Saw this posted on the Photozone.de forums.

More infos:
http://www.eos-numerique.com/forums/showthread.php?p=116688#post116688

Don't shoot the messenger!

Only 2-3 more weeks until Canon lets us know.

-----
dan

Hi
Can u please place a screenshot. Its asking to register in a language most of us dont understand.

Thanks
Leo.

agreed - I know french but I don't wish to register.

I love rumours, so please post a screenshot or something else

If this is for real, put me down for one...drool

that is going to be one big heavy lens

I like that rumour. Especially if that lens exceeds the 16-35 performance at a lower cost. That would be one more reason not to walk away from the EF-S mount entirely. Strengthen the consumers' perception of Canon's committment to EF-S and APS-C ?

so Canon is going to a) make a wide-zoom that is superior to the 16-35 and 17-40Ls, but mount it only on consumer grade bodies, thus cannibalising both L glass sales and pro-body sales? and b) install IS into a low breadth wide angle zoom to add additional weight to already heavy 2.8 glass?

I think the chances of this happening as somewhere between a snowball's chance in hell and when pigs fly.

Don't get me wrong, it would look great on my 350D, but this is a _very_ unlikely rumour IMHO.

DavidJB wrote:
so Canon is going to a) make a wide-zoom that is superior to the 16-35 and 17-40Ls, but mount it only on consumer grade bodies, thus cannibalising both L glass sales and pro-body sales? and b) install IS into a low breadth wide angle zoom to add additional weight to already heavy 2.8 glass?

I think the chances of this happening as somewhere between a snowball's chance in hell and when pigs fly.

Don't get me wrong, it would look great on my 350D, but this is a _very_ unlikely rumour IMHO.
Exactly my toughts

sjms wrote:
that is going to be one big heavy lens

The sigma 18-50/2.8 isn't that big or heavy. I'd bet the canon is 2x as much.

DavidJB wrote:
so Canon is going to a) make a wide-zoom that is superior to the 16-35 and 17-40Ls, but mount it only on consumer grade bodies, thus cannibalising both L glass sales and pro-body sales? and b) install IS into a low breadth wide angle zoom to add additional weight to already heavy 2.8 glass?

I think the chances of this happening as somewhere between a snowball's chance in hell and when pigs fly.

Don't get me wrong, it would look great on my 350D, but this is a _very_ unlikely rumour IMHO.


Or, option C: A pro APS-C lens to go with a pro-APS-C Body.

I know a lot of Canon users would love to have the choice of a high quality crop camera.

nobody knows, just wishfull thinking

Sounds to me like someone saw that picture of the alleged 35D that's been making the rounds and could make out the "17-" on the lens but not the 85. I'd be excited by a 17-55/2.8 but I don't think it's likely.

MPerdomo wrote:
DavidJB wrote:
so Canon is going to a) make a wide-zoom that is superior to the 16-35 and 17-40Ls, but mount it only on consumer grade bodies, thus cannibalising both L glass sales and pro-body sales? and b) install IS into a low breadth wide angle zoom to add additional weight to already heavy 2.8 glass?

I think the chances of this happening as somewhere between a snowball's chance in hell and when pigs fly.

Don't get me wrong, it would look great on my 350D, but this is a _very_ unlikely rumour IMHO.


Or, option C: A pro APS-C lens to go with a pro-APS-C Body.

I know a lot of Canon users would love to have the choice of a high quality crop camera.
"APS-C" and "pro" are mututally exclusive terms.

Tomash wrote:
"APS-C" and "pro" are mututally exclusive terms.

They don't have to be. I would jump on a 1.6 crop 1 Series in a second. The added DoF for indoor sports shooting with fast primes is a big boon to a lot of stuff I shoot.

With that said, it's probably all speculation but it's a range Canon needs to fill better. The 17-85 and 17-40 are too slow, the 24-70 isn't wide enough, the 16-35 isn't long enough. There's no good option for a mid-range L-grade zoom for the Canon system right now.

Well, the manager of one of the biggest on-line shops over here , pointed out today that the follow-up will be announced, he only spoke about a price (1800 EUR, thats equal to D200 price), and with kitlens it would be 2800 EUR.
He also said there would be in total 5 lenses announced.
Mind you, 50 % of what he tells is total bullshit, but he nailed the 350D two weeks before announcement...

Flappie

the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 ain't that heavy. a little heavier than the 25-105IS, a lot lighter than the 24-70L.

Flappie wrote:
Well, the manager of one of the biggest on-line shops over here , pointed out today that the follow-up will be announced, he only spoke about a price (1800 EUR, thats equal to D200 price), and with kitlens it would be 2800 EUR.
He also said there would be in total 5 lenses announced.
Mind you, 50 % of what he tells is total bullshit, but he nailed the 350D two weeks before announcement...

Flappie

a 1,000 euro kitlens..sounds interesting. hoping this statement is on the 50% part that is true and another shot at upping his nailing record , what could this be? a 1,000 euro EF-S 17-85 II? 24-105? not a perfect kit lens range on 1.6... an ef-s 17-55 2.8 IS USM for a thousand euros? plausible?

If they make it, I will buy it.

It looks like you bought everything Canon ever came out with..

clotug wrote:
It looks like you bought everything Canon ever came out with..

Just don't tell my wife...she knows that I still want a 500/4.

Tomash wrote:"APS-C" and "pro" are mututally exclusive terms.

Now go say that on the Nikon forum!

bkriete wrote:
Tomash wrote:"APS-C" and "pro" are mututally exclusive terms.

Now go say that on the Nikon forum!

make a wide-zoom that is superior to the 16-35 and 17-40Ls, but mount it only on consumer grade bodies, thus cannibalising both L glass sales and pro-body sales?

Not really. Full frame is still full-frame. I doubt that anyone spending 3,000-8,000 dollars on a pro body would suddenly buy a 1.6x camera instead, just so they could save a couple hundred bucks on the lens. Actually, now that I'm typing that idea out, it seems even more ridiculous.

What they might cannibalize is the excellent Sigma 18-50/2.8. This lens is faster than the 17-40, and lighter to boot (because it doesn't have a wastefully large FF image circle).

Image stabilization on a fast 17-55 lens makes no sense though.

darylc wrote:
Image stabilization on a fast 17-55 lens makes no sense though.

That's silly, have you ever used a short focal length IS lens? Fantastic. A fast one would be even better.

bkriete wrote:
Tomash wrote:"APS-C" and "pro" are mututally exclusive terms.

Now go say that on the Nikon forum!
lol