I would bet on some replacement for the 100-400 / 4.5-5.6L IS, but I'm still doubtful of that.

I think I've been vague enough that I should win on at least one count. So, what will I get if I'm right? And don't say, "The opportunity to buy the lens you guessed." : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

200-500/4-5.6 could be the 'revision' of the 100-400 - depending on how one looks at things.

When you revise something, it doesn't have to be exactly the same as it was before but with some tweaks. A lens can have a whole new optical formula and in that case, why not a variation in FL?

I do agree that it won't happen though. But not necessarily because it couldn't be a replacement for the 100-400. More likely my proposed lens would be too useful. Rather than realising they'd sell millions of this new lens, Canon would probably look at it like they'd sell less of the long primes...

Shame. This is probably why the 100-400 has languished as long as it has already.

There is a ray of hope.

Nikon have brought in the well respected 200/400 and a Canon 200-500/4-5.6 (w aperture change at 400mm) would, in one fell swoop, do two jobs that need to be done anyway.
1: Replace ancient 100-400.

2: One-up Nikon's 200-400/4 - as it would be a 200-400/4 with an extra 100mm at 5.6 as an added bonus.

More fast primes are always nice. Although IMO, they should not necessarily be exclusively used wide-open for the same subect every shot!

I think there do need to be some zooms too. Although I use mainly primes, I'm crying out for a zoom in the aforementioned range as there's a lot to be said for versatility. And besides, certain modern zooms have proven that versatility can come at a v low optical price these days assisted by modern CAD-CAM tech.

--
If we do it right the first time around, how will we sell the upgrade?!
Keep photography wild.

I agree. I am desperate for a good well priced zoom. I can't afford to buy 3 primes and I need the zoom anyway for the sports I shoot. I have even thought about switching to nikon a few times (wow never thought I would say that). The only option for me at the moment are the sigma 120-300mm, the bigma, and the 100-400mm. A 200-500mm canon IS or not would see me running to the shops....
--

30D + 18-55mm kit lens + $40 75-300mm USM with a cracked focus ring (BUT I HOPE TO REPLACE THAT SOON)

Replacements do not need to have exactly the same specification as their predecessors; no-one can doubt that the 28~300IS is the replacement for the 35~350, for example. But a zoom lens that held f/4 at 400mm, whether or not it extended beyond that with reduced aperture, would be in a wholly different size/weight/cost league from the 100~400, and would in no sense be a replacement for it.

A really first-rate (standard set by the 70~200/4IS) internal-zoom xx~300/4IS of about the same size and weight as the 70~200/2.8IS with a new matched Extender 1.4x would be quite an exciting lens, as would a new version of the 300/2.8IS with latest-generation IS, a bit of weight shaved off, and matched Extender 1.4x and Extender 2x.

Some upgrade of the IS system at least is inevitable. What I'd like to see (but what will never happen in a million years) is for Canon to introduce the IS upgrade in a modular fashion that would allow for upgrading existing lenses. Ha ha, I'm laughing at that one too when I'm not thinking about the $5K I have caught up in my soon to be obsolete 500/4.

Realistically I see Canon coming out with mkII versions of the pro-level superteles and touting the improved IS when they do. The problem with this is that they would explicitly be playing catch up with Nikon at this point. The only alternatives would be to do a silent upgrade (like the 400DO improvement in 2003-4, or when the 20/2.8 magically grew from a 5-blade aperture to 6) or else to introduce some new capability that Nikon doesn't have. I don't see the superteles getting any faster anytime soon - they're already just about at their practical size limits - so maybe this means some new focal lengths.

It would sure be nice if Canon came out with the long awaited supertele zoom at the same time, but I don't really expect it. I've heard 200-500/5.6 bandied about here as every wildlife shooters' wet dream lens for some time. If it had a decently close MFD (say 2.5m or less) and IQ somewhat better than the current 100-400 then I would consider ditching both my 300/4 and 500/4 for one of these. It could happen. But from Canon's past history I expect a simple upgrade of the IS in the superteles, a rise in the MSRP of about $1K and a simultaneous similar drop in the value of old-model IS superteles on the used market.

remember that 70-200 f/4 started as

70-210 3,5-4,5
and now you have 70-200 f/4 IS
--
Feel free to visit my photopage: http://tom.st

Lanky said:

I agree. I am desperate for a good well priced zoom. I can't afford
to buy 3 primes and I need the zoom anyway for the sports I shoot. I
have even thought about switching to nikon a few times (wow never
thought I would say that). The only option for me at the moment are
the sigma 120-300mm, the bigma, and the 100-400mm. A 200-500mm canon
IS or not would see me running to the shops....
--
30D + 18-55mm kit lens + $40 75-300mm USM with a cracked focus ring
(BUT I HOPE TO REPLACE THAT SOON)

Click to expand...

keep in mind that if canon did refactor the 100-400 .. it would no longer be "well priced"

the nikon 200-400 2x zoom is nearly 5K I believe .. the canon 100-400 can be had for around 1K and a box of smarties ..

I agree the 100-400 needs to be redone .. maybe even a constant F4 lens ..

for the price .. it's a pretty good deal though.

The Nikon market attack is at the very high end (~$5,000 lens). They want to get some inroads into the "fields of white lens" seen in all major sporting events.

While all the super-teles have IS, it is not the deal-maker in these sporting events; therefore I doubt Canon will respond by upgrading the IS on its super-teles.

Nikon has a definite advantage with super-tele zoom (200-400/4 VR), and with the 200/2 VR. This is where Canon needs to, and I believe will, respond.
And hopefully we will see a simple price war as Canon defends its turf.
--
Uzi
http://www.pbase.com/uyoeli

price war?

canon's already thousands cheaper than the nikon equiv and are fully weathersealed for those that care about those sorta things

rrcphoto said:

price war?

canon's already thousands cheaper than the nikon equiv and are fully
weathersealed for those that care about those sorta things

Click to expand...

You make it sound as if Nikon's new offerings have "FAILURE" written all over them, that they will not make a dent it Canon's sales, and that Canon can sit on its laurels and do nothing. You might be right, but I am not willing to make that call yet.
--
Uzi
http://www.pbase.com/uyoeli

How about new IS in superteles a

100-300/2.8L IS USM
200-400/2.8L IS USM
200-500/4L IS USM
200-600/4L IS USM

with new 4-stop IS and image quality at least on par with the existing superteles?

This would up the Nikon offerings again, and doesn't seem technically impossible. I guess some sportshooters would really like the zoom capability (and those who don't just lock the zoom at whatever focal length they want).

Unfortunately I couldn't afford any of those though ;-)

Christian

Oh, and what I'd love to see is a high quality EF-S 15-65/4 IS USM that's more compact than the EF-S 17-55/2.8...

Chris_AB said:

How about new IS in superteles a

Click to expand...

Chris_AB said:

200-400/2.8L IS USM
200-600/4L IS USM

Click to expand...

These two are basically impossible to achieve, the 200-500 would be monstrously expensive.

Edit: Impossible unless you are ok with a lens larger than a car.

Tango76 said:

These two are basically impossible to achieve, the 200-500 would be
monstrously expensive.

Edit: Impossible unless you are ok with a lens larger than a car.

Click to expand...

I'm not an optical engineer, so you may be right. I was thinking of the Sigma 120-300/2.8, the Sigma 200-500/2.8 prototype, and the Nikon 200-400/4 when I wrote the post. These lenses demonstrate that supertele zooms are possible. The Sigma 200-500/2.8 is big and heavy indeed (something like 35 lb if I remember correctly?)

Christian

Tango76 said:

Chris_AB said:

How about new IS in superteles a

Click to expand...

Tango76 said:

200-400/2.8L IS USM
200-600/4L IS USM

Click to expand...

These two are basically impossible to achieve, the 200-500 would be
monstrously expensive.

Click to expand...

Why? A 200-600/4L IS USM should not be very different in size from Sigma's 300-800/5.6 (5.8Kg).

The 300-800/5.6 is ~ 20% bigger and more expensive than the 800/5.6 prime, and I see no reason for a 200-600/4L IS to be more than 20% larger than the 600/4L prime.
--
Uzi
http://www.pbase.com/uyoeli

Other than updating the IS, I don't think there is enough room for improvement in the super teles to justify redoing them. How much sharper or better could the Nikons or any others be? A little maybe, but not a lot.

Updating the 100-400 and it's sister lenses and the 400/5.6 seem probable, but sales i of those are pretty strong.

I'm hoping they release a new super tele in the 200-400 range with a compatible 2x or 1.4x. That along with a new 5D series at the same time would be a nice release. My guess is that would be in the fall though.
I'

As long as we are all dreaming, as a bird photographer (amateur) I could go for a 500mm l f5.6 with no IS as a nice compromise between extra reach and ease of portability at an affordable price.

Yeah, it's ridiculous...





What I'd really like is the Nikon's 200-400 f/4. That is a lens that really could find a space in Canon's lineup.

Going from f/5.6 to f/4 in a zoom with those focal range is a huge step in terms of dimensions of the front element.

UziY said:

Tango76 said:

Chris_AB said:

How about new IS in superteles a

Click to expand...

UziY said:

200-400/2.8L IS USM
200-600/4L IS USM

Click to expand...

These two are basically impossible to achieve, the 200-500 would be
monstrously expensive.

Click to expand...

Why? A 200-600/4L IS USM should not be very different in size from
Sigma's 300-800/5.6 (5.8Kg).
The 300-800/5.6 is ~ 20% bigger and more expensive than the 800/5.6
prime, and I see no reason for a 200-600/4L IS to be more than 20%
larger than the 600/4L prime.
--
Uzi
http://www.pbase.com/uyoeli

Click to expand...