Printable View
I read in a forum that this lens was being trialled andit had a 82mm filter. I know there are a lot of technical experts on this site, can anyone guess how big the lens would be and how probable a rumour like that would be?
Could it be Canon's answer to the Nikon, 24-120 that has just been released?
Appreciate your opinions.
Steve
To believe in to such a rumor would mean that I would have to debate with myself if I would need such a lens. After all collecting L lens becomes a habit.
But....wouldn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve U
My guess would be about the same as the 24-105 f/4 L.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve U
Not very probable. The only lenses that Canon makes that are constant aperture are "L" , the non-L are always variable aperture. Modern normal "L" zooms always start at 24mm, the non-L normal zooms always start at 28mm. A 24-135 f/4 L I could believe, but it would be too similar to the existing 24-105 to keep both going, so it would have to be a replacement.
- I could believe a 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 to replace the existing one.
- I could believe a 24-135 f/4 L replacing the existing 24-105.
- I highly doubt 28-135 f/4
Don't take word for it, of course -- I've been very bad at guessing new Canon lenses in the past (although not as wrong as the rumors sites -- almost *anyone* does a better job guessing than they do).
Personally, what I'd like to see is a 14-24 f/2.8 L IS and 24-70 f/2.8 L IS, both with quality that matches the new 70-200 f/2.8 II L IS.
Just found this, thoughtI would throw it our there, with the talk going on about lens revisions because of 25mp+ sensors coming next year.
From Photo.net
<span style="font-weight: normal;"]Apparently Canon is testing a new <strong class="highlight"]28-135 Lens. This is a direct quote I received via email.[/b]
<blockquote>
Canon is currently performing research, prototyping & testing new <strong class="highlight"]28-135[/b]mm F4 L IS; less wide angle and more telephoto. Engineering says it would require 2 extra LD glass elements; shifting price to an additional $800 CAD of the original <strong class="highlight"]28-135[/b]mm MSRP. such a lens would cost and estimated $1549 MSRP. It is also Canons next generation Image Stabilization will be released; called “IS2″, where the two additional long magnets are present, where larger float distance of separation between groups; yielding up to now 5 stops of effective stabilization; both in longitudinal and lateral vibrations will be dampened. IS2 will consume approximately 20% battery power.
</blockquote>
- Mount: EF
- Focal length 28 – 135 mm IS2 II
- Maximum aperture F4.0 w/ IS
- Minimum aperture F22
- Lens construction 21 elements in 14 groups
- Diaphragm blades 8
- Image stabilizer 4-stops tested
- AF actuator Ring USM (full-time manual focus built-in)
- Filter diameter 82 mm
- Dimensions (dia x len) 88.5 x 112 mm
- Weight 730g EST.
Source: http://photo.net/equipment/canon/24-105/
If sensors get up around 28mp there will be a need for a few lens upgrades.
Steve
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
With the exception of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Mark
[quote user="Steve U"]how probable a rumour like that would be?[/quote]
I highly doubt Canon would release such a lens. I agree with Daniel that it is too similar to the 24-105mm f/4L to really fill any void in the line up. The current 24-105mm is a superb lens, there
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trowski
Well, most Nikon lenses are about 20-30% more than their Canon counterparts -- but I wouldn't consider the 14-24 as the counterpart to the 16-35 -- they're pretty different IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trowski
You're probably right, but the "neat" factor would be there. Nikon added VR to their new 16-35 f/4. Imagine four stop I.S. at 14mm. If you normally can do 1/15 at that focal length, it would allow you to do a full 1 second exposure. Nightscapes, blurred street life, lots of possibilities. Practical reality is probably more like two stops, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trowski
Well, at least Canon met you half-way with the new 70-300. [:D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by clemmb
Thanks for the correction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve U
21 MP to 28 MP may sound like a big jump, but it's only 33% increase in pixel count and 15% increase in linear resolution. Think of it like going from 4.2 MP to 5.6 MP -- not that different, right?
I'd like to see 100 MP or so, to get more resolution out of existing lenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Crikey Daniel,I won't besubmitting any self portraits if it gets up to 100MP.
I like myself with a blurry, rough around the edges fetching mystique and I'm lucky that my skill level delivers like that for me.
Stuff on Canon Rumors can be fun to discuss...but almost all of it is completely bogus (although I give the guy props for re-interpreting his previous predictions in light of what Canon actually does, in such a way that he was right instead of way off base!).
Here's my take (again):
<div class="post"]
<div id="msg_2576" class="inner"]How can it be the 28-135mm f/4L IS II when there's not a Mk I version of that lens? It's the same reason all the clowns who email that they've seen the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS II are bogus - there is not an IS version of that lens, so if they add IS it would be not be a MkII.</div>
<div class="inner"]</div>
<div class="inner"]I don't get the 82mm filter size. </div>
<div class="inner"]</div>
<div class="inner"]Also, what the heck is, "both in longitudinal and lateral vibrations will be dampened." IS damps<span class="bbc_u"]angularvibrations. Lateral vibrations are currently damped only by the new Hybrid IS. Longitudinal vibrations would mean forward-back motion of the camera; AI Servo AF helps correct for that, but for IS to perform a similar correction it would actually have to move the focusing groups - something that seems unlikely. And why does the rumor state that this new 'IS2' provides 5 stops of stabilization, then list the specs as, "Image stabilizer 4-stops tested"? </div>
<div class="inner"]</div>
<div class="inner"]Given that the vast majority of Canon bodies sold are 1.6x crop, I don't see them taking anything from the wide end of a walkaround zoom.
I declare shenanigans! [:P]
Of course, the original post on photo.net beat me to the declaration - look at the last line, "**all of the above statements are<del>mearly</del>merely speculation and rumors."</div>
</div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
<div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve U
I like your sense of humor!
</div>Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Excellent deconstruction, John.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
A clinical disseection, you sir are a mythbuster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
And to work the "shenanigans" into any reply is very creative. I also noted there was no red L attached to the "Rumor lens" that honor must only go to lenses that can be viewed on the Canon website.
Oh well, it did seem like a good partner for my 5Dmk3 and 100-400mm 4-5.6IS ll combo, guess I'll just put that back into the cupboard too.[*-)]
Should probably go and take some photos.