Two new EF lenses?

[Kayaker72]

If the rumors hold, next week is going to be a good week for announcements. In addition to the 5DIV, we will be looking at an EF 16-35 f/2.8 III and a EF 24-105 f/4 IS II.

Personally, I am pretty set on lenses for awhile. But I am happy to hear about these two. Hopefully they are inline with all the other recent zoom lenses (11-22, 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 II, etc) that have been announced with top notch construction and IQ. I will say, again if the rumor holds, this also continues the trend of bigger heavier zoom lenses.

But, I expect these to be great and I imagine they will find their way into many photographers kits, just not mine unless I decide to shake something up next winter.

[Manofmayo66]

Honestly, I was hoping for more mid-priced primes with IS. A 50, 85, 135 & 200 IS primes would make me very happy.

[Kayaker72]

Honestly, I was hoping for more mid-priced primes with IS. A 50, 85, 135 & 200 IS primes would make me very happy.

I hope I am wrong, but I think the response to 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS, and 35 f/2 IS release really hurt the potential for future "mid-priced" primes. Canon introduced those at ~$800-$850 and within 6 months to a year had to drop the prices by $200-$300 dollars (20-35%).

It looks like the 35 f/1.4 L II has held its price for about a year. Hopefully that will encourage Canon to release a 135 f/2 II (or 135 f/2 IS), 24 f/1.4 III, etc.

With all the recent releases, it certainly seems like a zoom centric strategy. Best hope is that with these last two zooms, most of the zooms are pretty current, or even if slightly older, still elite (70-200 f/4 IS, etc), perhaps Canon will turn their attention to primes in 2017.

Perhaps, but in a shrinking market, I wonder if Canon will focus on something that is currently non-existent. Some sort of new angle to drive sales. Such as a EF version of Nikons 105 f/1.4? Prosumer zoom out to 600 mm? Of course, I do not know. But it is encouraging that Canon continues to release 3-5 lenses a year.

[Manofmayo66]

Perhaps, but in a shrinking market, I wonder if Canon will focus on something that is currently non-existent. Some sort of new angle to drive sales. Such as a EF version of Nikons 105 f/1.4? Prosumer zoom out to 600 mm? Of course, I do not know. But it is encouraging that Canon continues to release 3-5 lenses a year.

How about a 400 f/5.6 IS? I would think that updating old lenses would be a potentially profitable market. I can't image someone at Canon thinking.....hmmm the Sigma 50 Art is really kicking our collective asses, let's give up on a good fast prime that isn't a f/1.2. But hey what do I know....

[neuroanatomist]

Personally, I am pretty set on lenses for awhile.

Blasphemy!

In fact, I thought was in a similar place regarding gear, at least for major purchases (i.e. not counting the new EF-M 28mm macro that I picked up a few weeks ago). The 1D X II looks great, but I'm not feeling limited by my 1D X, so I'm not planning on switching.

But...GAS is incurable. I could see myself being tempted by the 24-105 II if the IQ comes close to the 24-70/2.8 II (I am skeptical that will be the case, but hopeful).

I'm not at all tempted by the 16-35/2.8 III. Had the MkII, only rarely used it wide open. Admittedly, though...one other reason I'm not tempted by the new 16-35 is that I plan on picking up the 11-24L very soon, prior to a trip to the Loire Valley next month.

[peety3]

I'm not at all tempted by the 16-35/2.8 III. Had the MkII, only rarely used it wide open. Admittedly, though...one other reason I'm not tempted by the new 16-35 is that I plan on picking up the 11-24L very soon, prior to a trip to the Loire Valley next month.

So, as a former owner of the EF-S 10-22 and the 16-35/2.8 II, and a present owner of the 16-35/4IS, 14/2.8II, and 11-24/4, the 11-24 stays home a lot. The 16-35/4IS is my "first-alarm" lens on a 5DsR, and if I'm not shooting but my wife is, she takes it as her wide alongside a 24-105. If we're both shooting, I tend to consider whether 14mm prime is OK alongside a 24-70/2.8 II, and if so she gets the 16-35 (I tend to be a little more flexible with lens choice, plus I don't let her use the 5DsR except under well-controlled circumstances, so I feel comfortable "composing to crop" with the 14). The 11-24 is huge (quite a struggle to get it into a Shootsac, probably needs to be upside-down when in adjacent "lens slots" in our Lowepro backpacks or Pelican case, with adjacent lenses right-side up, extremely hard to get in/out of a Lowepro LensExchange case, etc.), heavy, just plain awkward, and seems to be a bit distorted at 11mm.

But trust me, my horrible case of GAS is about to flare up something fierce with annual bonuses getting paid out on the 15th. I've got my eye on some Profoto stuff, perhaps a Canon printer, maybe a 24/1.4II, and if Santa is really nice, just maybe a 200/2...

[neuroanatomist]

So, as a former owner of the EF-S 10-22 and the 16-35/2.8 II, and a present owner of the 16-35/4IS, 14/2.8II, and 11-24/4, the 11-24 stays home a lot. The 16-35/4IS is my "first-alarm" lens on a 5DsR, and if I'm not shooting but my wife is, she takes it as her wide alongside a 24-105. If we're both shooting, I tend to consider whether 14mm prime is OK alongside a 24-70/2.8 II, and if so she gets the 16-35 (I tend to be a little more flexible with lens choice, plus I don't let her use the 5DsR except under well-controlled circumstances, so I feel comfortable "composing to crop" with the 14). The 11-24 is huge (quite a struggle to get it into a Shootsac, probably needs to be upside-down when in adjacent "lens slots" in our Lowepro backpacks or Pelican case, with adjacent lenses right-side up, extremely hard to get in/out of a Lowepro LensExchange case, etc.), heavy, just plain awkward, and seems to be a bit distorted at 11mm.

Too late...the 11-24L is on order and should ship out today.

I also previously owned the EF-S 10-22 and 16-35/2.8 II, and sold the latter intending to buy the 16-35/4 IS...but went with the TS-E 17 instead. Since I have excellent 17mm prime and the 24-70/2.8 II, and almost all of my travel shooting is done on a tripod, I'm not feeling like the 16-35/4 IS would add much to my capabilities. OTOH, I'm thinking the 11-24 will provide a rather unique perspective.

If I really need to 'run-and-gun' with a stabilized UWA, I've got the M2 and M11-22 (admittedly, a much slower 'gun' than my 1D X). I bring that combo for daytime walkabouts during business travel (the 1D X kit comes out at blue hour), along with the EF mount adapter so the M2 can serve as an emergency backup.

I'm not too fussed about the size and weight of the 11-24 – it may seem big and heavy, but it's tiny and light next to the 600/4 IS II that I carry around on briding walks.

[NFLD Stephen]

I'm not too fussed about the size and weight of the 11-24 – it may seem big and heavy, but it's tiny and light next to the 600/4 IS II that I carry around on briding walks.

Congrats on the new lens purchase! A new lens is always fun!

Don't want to hijack the thread, but you mention carrying around the 600 on birding walks. Just curious how you (and others) would use these large lenses on-the-go. Do you bring a tripod or monopod? Shoot any handheld as birds present themselves or do you have to take the time to setup a tripod every time a bird is spotted? For perspective, the largest lens I have is the 100-400 II so I'm curious about the logistics of the larger lenses. It would seem to me that if you are walking and looking for birds, that by the time you could setup a tripod to get a good shot, most birds would be moving again...?

Stephen

[neuroanatomist]

Congrats on the new lens purchase! A new lens is always fun!

Don't want to hijack the thread, but you mention carrying around the 600 on birding walks. Just curious how you (and others) would use these large lenses on-the-go. Do you bring a tripod or monopod? Shoot any handheld as birds present themselves or do you have to take the time to setup a tripod every time a bird is spotted? For perspective, the largest lens I have is the 100-400 II so I'm curious about the logistics of the larger lenses. It would seem to me that if you are walking and looking for birds, that by the time you could setup a tripod to get a good shot, most birds would be moving again...?

How I carry/use the 600 II depends on the season. I really only use a tripod/gimbal in winter, when shooting eagles or snowy owls – in those cases, I'm heading to a spot, setting up, and waiting...and waiting...and waiting. Outside of winter raptor shooting, I walk/hike and carry the lens on a BlackRapid strap (the left handed one, ever understood the point of a lefty strap for a camera, but it makes perfect sense for a supertele where you need to lift/hold with the left hand to shoot with the right). I have a monopod along in case I'll be staying in one spot for a while. This is me, from a while back on a blustery day at Sachuest Point in Rhode Island...

[Kayaker72]

Don't want to hijack the thread, but you mention carrying around the 600 on birding walks. Just curious how you (and others) would use these large lenses on-the-go. Do you bring a tripod or monopod? Shoot any handheld as birds present themselves or do you have to take the time to setup a tripod every time a bird is spotted? For perspective, the largest lens I have is the 100-400 II so I'm curious about the logistics of the larger lenses. It would seem to me that if you are walking and looking for birds, that by the time you could setup a tripod to get a good shot, most birds would be moving again...?

Stephen

I walk around with my Sigma 150-600S either holding it by the foot or cradling it. I've yet to shoot it off a tripod or monopod. Everything has been hand held.

It is a big lens. It does take some technique, and looking at John's set up, I might try something similar. But it is doable.