Will Canon announce any new lenses?

Hi:


I currently have the 17-85mm and I am very happy with it. But ever since my daughter has started walking I sometimes wish I had more reach.


I read a lot of reviews on the Canon 18-200mm and for my needs (printing 4x6 or 5x7 or resizing and posting on her web site)I think it will work fine.


But before I purchase it, I was wondering what your thoughts are regarding Canon announcing some new similar lens that would be better? I am not in any rush as I would probably use this lens when we go to the park or play in the yard and for now it's covered in snow. [:)]


Thanks,


Mitch

Canon has demonstrated a very careful approach to releasing new products - in a nutshell, they won't release something new that supercedes something recent unless they have really strong reason to do so. I think the closest they came was the release of the 580EX II flash about three years after releasing the 580EX (which "replaced" the 550EX). They did so to have a weather-sealed flash to match the weather-sealing performance of the 1D Mark III.


The EF-S lineup has an ultra-wide (10-22), a high-performance wide (17-55 IS), a mid-performance wide (17-85), an entry-level wide (18-55 IS, which replaced the 18-55 non-IS recently), a "superzoom" (the 10x zoom 18-200mm), a telephoto (55-250), and a macro. I think that covers the EF-S lineup well. EF lenses tend to be more expensive than their EF-S "equivalents", since more glass is needed. Therefore, I don't see anything to compete directly with the 18-200 being developed anytime soon.

I purchased the 17-85 because of the extra reach, but then i often find that you can't really back out in some situation and mote then often you can step closer if you need... zooming with ur feet. but like bryan said a lot of people will be happy with 18-200 because of the zoom and fairly ok quality. I was happy with my 17-85 until I start using it for anything commercial, now i'm ready to sell it off anytime of the day. if wide angle is not your thing try theCanon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lenssince you are already thinking about replacing your 17-85 with 18-200 (meaning one of them isn't going to be used so often anymore) might as well upgrade to something significantly better.

24-105 (or 24-anything) is a little too narrow on a 1.6x crop body, in my opinion. You'd really want a 16/17-something to go with it, as the 10-22 is just such a different animal that you'd be switching lenses back and forth all the time if you only also had the 24-105.


The 17-55/2.8IS is a great lens. Keep its few issues in mind, and you'll end up with great results.

Hey Mitch, for what it's worth my suggestion to you would be the 24-105mm, which is what I normally use as my walk around lens. There will be times when the 24mm wide end really won't be wide enough but if your using a crop camera the 105mm makes a nice telephoto. The IQ upgrade you get with the 24-105 I think would be worth it, you really will notice the difference. People have always liked the 28-135 lens, which I would imagine, would give you similar IQ to the 17-85 that your using but the 28mm end would definately be much more narrower than what your accustomed to and may not be worth the 135 end of it.


As Peety noted, the 17-55 2.8 is a great lens that has IQ that can rival the L series zooms but if your looking for more reach than your existing 17-85, than that isn't going to cut it for you.


If your willing to change lenses, the 70-200 f4 non-IS version is a relatively inexpensive way to get more reach with great IQ...but you'll have to carry another lens.


There's a reason Canon came out with the 18-200mm lens--there's a market for it. Tamaron, Sigma, Nikon all have there equivalents because people want a do-it-all lens. If your never going to be making large prints or aren't a pixel peeper like many are, than the 18-200 may be the solution for you. I can't imagine Canon coming out with a replacement for that lens in a long time.


Good luck!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

The 17-55/2.8IS is a great lens. Keep its few issues in mind, and you'll end up with great results.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

What issues?

Check lensrentals.com - this lens has "made their list" of problematic lenses. Not too bad, but definitely some issues.


I rented one of these once, and found that the IS would often jerk when activated. What you saw through the viewfinder would jump (horizontally only, if I remember correctly) when you'd half-press the shutter button. I mentioned it to them as soon as it arrived, so that I wouldn't get "dinged" for damage, but as far as I noticed it didn't present any issues during the event I shot. Their reply said that lens had the highest frequency of IS repairs of anything they carried.


At the time, I was shopping for a wide angle, and knew that I wanted something wider than my 1D3/24-105. Knowing that I can usually grab my girlfriend's 40D (to be able to use the 17-55/2.8), I felt the 17-55 was worth at least trying (even though it wouldn't work on my 1D3). In the end, I/we got a 16-35/2.8II, and we've been VERY happy (but we also know that we want a second body/lens "in hand" if at all possible - 35mm is still fairly wide).

How about EF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM [:)]

Hi Mitch, I haven't used the 18-200 so I can't say anything good or bad about it. Canon probably will not come out with a lens that renders it obsolete for a while though. However, if you are happy with the 17-85, why not keep it? Then, to get the extra reach check out the 70-300 IS. They would complement each other perfectly. With the two lenses you could go from 17-300mm, 17-85 for closer work, 70-300 for the reach. The 24-105L is an excellent lens as others have also mentioned, just a little pricey compared to the 17-85 or 70-300. Just some more options to consider, hope it helps.

You might want to try the Sigma 18-125 (reviewed by Bryan). I've never had one, preferring to save up for some serious (read "expensive") glass. Remember that anything with "reach" is going to have a barrel that extends quite a long way out. In addition to barrel distortion and chromatic aberration (purple fringing, etc.) more often found on cheaper lenses - which may not be quite so important if you use Photoshop to edit web pictures - the extended barrel will literally suck in dust.


One that doesn't and has a fairly decent range with awesome image quality is the 70-200 f4 L. It's one of the cheaper L range ("pro") series, but it's worth spending the extra money on the version with IS, especially when you're shooting your kid running around in low light.


BTW, congratulations on having a daughter who can't yet walk, but already has a website - she's a smart girl [;)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

Check lensrentals.com - this lens has "made their list" of problematic lenses. Not too bad, but definitely some issues.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Well it depends. The list could be "biased" - what I really mean by that is, if this lens is rented say 100 times a month, while the other lenses only say 40 times per month, there is obviously more chance to find a problem in this lens (the 17-55). Also, since so many people are using this lens, the chances are even higher - you don't know what the lens is going through while people are using it.


I guess Roger Cicala could shade some more light on this issue and help us understand it a bit better.

Oren, not to make this thread into a discussion about the 17-55 lens, but I rented a copy of this lens through lensprotogo.com and also had a problem with it. The lens stopped working for me on several occasions while I was shooting a wedding and needless to say I was not a happy camper. After calling lenspro after the event, I was informed that they had been having issues with the 17-55. I didn't get into any further to find out what all those "issues" were but I was given a credit for the lens.


Now you may be right in that rental copies of this lens may be more problematic since so many people are usingthem but after my own experience, I would be a little leery about actually purchasing a copy myself. The pictures that I managed to get while it was working were nice though.[:)]

Hi Everyone,


Thanks to all for the recommendations and help.


I weighed all my options and wallet and decided to get the 18-200mm. I purchased it from B&amp;H so if I don't like it, it can be easily returned.


If this lens does not perform well, I think I will get my 2nd choice...the 70-300mm. The ONLY reason I did not get this was because I did not want to change lenses all the time. Our little girl is a fireball and walks/runs everywhere and never stops and I did not want to take the chance of missinga shot while I swap lenses.


I'll post some photos when I take some with the new lens.


Thanks!


Mitch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oren

Well it depends. The list could be "biased" - what I really mean by that is, if this lens is rented say 100 times a month, while the other lenses only say 40 times per month, there is obviously more chance to find a problem in this lens (the 17-55). Also, since so many people are using this lens, the chances are even higher - you don't know what the lens is going through while people are using it.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

READ their site: "The 17-55 f2.8 IS lens has a problem rate of 1.5% of rentals..." - that should normalize the results fairly well. Considering they've currently got 32 copies of it, they could therefore book perhaps 30-60 rentals in a month, or 360-720 rentals in a year. For 5-10 of those rentals to have a problem, that's a bummer.


Anyhow, I do hope the original poster enjoys their 18-200 purchase! :)