The james webb telescope won't be great for taking pictures of planet as it will be an infra-red telescope.
Hopefully, NASA will have funding for it, then later funding for a replacement for the hubble in normal light wavelength.
On the contrary, JWST is better for observing planets. Earth's thermal emission, for example, peaks at around 10 microns; if you want the best chance at observing an Earth-like planet, you should try and observe at that sort of wavelength if at all possible, since that makes your contrast problem smaller. Higher resolution is fairly easy to get in this case.
A straight replacement for Hubble probably will not be forthcoming. The atmosphere is very transparent at optical wavelengths. While resolution does suffer due to atmospheric effects, and stupid-accurate Kepler-style photometry is not possible from the ground due to unpredictably changing atmospheric conditions, you can build a 10 or even a 30 m mirror for a ground-based telescope. You can't even get close to that for a space mission, at least not without absolutely staggering costs. It is a better use of available money and science time/effort to only build optical space telescopes for specific missions that aboslutely require space, such as Kepler, Gaia (parallaxes), etc, precisely because the atmosphere is so transparent to visible light. This is usually because of the required long-term resolution or photometry accuracy. Adaptive optics can make up the resolution difference for just about everything else.
Guardsman Bass wrote:
In any case, it's good news. I wonder if Kepler is capable of confirming the discovery and finding the radius.
Unfortunately, no. The planet probably doesn't transit its star in the first place (it was found by HARPS, a radial velocity instrument), nor is it anywhere near the Kepler field. For various reasons, Kepler will not be repointed from its current field at any point during the mission lifetime.