dolina wrote:
I want to see a 135L and 400/5.6L update!
The 135 is a fine lens. The 100-400 really could use an update. The 400/5.6 lens is rather dead this century I just don't see that happening, but who knows.
S Dilworth wrote:
Nikon has the AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR, widely seen as a cheap full-frame kit lens for the D600 – where ‘cheap’ these days is 600 bucks on the nose.
It makes perfect sense for Canon to offer something similar for the EOS 6D.
And it would be in character for Canon to offer a neat and tidy constant-aperture lens to go against yet another tacky f/3.5-x.x Nikkor* zoom. Canon wouldn’t even need to get the price down to $600 then, though I suspect it will be close anyway.
L lenses don't come cheap though. At best, the new 24-70 f/4L IS will cost the same as the 24-105 f/4L IS, the former probably gives much better optical quality to match the upcoming megapixel cameras.
If the lens is sharp and has low distortion, I'm good with this. 16-35 II, 24-70 f4 IS, 70-200 f4 IS and a 1.4x combined with some of the current high ISO stuff and you have one hell of a travel setup
Would be great for me. The 24-105 L is a nice lens. So long there is no better choice in IQ.
If Canon will be able to do a 24-70 4.0 L IS in comparable IQ the 70-200 4.0 IS offers compared to 70-200 2.8 - I will be in (at 70-200 4.0 price level). Those two lenses in this quality would serve my needs for 95-98%.
PhilDrinkwater wrote:
They get a lot of stuff right.
+ 1000
Let me try to remember ...
- 1D X
- 5D III
- 7D firmware
- 24-70 L II
- 40mm pancake
- 24 2.8 IS
- 28 2.8 IS
- EOS M
- EOS 6D
- some further lenses, if I remember right
All within the last 12 month. About all of them "CR" offered info weeks if not months before their official announcments. This "garbage website" is even taken as serious as a rumor site can be taken by "fredmiranda.com" as far I remember, dear "howard".
Ralph Conway wrote:
All within the last 12 month. About all of them "CR" offered info weeks if not months before their official announcments. This "garbage website" is even taken as serious as a rumor site can be taken by "fredmiranda.com" as far I remember, dear "howard".
Indeed. If you look at the facts, they are right much more than they are wrong. They also give things the credit they deserve (CR1, CR2, CR3) the vast majority of the time. It goes wrong when people see a CR1 and believe it's fact. If you read it as it's meant to be read, they're very sensible.
I'm surprised to see this is a CR3 not a CR2, but maybe they've heard something concrete..
... I am pretty sure. Usually they start with "1", change to "CR2" if it gets more concrete and switch to "3" if it gets as good as sure, 1-5 days before an announcment, isn´t it?
The things that they got "Right" are usually:
1. copied from other websites
2. just moments before the release when Canon intentionally "leaks" the information, by which time most websites already have that info.
Then there are the countless times when they just crap-shoot, remember first no DSLR at Photokina, then definitely a DLSR at Photokina? Of course you will be always right when you have your bases covered like that (or always wrong, depending how you look at it).
Howard
Ralph Conway wrote:
+ 1000
Let me try to remember ...
- 1D X
- 5D III
- 7D firmware
- 24-70 L II
- 40mm pancake
- 24 2.8 IS
- 28 2.8 IS
- EOS M
- EOS 6D
- some further lenses, if I remember right
All within the last 12 month. About all of them "CR" offered info weeks if not months before their official announcments. This "garbage website" is even taken as serious as a rumor site can be taken by "fredmiranda.com" as far I remember, dear "howard".
scottam10 wrote:
I think if this happens, it's not going to be an L
Canon have neglected their non-L full frame lens lineup, especially zoom lenses.
- this makes sense if it's a lightweight and cheaper 'kit' lens to go with the cheaper and lighter 6D
I'm sure image quality would be excellent, but build quality would be reduced to cut down on weight and cost
I think this is intentional strategy. Although they have released some new non-L primes, they seem geared towards video more than stills (e.g. 28 IS, 40 pancake). They seem to be aggressively moving their entry lenses (the 50 1.8 and 55-250 are being discounted heavily). It seems to me they are trying to put more distance between their consumer and pro lenses and leaving less in between. I could certainly be wrong, but I don't expect a bunch of full frame non-L releases any time soon.
For out and about shooting it would be nice to have an across the board sharp f/4 24-70mmL lens. And, if they would just add IS to the 17-40mmL, I would be very happy.
