# Which L lens will be the first mark III?



## hammar (Jul 9, 2012)

Just something that hit me while reading the last post about 24-70 IS.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the most updated current L lenses are mark II, right? I am just counting lenses that has a "II" in its name, not stabilized/non-stabilized lenses.

Which of the current L mark II lenses do you think will be the first to be updated and receiving the mark III designation. There is one shitty EF-S kitlens currently in mark III?

My bet would be 85/1.2L III.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2012)

hammar said:


> There is one shitty EF-S kitlens currently in mark III?



Yes, there's the EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III, but there is also the EF35-80mm f/4-5.6 III, and the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 made it to MkIII in both USM and non-USM versions. Want to go further? The EF28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 III USM was followed by *MkIV* and *MkV* versions of the same lens. 

I think we'll see either an 85L III or a 24L III as the first MkIII L-series, but I think it will be quite a while before that happens.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> hammar said:
> 
> 
> > There is one shitty EF-S kitlens currently in mark III?
> ...



Or even the TSE-24 might make it


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> hammar said:
> 
> 
> > There is one shitty EF-S kitlens currently in mark III?
> ...



How about the 16-35?


----------



## AdamJ (Jul 9, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> How about the 16-35?



+1


----------



## Bosman (Jul 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> hammar said:
> 
> 
> > There is one shitty EF-S kitlens currently in mark III?
> ...


I'd guess the 85L but not the 24L as it is pretty new, i realize the 85L is not too old as well. As far as outside your parameters of which ones are first i'd say the 35L since it is so old and popular and lacks gasketing like other L's.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 9, 2012)

The TC's are considered "L" lenses and are at Mark III now.


----------



## hammar (Jul 9, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The TC's are considered "L" lenses and are at Mark III now.



Alright, except from the TC's


----------



## chito (Jul 9, 2012)

Who knows if Canon is going to start putting IS on their L primes.. I'd say 85LIII, unless they add IS.. of course, the one that I know for sure is going to have a MkIII is the 70-200 f2.8 IS


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 9, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The TC's are considered "L" lenses and are at Mark III now.



Can I send mine back? They're missing the red ring! :


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 9, 2012)

chito said:


> Who knows if Canon is going to start putting IS on their L primes.. I'd say 85LIII, unless they add IS.. of course, the one that I know for sure is going to have a MkIII is the 70-200 f2.8 IS



I wonder how feasible it is to have IS on fast primes. Seems like f/2.8 is the max aperture for IS. Does any company have IS on 35mm SLR lenses that are faster than f/2.8?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> I wonder how feasible it is to have IS on fast primes. Seems like f/2.8 is the max aperture for IS. Does any company have IS on 35mm SLR lenses that are faster than f/2.8?



Forgotten about the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS, have we? ???


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how feasible it is to have IS on fast primes. Seems like f/2.8 is the max aperture for IS. Does any company have IS on 35mm SLR lenses that are faster than f/2.8?
> ...



.... and it is probably Canon's best lens too ....

I just love it on ff


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how feasible it is to have IS on fast primes. Seems like f/2.8 is the max aperture for IS. Does any company have IS on 35mm SLR lenses that are faster than f/2.8?
> ...



Yes, I did! Are there any for f/1.4 or f/1.2?


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 9, 2012)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > hammar said:
> ...


----------



## dhofmann (Jul 9, 2012)

I'm going to go with the 200mm f/2.8L II USM prime lens, unless it acquires image stabilization, in which case it would become the 200mm f/2.8L IS USM.

The reason is because it's soft and has very low contrast wide open. Being an L-series prime, it should have better image quality than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, but it doesn't.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 10, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...




+100


----------



## kpk1 (Jul 10, 2012)

hammar said:


> My bet would be 85/1.2L III.



Agree with you.


----------



## pwp (Jul 10, 2012)

My money is on the 16-35 f/2.8 for the III treatment. 

PW


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 10, 2012)

Not answering the question here, but I'd say we'll definitely see the 35 f/1.2L II lens before another Mark III. I could very well be wrong, but this is just my guess based upon all the current lenses there are. My perfect lens though would be a 65 or 70mm f/1.4L lens.


----------



## Otter (Jul 11, 2012)

I would love to see the 16-35mm III and a 85mm 1.2 III.


----------



## AdamJ (Jul 11, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> I'm going to go with the 200mm f/2.8L II USM prime lens, unless it acquires image stabilization, in which case it would become the 200mm f/2.8L IS USM.
> 
> The reason is because it's soft and has very low contrast wide open. Being an L-series prime, it should have better image quality than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, but it doesn't.



You must have a bad copy. I admit I've never used one but I can't recall anyone describing that lens as soft.

Anyway, I confidently predict there will never be a 200mm f/2.8 III, nor a 200mm f/2.8 IS.


----------



## Bosman (Jul 12, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Not answering the question here, but I'd say we'll definitely see the 35 f/1.2L II lens before another Mark III. I could very well be wrong, but this is just my guess based upon all the current lenses there are. My perfect lens though would be a 65 or 70mm f/1.4L lens.


Oops i cross moginated this with what lens is next topic. The 35mm will def not be getting a III.lol
I do shoot 70mm a lot on the 24-70 so i would have to agree that it is a very nice focal length and at F1.4 it would be amazing!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 13, 2012)

Sorry, I meant the 35 f/1.4L II lens would be out before any other of the lenses had a Mark III, not 1.2. It's hard to have a 1.2 Mark II when there isn't even a Mark I of those yet I suppose? 

And yes, I agree. When I'm using my 24-105L lens, I find myself shooting at 65-70mm at least 80-90% of the time. Get me a 65mm f/1.4L 8)


----------



## dhofmann (Jul 14, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> I admit I've never used one but I can't recall anyone describing that lens as soft.


See for yourself. The L zoom is sharper than the L prime.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 15, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> AdamJ said:
> 
> 
> > I admit I've never used one but I can't recall anyone describing that lens as soft.
> ...



Yes. The 70-200L II IS lens at 200mm is sharper than the 200mm f/2.8L lens, but not the 200mm f/2L lens.


----------



## Bosman (Aug 3, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, I agree. When I'm using my 24-105L lens, I find myself shooting at 65-70mm at least 80-90% of the time. Get me a 65mm f/1.4L 8)
> ...


Yes, a great combo!


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 8, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > How about the 16-35?
> ...



It might become 14-24 f2.8


----------



## Bosman (Aug 9, 2012)

If the current rumor holds true the 35LII it is!


----------

