I can imagine there'd be a whole lot of people on DPR right now blasting Canon:
"Where's the 24-70 IS?"
"Where's the 100-400 II?"
"Where's the 135L IS?"
"Where's the 400 f/5.6L IS?"
Dawei Ye wrote:
+1 it's very exciting for sure, but not for me
I can imagine there'd be a whole lot of people on DPR right now blasting Canon:
"Where's the 24-70 IS?"
"Where's the 100-400 II?"
"Where's the 135L IS?"
"Where's the 400 f/5.6L IS?"
I'll save FM from the very same thing--I admit I was banking on at least three of the four you listed A TS-E, let alone two, isn't exactly what I was expecting...specifically at the projected price points (assuming they are even close).
genoph wrote:
Starting to become popular in wedding and portraiture
Maybe the 45 or 90...but 24 and 17 are a bit wide for most wedding usage where the 16-35 and 24-70 win based on versatility alone. Of course everyone has their own style, so who knows.
M Vers wrote:
I'll save FM from the very same thing--I admit I was banking on at least three of the four you listed A TS-E, let alone two, isn't exactly what I was expecting...specifically at the projected price points (assuming they are even close).
I agree, if this is all Canon has to offer in terms of lenses, that's a poor showing. I don't believe that TS-E lenses are big sellers in comparison to the four lenses listed above. Clearly, and this comes from various sites, people want the 400mm to be updated. I mean, come on.......if Canon can introduce excellent IS into their other telephotos down to the 300 f/4 while maintaining sharpness, then clearly the time has easily come for the 400. It's one thing to leave IS off of.....say, the 135L and the little 200L. They're so small, light and compact as well as their focal lengths being low that it's not a big deal. But the 400 The 24-70 seems to get a mixed bag: some want IS, others not. I would mind IS, it would add to an already great walkaround lens.