# The 10 Oldest Canon Lenses in Production



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 10, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/the-10-oldest-canon-lenses-in-production/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/the-10-oldest-canon-lenses-in-production/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com" target="_blank">The-Digital-Picture</a> has written a cool little article about the 10 oldest Canon lenses currently in production.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12145-USA/Canon_2537A003_50mm_f_2_5_Compact_Macro.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Lens Buy – 1987</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens Buy – 1990</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12058-USA/Canon_2518A003_Telephoto_EF_100mm_f_2_0.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM Lens Buy – 1991</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12132-USA/Canon_2536A004_TS_E_45mm_f_2_8_Normal.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon TS-E 45mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift Lens Buy – 1991</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12192-USA/Canon_2544A003_Telephoto_Tilt_Shift_TS_E.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift Lens Buy – 1991</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12182-USA/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens Buy – 1992</a></li>
<li>Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Lens Buy – 1992</li>
<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12129-USA/Canon_2526A004_400mm_f_5_6L_USM_Autofocus.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens Buy – 1993</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12140-USA/Canon_2515A003_50mm_f_1_4_USM_Autofocus.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens Buy – 1993</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-USA/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank"> Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens – 1995</a></li>
</ol>
<p>We’ve been hearing for a long time that the tilt-shift lenses would get the L treatment and that the 50 f/1.4 would be replaced with a slower IS version. All of which are expected in 2014.</p>
<p>The 400 f/5.6L has been often rumored for a replacement. <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/a-new-ef-400-f5-6l-before-photokina-cr1/" target="_blank">We recently heard about stock issues</a> with the lens, and the possibility of an IS version arriving for Photokina in 2014.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t expect a replacement for anything else on the list.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=8777" target="_blank">Read the full article</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Jan 10, 2014)

I own 3 of these.. nearly 4...


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jan 10, 2014)

Haha! I recently sold my Canon 28-135mm lens. I expected to see it on this list until I notice "In production". It was a fun lens.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 10, 2014)

I hope that EF 50mm Macro gets replaced soon with a EF 60mm IS macro with internal focusing. I really need a 50-70mm range macro lens with IS to accompany my Sigma 150mm OS macro. Most of the macro lenses for full frame camera in that range are quite old and need replacements.


----------



## Pixel (Jan 10, 2014)

The 100 f2 is underrated? The last one I tested had so much CA in it I could barely make out the image....ok that's slightly exaggerated but it was a LOT!


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 10, 2014)

I purchased the canon 20mm 2.8 for $80.. I would've kept it if it was good.. That lens needs an update if canon will renew that focal distance. I couldn't resist the price at the time. :


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 10, 2014)

Pixel said:


> The 100 f2 is underrated? The last one I tested had so much CA in it I could barely make out the image....ok that's slightly exaggerated but it was a LOT!



The lateral CA is near zero I the longitudinal CA is well visible at f/2 if you have strong contrasts like branches of a free against a bright sky. From f/4 on it's much (!) crisper than e.g. the f/4 70-200 L lens!
But perhaps I had luck with my sample!


----------



## Ricku (Jan 10, 2014)

I'm hoping for a 16-35 III or 17-40 II with razor sharp corners.


----------



## dolina (Jan 10, 2014)

I expect all these lenses will become Ls or get IS.

I also expect prices to double for the updates.


----------



## scottburgess (Jan 10, 2014)

I've been saying the 50mm f/2.5 macro is ridiculous for 15 years. It's sharp, but dim. You have to pay more to get the "Life-Size Converter" but then the focal length is 70mm, which is too close to the 100mm macros. It's bulky and slow to focus. The Sigma 50mm macro always made more sense to me if someone was looking for that focal length.

So what could Canon give us? Larger maximum aperture? Tilt-shift features? Faster autofocus? 2:1 maximum magnification? Lots of room for improvement here.


----------



## noncho (Jan 10, 2014)

I have 100/2 and 200/2.8 and they NEED replacement - 100 have horrible purple fringing, 200 needs IS.


----------



## 5D2-shooter (Jan 10, 2014)

Remarkable how long some lenses have been around.

A few errors unfortunately.

The original article is about the oldest lenses “available”, not “in production” as described on this site. These old lenses would have been produced in a batch, probably 10+ years ago, and sat in a warehouse since then. I doubt any of then are in production now.

The 200mm f2.8 II was introduced around 1996, not 1991. The 1991 introduction would have been the 200mm f2.8 which we now call the Mark 1 which hasn't been available since 1996.

The 50mm f2.5 macro is no longer officially available in my country. As it seems not to be particularly popular I suspect the B+H stock is a few leftovers.


----------



## Viper28 (Jan 10, 2014)

noncho said:


> I have 100/2 and 200/2.8 and they NEED replacement - 100 have horrible purple fringing, 200 needs IS.



I have the 200/2.8L II and price for performance its a great lens. I agree IS would be nice but being small, light and black I can often use it in places were a 70-200L is inpractical or too noticable. It also works well with the 1.4x TC if required.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 10, 2014)

noncho said:


> I have 100/2 and 200/2.8 and they NEED replacement - 100 have horrible purple fringing, 200 needs IS.



The 200mm f2.8 II L which I used to own was SO sharp it was possibly sharper than the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II which I replaced it with. It was a stunning optic and rediculously cheap for it's performance. A real sleeper lens!

It's funny when I look at the age of these lenses and often over looked / unloved lenses....take a look at Nikkor's lens catalogue. A lot of them are a LOT older!


----------



## tomscott (Jan 10, 2014)

Why would Canon make a slower version of the 50mm 1.4? In that respect its not a direct replacement and because its a prime larger F numbers are kind of expected.

Personally I would rather have the wider aperture than IS for a 50mm focal length… 1.4 is a nice sweet spot between F1.2 and F2. With higher ISO being so much better now I understand that could be a reason but surely people buy this for the narrow DOF look wide open would give?


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 10, 2014)

I've owned 3 of them and fortunately replaced them. 50mm f1.8 and 1.4 and 100mm f2 replaced by 50mm f1.2L and 100mm f2.8L is.


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 10, 2014)

I love the 70-200mm 2.8L I'm not even thinking about selling it!!!!


----------



## infared (Jan 10, 2014)

Happily...I do not own any of them!!!! ;D


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 10, 2014)

A new 85mm f/2 IS is most needed.

As for the 50mm... a f/2 IS should replace the nifty fifty. A fast 50/1.4 non-L is a must. Canon should replace the current version (as the L version) without changing FL and aperture.


----------



## RomainF (Jan 10, 2014)

dilbert said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > Why would Canon make a slower version of the 50mm 1.4? In that respect its not a direct replacement and because its a prime larger F numbers are kind of expected.
> ...



I've been praying for years for a fast ultra wide prime. 20mm f/1.8 ; 18 f/1.8 and i'll buy two of each !


----------



## Sabaki (Jan 10, 2014)

Question: why does it seem that the apertures on proposed replacement lenses are getting smaller?

Canon EF 50 f/1.4 to Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS &
Canon EF 85 f/1.8 to Canon EF 85 f/2.0 IS

It's as if those larger wide open apertures are undesirable but certainly the advancement in technology should make new lenses capable at those speeds? 

What am I missing in this line of logic?


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 10, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Question: why does it seem that the apertures on proposed replacement lenses are getting smaller?
> 
> Canon EF 50 f/1.4 to Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS &
> Canon EF 85 f/1.8 to Canon EF 85 f/2.0 IS
> ...


Answer: Cost. Adding IS increases cost and the only way to keep these lenses affordable (they are part of the consumer line, not L line) is to reduce the aperture. Canon has the technology to do about anything, but they have to balance aperture against things like image quality, size, weight, features (IS) and cost.


----------



## Jemlnlx (Jan 10, 2014)

135mm f/2 just missed it, maybe # 11 on the list - 1996 I think...still one the best lenses. Sharpness + super fast focusing!!


----------



## mrzero (Jan 10, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Question: why does it seem that the apertures on proposed replacement lenses are getting smaller?
> ...



To be fair, though, the two lenses mentioned here are both rumors. The actual lenses and their respective apertures haven't been announced yet. 

As for the three non-L IS versions that have been announced, two of them kept the same aperture as their predecessors (24/2.8 and 35/2). Both jumped in filter size (52mm to 58mm and 67mm, respectively), although Canon doesn't seem to be very concerned with filter sizes any more. 

Only the 28mm dropped from 1.8 to 2.8, which is a shame because a 1.8 with IS would have been a great "normal" lens on crop and would have made a real distinction between the new 24 and 28. But Canon has kept the original 28/1.8 thus far, so apparently they weren't ready to kill that particular darling just yet, despite the sense it would have made. Now they have two 28s in the lineup, which sell for about the same amount new, with the only spec differences being aperture and IS. 

Trying to make sense out of Canon lineup decisions is maddening. For instance, why start putting IS in your wide angles rather than your telephotos???


----------



## deleteme (Jan 10, 2014)

Two of my favorite lenses are on the list; the 85 1.8 and the 70-200 2.8L . While the vII of the 70-200 has a bit better performance wide open neither lens is a slouch.

Whatever replaces them will never deliver IQ improvement that any client would notice. For me the real proof is that despite their vintage their resale value is still very high.


----------



## jthomson (Jan 10, 2014)

mrzero said:


> Trying to make sense out of Canon lineup decisions is maddening. For instance, why start putting IS in your wide angles rather than your telephotos???




Video.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 10, 2014)

mrzero said:


> To be fair, though, the two lenses mentioned here are both rumors. The actual lenses and their respective apertures haven't been announced yet.
> 
> As for the three non-L IS versions that have been announced, two of them kept the same aperture as their predecessors (24/2.8 and 35/2). Both jumped in filter size (52mm to 58mm and 67mm, respectively), although Canon doesn't seem to be very concerned with filter sizes any more.
> 
> ...



I think the decision about the 28mm lenses make sense. Canon has two options:

1. Kill both the f/1.8 & f/2.8 versions, and sell a 28mm f/1.8 IS USM. Canon sells only one lens.

2. Upgrade the f/2.8 w/ IS & USM, and keep selling the f/1.8. Canon sells two lenses, one having already covered it's expenses, allowing customers to choose between either a 1+ stop and IS & USM.

More importantly, the 2nd option leaves a wider margin to release an L, e.g. EF 28mm f/1.4 L USM. A lot of people would rather have IS over a fraction of a stop, especially if neither have weather sealing. Make the difference two stops, and things look a lot different.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 10, 2014)

mrzero said:


> To be fair, though, the two lenses mentioned here are both rumors. The actual lenses and their respective apertures haven't been announced yet.
> 
> As for the three non-L IS versions that have been announced, two of them kept the same aperture as their predecessors (24/2.8 and 35/2). Both jumped in filter size (52mm to 58mm and 67mm, respectively), although Canon doesn't seem to be very concerned with filter sizes any more.
> 
> ...



The 28 f/2.8 IS replaced the 28 f/2.8 non-IS. The 28 f/1.8 is still being sold; the 28 f/2.8 non-IS is not.

Also agree with Ellen that Canon is leaving the option open to release a fast 28mm lens. The non-L IS lenses are 35 f/2, 28 f/2.8 and 24 f/2.8. The Ls go 50 f/1.2, 35 f/1.4 and 24 f/1.4. A 28 f/1.4 L would slot nicely between the 35 and 24Ls. Although I'm not sure if there is a sufficiently large market for 28mm primes anymore. It seems like the 24s are a lot more popular than the 28s.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 10, 2014)

You know it's slow in Canon land when people start making lists like this to pass the time!


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jan 10, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> mrzero said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, though, the two lenses mentioned here are both rumors. The actual lenses and their respective apertures haven't been announced yet.
> ...



I'd buy a 20mm f1.8 (or 2.0) L if it was on par with the 24L & 35L


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 10, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> You know it's slow in Canon land when people start making lists like this to pass the time!



Only if you ignore the DR threads. :


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 10, 2014)

Daniel Flather said:


> I'd buy a 20mm f1.8 (or 2.0) L if it was on par with the 24L & 35L



I'd be interested in that too, which would allow much to ditch the 16-35 II.


----------



## robbinzo (Jan 10, 2014)

I don't think that Canon should replace the 50mm f/1.4 with a f/1.8 IS. The reason being the Sigma Art lenses.
I would hazard a guess that a new Canon 50mm f/1.8 IS would be a similar price to the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4. That would be an interesting choice.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 10, 2014)

robbinzo said:


> I don't think that Canon should replace the 50mm f/1.4 with a f/1.8 IS. The reason being the Sigma Art lenses.
> I would hazard a guess that a new Canon 50mm f/1.8 IS would be a similar price to the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4. That would be an interesting choice.



I wouldn't be surprised if the IS goes into a f/1.8. A lens at f/1.4 with IS is too close to the L, unless they made a f/1.2L with IS, but Canon's strategy seems to IS their non-L lenses, and maximum apertures are reserved for their L counterparts (i.e. at 24mm and 35mm). With the Sigma 50 coming in larger than the previous version, a small and compact 50 f/1.8 IS would be great for those that value low weight and discretion while the 50L II would have to offer more than the S50.


----------



## mrzero (Jan 10, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> mrzero said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, though, the two lenses mentioned here are both rumors. The actual lenses and their respective apertures haven't been announced yet.
> ...



My bad -- I completely forgot about the old 28/2.8. If you take that into account, then all of the new IS primes have actually kept the same aperture as the lens they replace. If the 50 IS turns out to be 1.8, perhaps that means the 1.4 will stay and the nifty fifty will go (with the pancake being the low-cost gateway prime). Or maybe the 50 IS will be 1.4 and the 85 IS will be 1.8 -- I think those would really sell like crazy. 

Also, I wouldn't think there is much market for a 28L. There is at least 10mm between all the Ls from 14 to 50 (excluding the TS-E lenses), and that would be 4 and 7 from the 24 and 35.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jan 11, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> The 28 f/2.8 IS replaced the 28 f/2.8 non-IS. The 28 f/1.8 is still being sold; the 28 f/2.8 non-IS is not.



Yep. If you look at the lens body you can propably sort lenses by style. There are 3 lines.
The black (cheapest) line - (15 2.8 Fisheye), 24 2.8, 28 2.8, 35 2.0, 50 1.8, no 85, no 100, 135 2.8 Softfocus.
The golden line (little golden ring at the front element) - 20 2.8, 28 1.8, no 35, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 100 2.0, no 135
The L line - 14 2.8, 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, (100 Macro), 135 2.0, ...

Currently Canon only replaced the black line - and the new body (of 24 IS, 28 IS, 35 IS) has a silver ring at the front (makes sense, isn't?) - so propably there will be a replacement for the 50 1.8 with IS, but no 85 (because this is the golden line!). Or they begin to replace the golden line after the possible 50 1.8 also. Or they add a silver version with less f-stop for 85 and 100 into the silver line.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 11, 2014)

I wonder about the 50mm lenses.

The 50mm f/1.8 was what the EF-S 18-55mm is today. I guess it's sold because it already covered it's R&D & tooling costs, and people buy it to get a cheap, fast, small lens. Point being the 50mm lens which is in the same class as the 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, and 35mm f/2 is the f/1.4, not the f/1.8

Therefore I would expect Canon to upgrade the 50mm f/1.4, and keep the existing 50mm f/1.8 because it's profitable.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the f/1.2 upgraded to give a fair fight to the competition, the f/1.4 upgraded with IS & full ring USM, and the f/1.8 sold on just the way it is.


----------



## Knut Skywalker (Jan 11, 2014)

I own the 100mm f/2 and I love it for portraits. You have a nice distance to the model for the close headshots and the bokeh is as creamy as it gets. For 300€ used you get a hell of a lot of bang for your buck. Currently it's one of two lenses I own together with the 50mm f/1.4 and i really like them both for portraits.


----------



## rbr (Jan 11, 2014)

I'd also buy a 20L if it was on par with the 24L in a heartbeat. I'd also settle for a revamped 20 f2.8 IS if it was as good as the new 28 and 35 IS lenses. Same with something slightly wider like an 18mm.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 11, 2014)

RomainF said:


> I've been praying for years for a fast ultra wide prime. 20mm f/1.8 ; 18 f/1.8 and i'll buy two of each !



Not Canon, nor loved by all, but Sigma has been making one for years. It's a specialty lens for sure and I love my copy even with its odd MF/AF clutch and switch mechanism:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/20mm-f18-ex-dg-asp-rf


----------

