# Old L lenses that are still in production



## dolina (Mar 7, 2016)

These L lenses were introduced before 2006 and are still in production. They are likely to get a Series II or IS update.

1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2016)

I'm not so sure "likely" applies. If design age were a major priority for updates, the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 100/2 are older than all the lenses on your list. The 35/1.4 is a 1998 lens, that was updated recently but it's newer than most lenses on your list. Updates are driven by what Canon thinks is going to appeal to buyers, and today that's generally zoom lenses. 

For the 70-200 zooms, there are IS versions now and I doubt that Canon will update the non-IS versions. The popularity of the 70-200 zooms and 100-400 I/II make me wonder about updates to the 200/2.8, 300/4 IS and 400/5.6 lenses, not sure we'll see those either. Similarly, there have been patents published on updated designs for the 28-300L (some as a 24-300), but no lens has materialized – I don't think a new professional superzoom is a priority. 

I do expect we'll see an updated long macro, something like a 200/4 H-IS.


----------



## midluk (Mar 7, 2016)

I doubt the 70-200 non IS will be replaced. Those that want this focal length range for cheap are not likely to upgrade. And those that want to have the best will have to give more money to Canon to buy the IS version.
My guess is the f/2.8 will just be dropped at some point without replacement and the f/4 will at best be replaced by a non-L version.

And the 400mm has been replaced by the collapsible 400 w/IS (aka 100-400).


----------



## slclick (Mar 7, 2016)

I really don't want the 135 and 200 to get a refresh, I just don't need that kind of GAS agony. The ones I have are perfect. Now, the 300 f/4 and 400 5.6....... please and take my money.


----------



## H. Jones (Mar 7, 2016)

Surprisingly I see plenty of people still shooting with the 70-200mm f/2.8 rather often. I really can't imagine an upgrade however, because if people could afford a new $1,300 lens, they could probably afford the f/2.8 IS II, which I've seen(rarely) refurbished or used for around $1,500 now. f/2.8 IS II is easily my favorite lens.

There is absolutely nothing I can find wrong with it; it's sharp as a knife, IS works wonders(I've had plenty of shots at 200mm 1/15th that were completely sharp), the durability is incredible even after I've had it slammed into the ground during protests, and it's only 100 grams heavier than the non-IS, so if you're worried about weight, you're probably using the f/4 lenses anyway.

Of any of the lenses on the list, I wouldn't mind seeing a new 180mm f/3.5 macro if it had IS and fast autofocus. I know it's a specialty lens and almost always used on a tripod, but I would like if it could be a more multipurpose telephoto lens. It'd make a nice two-lens kit with a wider zoom; you'd have a decent telephoto and macro lens in one, possibly replacing my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II on nature hikes instead of making me bring a macro, a telephoto zoom, and a wide zoom. Add a supertelephoto lens to that and you have all of your nature photography bases covered in three lenses.

Now as a photojournalist I've always found the 28-300mm to be an interesting lens, but I'd rather it be 24-200mm and somewhat wider/sharper than 28-300mm f/5.6. I think that'd have a bigger market as well--I still don't know if I'd use it though, since I'm more of a two-camera kinda PJ anyway. 24-200mm would be a nice back up lens to keep in the bag though, since even if I lost both my 24-70mm and 70-200 on assignment I could still have that range covered for cheaper than buying spares of both lenses. Hm. 

Not much to say about any of the other lenses since I've never used them or really had a use for them. I could be interested in a cheap 500mm replacement to the 400 f/5.6, but I'm not sure how that would work out.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 7, 2016)

Some of those older lenses are still excellent and affordable too. Canon likely makes a nice profit on them because they sell well to those who want a "L" lens and a reasonable price, and they cost less to produce. 

In general, every one of them is a good buy.

With the refurbished 70-200mmL f/2.8 MK II sometimes falling below 1600, its falling into the more affordable category, but still out of reach for many.


----------



## The Supplanter (Mar 7, 2016)

dolina said:


> These L lenses were introduced before 2006 and are still in production. *They are likely to get a Series II or IS update.*



Where does this assertion come from?


----------



## dolina (Mar 7, 2016)

PA_phoxerballzz said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > These L lenses were introduced before 2006 and are still in production. *They are likely to get a Series II or IS update.*
> ...


Seriously? Are you new here?


----------



## The Supplanter (Mar 7, 2016)

dolina said:


> PA_phoxerballzz said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



Young lady, everyone shot you down. Embarrassing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2016)

dolina said:


> PA_phoxerballzz said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



Well, I'm not new here  but it sounds to me like you pulled that assertion out of one of your orifices that, not coincidentally, starts with the same trio of letters as 'assertion'. If you have anything beyond your own belief to support that assertion, it would be good to know. OTOH, if it's just your opinion that's fine, too – it will get the credence it deserves.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 7, 2016)

I believe the situation will be:

Green = Hammerlock certainty to be refreshed/upgraded (a question of _when_, not if)
Orange = Possibly up for a new version, but certainly not a high priority
Red = Unlikely to be refreshed/upgraded

Responding to your list and throwing in some older non-L primes as well:

1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM - a 'gateway drug' L lens for wildlifers
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM - all but obsoleted by the quality of the 70-200 lenses
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM - maybe not 180, but a macro with a larger working distance than we have with the 100mm options
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM - this is an opportunity more than a must, the current 135L is still great
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM - hate these lenses, but Canon simply has to offer one

1991 EF 100mm f/2 USM - seems super niche in light all the 70-200s and two 100 macros
1992 EF 20mm f/2.8 USM - 20mm devotees want much faster glass for astro --> future new L lens
1992 EF 85mm f/1.8 USM - a modern/modest 85 that isn't a pickle jar is a must
1993 EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - don't get me started, there are endless threads on this
1995 EF 28mm f/1.8 USM - like it or not, the non-L fast prime (other than 50/85) may be a thing of the past
2000 EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (non-L) - not everyone needs L quality, IS, etc. with macro

I'll be the first to say this is a total swag based on the overall value proposition / screaming need / 'You gotta have one of those in your portfolio' sort of considerations. (And yes, I deliberately left out the 50mm compact macro for petty reasons.)

- A


----------



## slclick (Mar 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I believe the situation will be:
> 
> Green = Hammerlock certainty to be refreshed/upgraded (a question of _when_, not if)
> Orange = Possibly up for a new version, but certainly not a high priority
> ...



The 200 is not obsoleted by zooms and white lenses, it holds a special place as the longest FL black Canon lens. Plus it's sharp as shite. Add a TC and it still AF's pretty quick and clean at 280 f/4. I think it's not needed to be updated since there's nothing wrong with it. Do we really need to add IS to every lens?


----------



## scyrene (Mar 7, 2016)

slclick said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the situation will be:
> ...



I wouldn't say nothing wrong with it. I sold mine pretty quickly because I found the colour fringing too strong.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 7, 2016)

slclick said:


> The 200 is not obsoleted by zooms and white lenses, it holds a special place as the longest FL black Canon lens. Plus it's sharp as S___e. Add a TC and it still AF's pretty quick and clean at 280 f/4. I think it's not needed to be updated since there's nothing wrong with it. Do we really need to add IS to every lens?



The 'special place as the longest FL black lens' is more a piece of trivia than a real value proposition to shooters. 

And both LensTip and PhotoZone (granted, one lens each) gives the nod to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II over that 200 f/2.8L at 200mm. _And_ the 70-200s can be teleconvertered as well. 

So the principal selling points of that 200 2.8 lens is cost/size/weight. Because of that, I see that lens in the 'Value L' bucket alongside the 17-40L, 24-105L, 400 f/5.6L, etc. 

Total speculation on my part -- I"m sure it's a fine lens and don't mean to sling mud -- but Canon surely isn't making the unit sales or dollars on that lens as it does on the various 70-200 zooms, so I have to believe that 200 prime is being left to rot (keep in production rather than refresh, adding IS, etc.) in favor of injecting energy into other parts of the portfolio. But I could certainly be wrong.

- A


----------



## slclick (Mar 8, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > The 200 is not obsoleted by zooms and white lenses, it holds a special place as the longest FL black Canon lens. Plus it's sharp as S___e. Add a TC and it still AF's pretty quick and clean at 280 f/4. I think it's not needed to be updated since there's nothing wrong with it. Do we really need to add IS to every lens?
> ...



I agree with most of what you wrote except for the black lens part. It is amazing to me (and I'm not in this camp mind you) that a HUGE amount of folks have a stigma about white lenses and feeling out of place, like a peeping tom, worried they are a theft target and on and on. But it's a fact. Also those on paper specs are things that are hardly perceptible to the naked eye. (200 vs the long end of the 70-200) And to compare a 1799 lens to a 599 lens is nuts. 

I also believe it's being left to rot by them and to be enjoyed by us.


----------



## dolina (Mar 8, 2016)

History will prove me right. I just provided that list for everyone's convenience.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 8, 2016)

dolina said:


> History will prove me right. I just provided that list for everyone's convenience.



Possibly -- who knows? But arguably, none of the lenses on your list are even in the top 5 most likely to come next:

I'd contend each of the following are much 'squeakier wheels', in higher demand, etc.:


EF 16-35 f/2.8L III USM --> it's hard to command a $1,500+ asking when the cheaper/slower f/4L IS lens outperforms it optically...
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS II USM (or similar replacement for the current EF-S 17-55)
EF 50mm f/1.4 II USM (or IS instead of II, it may not be f/1.4, etc.)
EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS USM --> this was always a 'once Nikon or Canon offers one, the other must follow suit' sort of 'yes we have that' portfolio peacock to show off
EF 200-600 f/5.6L IS USM (give or take -- a _somewhat_ affordable longest zoom to stack up to Nikon's 200-500, Sigma and Tamron's various 150-600s, etc.)

But Canon does work in nutty ways, so who knows?

- A


----------



## dolina (Mar 8, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > History will prove me right. I just provided that list for everyone's convenience.
> ...



You forgot the 800mm replacement. 

I have observed that the timing of updates are based on the following

* Technical reasons such as the lens is outresolved by a camera having too much megapixels
* Competitor offers an update before Canon like say the 24-70/2.8 VR or 16-35/4.0 VR
* Competitor offers a new product that they do not have in Canon's catalog like say the 14-24/2.8 or 200-400/4.0

in 2007 Sony Zeiss' 135mm f/1.8 was released so an update to the 1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM is likely

In 2015 Nikon released a DO version of the 1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 8, 2016)

Gotta say the 70-200mm f/4 USM is one hell of a sharp lens. I got a second hand one last summer and am blown away by how sharp it is.


----------



## TheJock (Mar 8, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > History will prove me right. I just provided that list for everyone's convenience.
> ...


I must say that this lens has me weak at the knees, I would jump all over it if it came out at a price I could justify, like around $5,000. What do you think it would cost for such a lens?????


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 8, 2016)

Stewart K said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



This is getting OT. Please see other threads on this topic -- this is one I am aware of:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28543.0

Undoubtedly price is part of that discussion, but you may have to hunt for it. Also, there's pretty wild speculation on that lens being a constant f/5.6 vs. variable like the 100-400 lenses, which dramatically would impact the size and cost of the lens. It's pretty well tortured in the thread above by those far wiser than I.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> This is getting OT.



Wait, there's a topic here? It's one guy's opinion about lenses Canon might or might not release. Undoubtedly history will prove that if you throw enough crap at the wall, some of it will stick.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > This is getting OT.
> ...



Okay, Neuro, I meant to say "The rather specific thread I broadened/hijacked has wandered off of the considerably wide road we've been driving down. We should return to madly speculating about lenses based on chronology, competitive activity, astrological signs, the presidential campaign, etc."

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Oh, all right then. I'm writing in Mickey Mouse for President, and if he wins then Canon will release an EF 16-600mm f/4L IS zoom for $1000, and history will prove I'm right.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, all right then. I'm writing in Mickey Mouse for President, and if he wins then Canon will release an EF 16-600mm f/4L IS zoom for $1000, and history will prove I'm right.



Nonsense.

Zero chance that lens has IS.

- A


----------



## The Supplanter (Mar 8, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, all right then. I'm writing in Mickey Mouse for President, and if he wins then Canon will release an EF 16-600mm f/4L IS zoom for $1000, and history will prove I'm right.
> ...



Ha! You two are hilarious!


----------



## RGF (Mar 12, 2016)

dolina said:


> These L lenses were introduced before 2006 and are still in production. They are likely to get a Series II or IS update.
> 
> 1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
> 1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
> ...



Both version of the 70-200 already have IS


----------



## dolina (Mar 12, 2016)

RGF said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > These L lenses were introduced before 2006 and are still in production. They are likely to get a Series II or IS update.
> ...


There are actually 4 versions currently in-production.

I was referencing a Series II 70-200 without IS that is f/2.8 and f/4.0.


----------



## dolina (Mar 12, 2016)

I will expound on my original post to dispel the replies that show an utter contempt or simple mean spiritness of which I find baffling. Who dropped you as a baby in boiling water that such veil poison spews forth?

1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
- film lens with film optics
- newer 70-200 without IS have come out from other brands after the 90s.

1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
- film lens with film optics
- In 2015 Nikon came out with an equivalent that is PF (Nikon's DO equivalent) that is lighter and smaller

2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
- In 2010 Nikon came out with an equivalent that is half the weight and price.

1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
- film lens with film optics
- Earlier than 2009 Sony came out with an equivalent that is 1/3rd stop faster
- newer lenses from other brands have come out after 1996

1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
- film lens with film optics
- newer long Macros have come out from other brands that are either faster or have IS after 1996

1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
- film lens with film optics
- Could be replaced by a Series III or with IS

1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
- film lens with film optics
- Could be replaced by a Series III or with IS

Now, granted some of these lens are not volume sellers or would not provide a cheap option at the very low end but it does not mean that they will not eventually get an update.

This thread purpose is to give prospective buyers a head's up on which product will be likely to be phased out because they're old and the competition came out with something more suitable to today's technical requirement.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Mickey will be on the ballot as VP, no write in required his running mate is in the hunt. He will be Goofy's VP pick.
Or maybe Goofette depending on your party affiliation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2016)

dolina said:


> This thread purpose is to give prospective buyers a head's up on which product will be *likely* to be phased out because they're old and the competition came out with something more suitable to today's technical requirement.



Likely...if you were Canon's CEO, perhaps. In most cases, *Canon* already has something 'more suitable to today's technical requirement'. Your title is mostly apt – old lenses still in production, although you should have specified L lenses since you omitted several old but 'current' non-L lenses. 

Of course, to be fair you didn't really give a specific time frame, so in that sense if someone is considering buying a 70-200mm f/4L in 2022, well, you've given them fair warning about the impending replacement.


----------



## dolina (Mar 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > This thread purpose is to give prospective buyers a head's up on which product will be *likely* to be phased out because they're old and the competition came out with something more suitable to today's technical requirement.
> ...


Congrats, you have the final word.


----------



## slclick (Mar 12, 2016)

dolina said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



http://ohgo.sh/archive/final-ward-cocktail-recipe/


----------



## JohanCruyff (Mar 18, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, all right then. I'm writing in Mickey Mouse for President, and if he wins then Canon will release an EF 16-600mm f/4L IS zoom for $1000, and history will prove I'm right.
> ...


 ;D 
BTW, there are just ten applications / candidates for major of Rome (Italy), and I think that Mickey Mouse is the right person... sorry, the right mouse at the right place, provided he asks Canon to deliver a 16-600mm F/4, of course.


----------



## wsmith96 (Mar 18, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > History will prove me right. I just provided that list for everyone's convenience.
> ...



I think you are right on two of these lenses. I'm thinking we'll see the updates 50mm and 16-35mm with the announcement of the 5D4, or shortly after it.


----------



## j-nord (Mar 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I believe the situation will be:
> 
> Green = Hammerlock certainty to be refreshed/upgraded (a question of _when_, not if)
> Orange = Possibly up for a new version, but certainly not a high priority
> ...



I agree with your greens except the 400 5.6. Its already been upgraded: 100-400ii. Unless they upgrade it to a 500 f5.6 IS. Even though the 300f4 seems unlikely in the near future this is probably the lens I would most like to see get refreshed.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 18, 2016)

My guess is new versions of the following L lens 
* 135/2.0 II - maybe as EF 135 F/1.8 

400/5.6, 300/4 are totally obsoleted by 100-400 II (and 70-300L). 
70-200 non IS .. Mk. II not going to happen, neither f/2.8 nor f/4
200/2.8 - Mk. III not going to happen

Non-L:
* 50/14 - yes 
* 85/1.8 - yes

100/2.0 - would be nice. I liked the lens except the high CA


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 18, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> My guess is new versions of the following L lens
> * 135/2.0 II - maybe as EF 135 F/1.8
> 
> 400/5.6, 300/4 are totally obsoleted by 100-400 II (and 70-300L).
> ...


The 23 year old 400F5.6 and the brand new 100-400II have about the same image quality at 400mm. That says a lot for one of the oldest lenses still sold.... 

If an updated version were to be released, I would be among the first to pre-order. For my purposes, the size and focal length can not be beat, and I really like lenses that are constant length as there is no dust and humidity being pumped through every time I extend or contract it....

Just like the old combo of 400F5.6 and 100-400, if you come out with a new 400II and match it against the 100-400II, the 400II will easily win on IQ and the 100-400II will easily win on sales.... but there is room for both.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 18, 2016)

well yes, mileage varies. 

Personally, if I get a zoom that is as good as or better than 95% of fixed focals, I will always take the zoom, even if it is a bit larger/heavier. I *guess* (= don't know for sure), that majority of market sees it the same way ... but if Canon ahs ample lens develompent resoruces, I would not mind them douing an EF 400/5.6 as well .. but only AFTER they have produced Ahsanford's 50/1.4 ... first things first! ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 18, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> well yes, mileage varies.
> 
> Personally, if I get a zoom that is as good as or better than 95% of fixed focals, I will always take the zoom, even if it is a bit larger/heavier. I *guess* (= don't know for sure), that majority of market sees it the same way ... but if Canon ahs ample lens develompent resoruces, I would not mind them douing an EF 400/5.6 as well .. but only AFTER they have produced Ahsanford's 50/1.4 ... first things first! ;D


I think you are right about the majority.... zooms outsell primes....far more versatile.... it's the people who have specific purposes/needs that go for primes.....


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 18, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> My guess is new versions of the following L lens
> * 135/2.0 II - maybe as EF 135 F/1.8
> 
> 400/5.6, 300/4 are totally obsoleted by 100-400 II (and 70-300L).
> ...



The 300mm f4 LIS is a curious beast. Yes the new 100-400 LIS II is optically superior and it's IS is in a different league. But it's not the only 300 f4 LIS competitor, the 70-200 2.8 LIS II with a 1.4x TC is also a serious consideration. Firstly it's more versatile than the prime, but it's IQ with the TC is just as good, plus it's AF and IS is also superior. Even the MFD and Max magnification is superior...so one has to wonder what's the point of the current prime and is it even worth replacing in the contect of the 100-400LIS II and 70-200 f2.8 LIS II zooms?


----------



## j-nord (Apr 18, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 400/5.6, 300/4 are totally obsoleted by 100-400 II (and 70-300L).



Yes, 400/5.6 is pretty much obsolete if you can afford a 100-400ii. I disagree about the 300f4 which has a 1 stop advantage over the 100-400II and 70-300L. I think it still has a place in the line up but I doubt we will see a refresh in the near future.



GMCPhotographics said:


> The 300mm f4 LIS is a curious beast. Yes the new 100-400 LIS II is optically superior and it's IS is in a different league. But it's not the only 300 f4 LIS competitor, the 70-200 2.8 LIS II with a 1.4x TC is also a serious consideration. Firstly it's more versatile than the prime, but it's IQ with the TC is just as good, plus it's AF and IS is also superior. Even the MFD and Max magnification is superior...so one has to wonder what's the point of the current prime and is it even worth replacing in the contect of the 100-400LIS II and 70-200 f2.8 LIS II zooms?



The AF and IS would be updated and the optics would also probably get a slight improvement which would be a net improvement over the 70-200ii + 1.4x TC


----------



## NancyP (Apr 18, 2016)

I can afford the 100-400 II, but haven't yet upgraded, and for the time being use my 400 f/5.6L. Right now I am more interested in a new computer.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 22, 2016)

dolina said:


> 2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
> - In 2010 Nikon came out with an equivalent that is half the weight and price.



Excellent example. This is a niche lens, and Canon managers have to ask themselves whether the investment in upgrades will return itself.

With a Nikon competitor, its likely nobody would switch brands for it. A 10x zoom isn't there for IQ, but for convenience of people who print relatively small anyway, so upgrade for sensor resolution (or, as you put it, "today's technical requirement") is probably not a factor here. Crop owners have the EF-S 18-200mm, so they're not really waiting for an expensive, heavy, and non-stellar-IQ FF upgrade. The lens was upgraded from film era (EF 35-350mm) to digital era.

So, yes - the previous upgrades was 10 years, I still don't see this is a priority for Canon.



dolina said:


> 1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
> - film lens with film optics
> - Earlier than 2009 Sony came out with an equivalent that is 1/3rd stop faster
> - newer lenses from other brands have come out after 1996



The 135mm f/2 L has great IQ and attractive price, all the more so compared to the nearly twice as expensive Sony 135mm f/1.8

I own the EF 135mm, and I wouldn't pay twice for a fraction of a stop. Maybe for an IS and IQ difference.



dolina said:


> 1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
> - film lens with film optics
> - newer long Macros have come out from other brands that are either faster or have IS after 1996



Macro lenses are a niche market, but as Sigma came with a competitor, and Canon having a new hybrid IS, my guess Canon will upgrade this one relatively sooner rather than later.



dolina said:


> Now, granted some of these lens are not volume sellers or would not provide a cheap option at the very low end but it does not mean that they will not eventually get an update.



Volume influences profit, and profit influences how attractive is an upgrade for Canon. So, though it doesn't mean it wouldn't get an update eventually, it does mean it would take a while.

This thread purpose is to give prospective buyers a head's up on which product will be likely to be phased out because they're old and the competition came out with something more suitable to today's technical requirement.
[/quote]


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 22, 2016)

dolina said:


> - film lens with film optics



Whoa! It's a good thing my (digital) cameras don't know any better and still accept the light and images from all my "film optic" lenses.


----------



## kphoto99 (Apr 22, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > - film lens with film optics
> ...



Lens designed for film is different then a lens designed for digital. The reason for the difference is the thickness of the sensor stack. The glass in front of the sensor has an effect on light. Google "sensor stack thickness" and look at the article from LensRentals for a better explanation then I could give here.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2016)

kphoto99 said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



Given that article, one would expect the same Zeiss lens to be _much_ sharper on the Sony A3000 than on the A6000 – is that the case?

I'd also note some flawed assumptions, like theoretical MTFs based on a glass refractive index of 1.52, when any camera with an AA filter in the stack has a substantial proportion of the stack as LiNbO3 with a refractive index of 2.3.


----------

