# Canon EF Lens Speculation [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 23, 2012)

```
<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/?p=11703"></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/?p=11703">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>What’s in the pipeline?

</strong>A few more confirmations about a new EF 800 f/5.6L IS II being in the works. It was stressed that it is no where near market ready and Canon will probably wait for Nikon to get their new 800 to the world. The EF 200 f/2L IS is also on the update radar, but is for the distant future.</p>
<p>Another source claims to have tested a new “Canon ultra-wide zoom on an EOS-1D Xs”.</p>
<p><strong>A New 135L?

</strong>We have received lots of information over the last few years about a replacement to the EF 135 f/2L. It reminds me of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II, which turned out to have a lot of prototypes before it was released and caused me a lot of headaches :). The current tested prototype is said to be an EF 135 f/2L IS. A replacement seems imminent, although I’m not sure if the IS version will ever make it to market.</p>
<p><strong>When is the new stuff coming?

</strong>I’m told that current NDA’s expire at the “end of the month”. I hope to know more soon in regards to announcement date(s), there is definitely more coming in 2012.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## albron00 (Oct 23, 2012)

Something tells me the price is gonna be double for new EF 135 f/2L IS


----------



## TriGGy (Oct 23, 2012)

A new 135mm f/2L IS would be a dream all right - albeit sharpness can take a slight hit, maybe a 135mm f/1.4L?  Probably they can find a way to let in more light in a longer lens but the lens could look like a longer 85 1.2L and cost too much.


----------



## funkboy (Oct 23, 2012)

Well, no one with decisional power within Canon is likely to read this, but if they release a 135 f/2L with IS as good as the original I'll preorder one, along with a 2x TC.


----------



## david (Oct 23, 2012)

If find no priority in replacing the formidable 135L. But where is the long awaited 1.4/50 upgrade? This is important and long overdue.


----------



## DzPhotography (Oct 23, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> Another source claims to have tested a new “Canon ultra-wide zoom on an EOS-1D Xs”.


I hope this is the 14-24


----------



## preppyak (Oct 23, 2012)

albron00 said:


> Something tells me the price is gonna be double for new EF 135 f/2L IS


Yeah, if it follows the exact price increase of the 24-70, it'd be about $1700-1800 retail (from its $1089 now). That's assuming they wont also charge more for IS, so, who knows.


----------



## kidnaper (Oct 23, 2012)

Here's hoping that ultra-wide is the 14-24, and that I don't have to sell both my 16-35II and a kidney to afford it. Any speculation on price? I'd not be the least bit surprised to see it at $2,499.


----------



## preppyak (Oct 23, 2012)

kidnaper said:


> Here's hoping that ultra-wide is the 14-24, and that I don't have to sell both my 16-35II and a kidney to afford it. Any speculation on price? I'd not be the least bit surprised to see it at $2,499.


Probably a decent guess. The Nikon version retails a little over $2000, so, a Canon version is probably in the $2500 range.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 23, 2012)

Give me a 135L f/1.8 IS. The current 135L is already perfection, but IS and f/1.8 would only make it irresistible.


----------



## dolina (Oct 23, 2012)

I 2nd the 135/1.8 IS.

Funny that lens speculation is now CR1 for the 800 and 200.


----------



## funkboy (Oct 23, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Give me a 135L f/1.8 IS.



I think I'd prefer f/2, just add IS. The extra 1/3 stop of an f/1.8 model would probably increase the front element size up to 77 or 82mm (just a guesstimate) & increase the weight by 20-30% (in addition to the weight increase from the IS system). That would probably be a ~$2000 lens, if not more.

The beauty of the 135L is amazing IQ, very nice reach for a lot of situations, and an already-awesome f/2 max aperture, all in a very portable & affordable package.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 23, 2012)

funkboy said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Give me a 135L f/1.8 IS.
> ...



Zeiss already makes a 135mm F1.8.  And its awesome. The 2000$+ price tag wouldn't bother me for a lens that I Use the most.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 23, 2012)

I would hope that if the 135mm gets an update, that the 200mm 2.8 would also be in line.


----------



## preppyak (Oct 23, 2012)

unfocused said:


> I would hope that if the 135mm gets an update, that the 200mm 2.8 would also be in line.





funkboy said:


> The beauty of the 135L is amazing IQ, very nice reach for a lot of situations, and an already-awesome f/2 max aperture, all in a very portable & affordable package.


See, the thing is, the major advantage to the 135L and the 200mm f/2.8 right now is that they are dirt cheap compared to their quality. You can get 70-200L level results from each for <1/2 the price. Once you update both, especially if there is IS, the price moves a lot closer to the 70-200L. Especially for the 200mm f/2.8, when its street price is <$800, I can't see anyone buying the updated IS version for $1500 or so.

I can see the 135L getting that update, because the f/2 is an advantage...the 200mm I hope doesn't get updated, because that means there is always that cheaper option around


----------



## unfocused (Oct 23, 2012)

preppyak said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I would hope that if the 135mm gets an update, that the 200mm 2.8 would also be in line.
> ...


Well obviously I disagree. I don't have much interest in a zoom at 200mm or less. So a light, small 2.8 prime with IS would interest me much more. Even at double the current price I'd be interested. Different strokes.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 23, 2012)

Hey does this mean I can buy a new car at the same price I paid 10 years ago?


----------



## 7enderbender (Oct 23, 2012)

jrista said:


> I am just curious here, since quotes like this always seem to crop up in threads like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow. That's pretty harsh, given that you are making some assumptions yourself that from an economics standpoint might need further evaluation. Most things have become cheaper over the last several years. And if you leave out gas price fluctuations (a whole other can of worms) you may see that most of the Western world is actually faced with DEflation - despite the fact that our governments have increased the money supply to unprecedented levels.
But with everything that is rather complex some items for sometimes unclear reasons have become more expensive or stayed pretty much the same. Optical stuff seems to be one of these areas. Not sure what the camera manufacturers are thinking. Maybe they can charge more for lenses now because cameras have come down to a more reasonable level after the "digital revolution" is everyday stuff now. Other lenses may come down again once the supply-demand cycles normalize things again. I don't really see spending over $2000 on a 24-70 even if I had money sitting around. The current 135L is a great deal in my opinion and (don't tell Canon) I might have spent a few bucks more even if necessary. But not a whole lot more. And I rather have it without IS anyway. Metal barrel and everything? Yeah, I'd pay a little extra for that. The optics are fine as they are. That's actually true for all their lenses. I wish they were of even better built quality.


----------



## 7enderbender (Oct 23, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Hey does this mean I can buy a new car at the same price I paid 10 years ago?



Yes, pretty much. Cars are actually cheaper than they used to be - and you get much more stuff with them. You can get brand new cars for under $14,000 these days.


----------



## jrista (Oct 23, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I am just curious here, since quotes like this always seem to crop up in threads like this:
> ...



Well, Canon has spent into the hundred million dollar range with R&D on their optics, lens design, integrated AF chips, etc. in general over the last decade. I guess I implied it was just for one lens, which it is not. They do spend proportionately large amounts of money researching and developing optical designs that no one else does, such as diffractive optics (something previously thought impossible) and viable fluorite lenses (which requires growing giant, flawless crystals), etc.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 23, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey does this mean I can buy a new car at the same price I paid 10 years ago?
> ...



I meant the same new car.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 23, 2012)

jrista said:


> Does everyone truly, honestly believe that the introductory MSRP of a brand new lens should or even could be exactly the same as the current street price of the item it may be replacing?



I can't speak for everyone, but will speak for myself:

1. Part of progress is reduction of R&D and manufacturing costs, e.g. by using automation & mechanization. Computers have changed things drastically over the last three decades.

2. I don't expect it to cost the same, but don't expect it to be, say as in the case of the new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, ~60% more expensive either.

3. I'd expect some of the profits from previous lenses to go into R&D of new lenses. E.g. Canon sold the 24mm f/2.8 for almost 25 years before releasing the new IS USM version, and made some money from it.

4. Inflation applies the same way to existing & new lenses.


----------



## jrista (Oct 23, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I am just curious here, since quotes like this always seem to crop up in threads like this:
> ...



You may not quite understand the kind of optics that are going into Canons newer generation of lenses. Canon's older generation of lenses that use optical designs a decade old or older are not always capable of resolving the kind of detail modern high-density sensors can. Canon's 18mp APS-C sensor is capable of resolving more detail than most of their middle-grade L-series lenses can offer. Only the top few superteles, such as the 300mm f/2.8 L II and it's immediate family, could really resolve anywhere close enough to fully take advantage of a 4.3 micron sensor. As sensors push into 40mp or even 50mp FF territory, and 25mp to 30mp APS-C territory, we are going to need lenses that perform at a much higher optical level.

Canon has produced a variety of innovations either not found anywhere else, or found only in one or two competitors. Nanocoatings on lenses (SWC), for example, which uses a fairly precise coating of nano-scale wedges on the lens, rather than a multicoating, required a considerable amount of R&D to develop. The only other manufacturer that has something similar is Nikon, with their Nano Crystal Coat, which uses nano-scale spherical grains rather than wedges. Canon developed a way to grow near-flawless fluorite crystals for use in lenses as an alternative to UD glass (as its ability to reduce dispersion is superior to UD). They have been continuously developing their fluorite crystal growth, and are capable of producing very large, truly flawless crystals in a large enough quantity to start mass-manufacturing supertelephoto lenses with multiple fluorite lenses. The use of multiple fluorite lens elements is one of the few key factors directly responsible for the extremely high cost of Canon's new line of supertelephoto lenses, along with more expensive and far lighter materials for the lens barrel. Canon has also put in a tremendous amount of R&D into not only proving diffractive optics could actually be used to counteract CA in lenses, but developed it and produced several lenses using the technology. They have continued to develop diffractive optics, and have greatly refined their processes and designs such that they now have somewhere around 6-8 new DO lens design patents using far superior DO designs with smaller gratings, multi-layered gratings, etc.

All of that R&D is funded by the sale of their own products, and as such it is no surprise that newly introduced lenses carry a hefty price tag...whether they actually directly benefit from the technological advancements or not. Personally, I chose and continue to choose Canon because they never seem to stop pushing the envelope with their optical research. They have brought more newfangled lens designs and lens technology to market in the last decade than any other manufacturer, including Zeiss. That is something I appreciate, and I'm not about to diss Canon for selling their products at high prices to fund it all, so long as the market can bear them. (Which, so far, it certainly seems to...I want to buy myself a either one or both of the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II and EF 600mm f/4 L II, and I can't even find them in stock anywhere. Whenever I get a notification from the likes of B&H or Adorama, by the time I find a computer log in, and try to buy, they are already sold out. I've never been one for backordering things...but I may just have to.) If the market can bear a price, and a product is in high demand, then it seems as though *the price is fair*.


----------



## jrista (Oct 23, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Does everyone truly, honestly believe that the introductory MSRP of a brand new lens should or even could be exactly the same as the current street price of the item it may be replacing?
> ...



True, over the last three decades. Not quite as much over the last decade, and most of Canon's previous generation of lenses are within a decade old.



Ellen Schmidtee said:


> 2. I don't expect it to cost the same, but don't expect it to be, say as in the case of the new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, ~60% more expensive either.



Are you comparing the current street price of the older 24/2.8 to the MSRP of the new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM? That is exactly what I would call an unfair price comparison. Even comparing with it's current list price, $540, is a bit unfairl. That older lens has been on the market forever. What was the original price of the 24 f/2.8, or the price from just a decade ago? $650? Compared to a list price of $850 for the new 24mm f/2.8 lens, the price difference is about 30%, rather than 60%. When you account for inflation over the last decade, a $650 lens from 2000 would be an $874 lens today. The newly released lens on an inflation-normal basis is actually a little cheaper. Even if we assume the price a decade ago was $540, with inflation that is $726, a 17% difference in price (although I believe I am being far too fair with that comparison.)

Oh, and inflation does apply. The kinds of rarer and commodity materials used in lenses have most definitely not experienced deflation like some things. Metals and chemicals in particular have experienced quite a bit of cost inflation in the last decade. 



Ellen Schmidtee said:


> 4. Inflation applies the same way to existing & new lenses.



Sure, however a new lens just released only has a price right now. There is no historical price to apply inflation to. A decade-old lens, on the other hand, had a higher price 10 or 15 years ago than it does today...when you adjust for inflation.


----------



## 7enderbender (Oct 23, 2012)

jrista said:


> You may not quite understand the kind of optics that are going into Canons newer generation of lenses. Canon's older generation of lenses that use optical designs a decade old or older are not always capable of resolving the kind of detail modern high-density sensors can. Canon's 18mp APS-C sensor is capable of resolving more detail than most of their middle-grade L-series lenses can offer. Only the top few superteles, such as the 300mm f/2.8 L II and it's immediate family, could really resolve anywhere close enough to fully take advantage of a 4.3 micron sensor. As sensors push into 40mp or even 50mp FF territory, and 25mp to 30mp APS-C territory, we are going to need lenses that perform at a much higher optical level.



Hm. I don't know. I don't fully buy that argument as far as the "made for digital" redesign goes. Sure, they all have done some amazing things over the last few decades though a lot of this is really not that new. Coatings maybe. But there has always been a need for very good lenses with small frame photography - which is why Leica lenses are so good. There is probably still some room for improvement but there are physical limits when it comes to resolution that no optical formula can make go away.
I'm still operating under the assumption that if something was good enough for 35mm film it's good enough for my 5dII. Maybe there is still some room when it comes to 40MP or so cameras. We'll see.

The weakest link in my opinion is still printing technology. Even today's resolution doesn't make it onto a print unless you go pretty big. And on screens it's irrelevant as well. Those of us obsessing about detail sharpness would probably still be better served using medium or large format film and traditional prints.

And when it comes to sharpness a tripod is likely to be a better investment still at this point than thousands of dollars for lenses with super-duper-made-for-digital resolution. In other words: I really don't see how it would be a top priority to replace something like the 135L or original 24-70 etc


----------



## jrista (Oct 23, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You may not quite understand the kind of optics that are going into Canons newer generation of lenses. Canon's older generation of lenses that use optical designs a decade old or older are not always capable of resolving the kind of detail modern high-density sensors can. Canon's 18mp APS-C sensor is capable of resolving more detail than most of their middle-grade L-series lenses can offer. Only the top few superteles, such as the 300mm f/2.8 L II and it's immediate family, could really resolve anywhere close enough to fully take advantage of a 4.3 micron sensor. As sensors push into 40mp or even 50mp FF territory, and 25mp to 30mp APS-C territory, we are going to need lenses that perform at a much higher optical level.
> ...



I won't generally disagree about resolution...past lenses have been very good. Once a lens becomes diffraction limited at a given aperture, you have reached perfection. If you compare MTF's for Canon's new generation of telephotos (300, 400, 500, 600 Mark II's), against their predecessors, you'll see a fairly marked improvement in the new generation. That indicates that the previous generation was not actually diffraction limited at wider apertures, and that there was (and perhaps still is) room for improvement. Given that the last generation were already SO GOOD, at least in my opinion, it is not surprising that producing a lens that is markedly better involves a lot of costly research and development and new, previously unused (or infrequently used) technology and optical materials. I am not sure I'd say Canon is building lenses for the current generation of cameras. I would say that Canon is building lenses for the next decade or two of cameras, assuming sensor pixel densities continue to increase at a similar rate as they have been...in which case we would need far superior optics than we did two years ago (as well as rock-solid stable tripods).

I agree about print. It's rather ironic that people do obsess over resolution so much when for the majority of them, their final publishing platform is the web, at low densities and tiny sizes relative to even an 8x10 print.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2012)

jrista said:


> It's rather ironic that people do obsess over resolution so much when for the majority of them, their final publishing platform is the web, at low densities and tiny sizes relative to even an 8x10 print.



Hey man, don't slam on my facebooking, k? 8)


----------



## jrista (Oct 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > It's rather ironic that people do obsess over resolution so much when for the majority of them, their final publishing platform is the web, at low densities and tiny sizes relative to even an 8x10 print.
> ...



Or slam myself for my 500pxing? ;P


----------



## RS2021 (Oct 23, 2012)

Mark II of 135L?? 
Why paint the Peacock?


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 24, 2012)

jrista said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



The EF 24mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/2.8, and TS-E 24mm f/3.5 are less than a decade old?



jrista said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > 2. I don't expect it to cost the same, but don't expect it to be, say as in the case of the new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, ~60% more expensive either.
> ...



Which means Canon had "forever" of sales to profit from and save toward financing R&D of new model.



jrista said:


> What was the original price of the 24 f/2.8, or the price from just a decade ago? $650?



You mean the old lens became 25% cheaper to make within a decade and in face of inflation, and materials used in lenses not experiencing deflation? Wasn't that my point above?



jrista said:


> Compared to a list price of $850 for the new 24mm f/2.8 lens, the price difference is about 30%, rather than 60%.



No - I compare how much it costs to make a 24mm f/2.8 *now* to how much it costs to make a 24mm f/2.8 IS USM *now*.



jrista said:


> When you account for inflation over the last decade, a $650 lens from 2000 would be an $874 lens today.



Why would I compare the price to 10 years ago? Was the lens just release, so Canon was in 'R&D costs recouping' phase? A decade ago the 24mm f/2.8 was still a decade old lens.



jrista said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > 4. Inflation applies the same way to existing & new lenses.
> ...


[/quote]

No, inflation means the price of the 24mm f/2.8 today should have been higher than it's price 10 or 15 years ago. If it's lower, than it's price had deflated, e.g. because "part of progress is reduction of manufacturing [and distribution, etc] costs".


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 24, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> and Canon will probably wait for Nikon to get their new 800 to the world



Not that I'm likely to be able to afford an 800L :-o but I wonder why Canon is so conservative in the L lens department - they've got some strange video IS lenses around, but obviously Nikon has to be ahead (24-70, 14-24) to make Canon do something about it. While they can adjust the quality and esp. price to their advantage, this is hardly innovation - hello, Canon, *I*'d buy at least a better 50/1.4 lens!


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 24, 2012)

If it's about a wish list, then here you are : 

17mm f2.8 USM
24mm f2 IS USM
35mm f2 IS USM
45mm f2.8 TS-E II L
90mm f2.8 TS-E II L
14-28mm f2.8 USM L (x2 range sounds better)

plus they should redesign some very old lenses with poor IQ and / or old design:

20mmf2.8
28mmf1.8
50mm f2.5 Macro

IMO the wide angle range needs a serious upgrade

One is allowed to dream.....


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 24, 2012)

All I really want is true ring USM in the 50 1.4. They need to move forward on all the non USM and micro motors left in the lineup sans the STM line.

But an update to the primepipes would be nice.


----------



## dave (Oct 24, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> Mark II of 135L??
> Why paint the Peacock?



Because it could be better.


----------



## funkboy (Oct 24, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> Mark II of 135L??
> Why paint the Peacock?



'cuz she's a shaky peacock & we want her to be stabilized


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 24, 2012)

dave said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > Mark II of 135L??
> ...



And it could be more expensive


----------



## 7enderbender (Oct 24, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > Razor2012 said:
> ...




Well, that's a bit tricky to compare. There is no "same" car in that sense. The car that I bought in the late 90s had no ABS, no air bag (!), no GPS, not even power steering. So yes, today's Honda Civic is more expensive in both relative and absolute terms, but you also get a lot more value. Real or perceived. So to be fair you'd have to compare that kind of car to one of the budget choices from Korea these days.

Part of this is not really inflation/deflation but rather a function of discretionary spending ability in this country and other wealthy parts of the world. Not to get further off topic but I'm one of the crazy people that this is also one of the key drivers behind rising healthcare cost. People just have a lot of money to burn - even after the market crash and during the recent recession. There is so much stuff that has become incredibly cheap that people are willing to "invest" in stuff like more expensive health insurance and stuff like it. Especially in areas where value is almost impossible to assess for normal human beings. So you operate under the assumption that the most expensive will be the best. Not always true but still. 

Same happens with camera gear I suppose - and other luxury items if you will. Have a look at the prices for expensive watches or pens for example. It's a very specific market segment. And that skews some of the realities. Maybe Canon isn't selling a lot of the 135L lenses because every ambitious amateur with money to burn jumps to a 70-200 2.8L. Maybe the 135 is "too cheap". This problem does exist in luxury markets. Maybe a new 135L 1.8IS or whatever is more or less a marketing tool and not much else.


----------



## dave (Oct 24, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> dave said:
> 
> 
> > Ray2021 said:
> ...



...could. It most certainly will be.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 24, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> If it's about a wish list, then here you are :
> 
> <snip>
> 24mm f2 IS USM
> ...



I'd rather have it extended x2 the other way - 12-24mm f/2.8 USM. I'd settle for 14-24mm f/4 with IQ as good as good as the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8

If Canon can make an EF 35mm f/2 IS USM with IQ as good as the Samyang 35mm f/1.4, I'm buying one.

I've read reviews of the new EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, and looking at FF corners, it's not enough to make me buy it as an addition to the 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. If Canon can make an EF 24mm f/2 USM with IQ as good as the Samyang 24mm f/1.4, I'm buying one.


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 24, 2012)

Sorry about the 14-28mm, I clearly lacked ambition here... :-[

You're right a 12-24mm sounds more appealing.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 24, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> Sorry about the 14-28mm, I clearly lacked ambition here... :-[
> 
> You're right a 12-24mm sounds more appealing.



It will then fall in line with the 24-70 & the 70-200. 14-200 @2.8.


----------



## KyleSTL (Oct 24, 2012)

TriGGy said:


> A new 135mm f/2L IS would be a dream all right - albeit sharpness can take a slight hit, maybe a 135mm f/1.4L?  Probably they can find a way to let in more light in a longer lens but the lens could look like a longer 85 1.2L and cost too much.



135 f/1.4 - 135/1.4 = 96.4mm (105mm filter?)
135 f/1.8 - 135/1.8 = 75mm (77mm or 82mm filter)
135 f/2 - 135/2 = 67.5mm (72mm filter)

A 135mm f/1.4 would put it in the same class as the 200mm f/2 (100mm objective) and 300mm f/2.8 (107mm objective) both in terms of size and weight. A suggested 135mm f/1.8 is definitely more reasonable in terms of size, weight and price.



Ellen Schmidtee said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > True, over the last three decades. Not quite as much over the last decade, and most of Canon's previous generation of lenses are within a decade old.
> ...



To put numbers behind it, Canon has made 159 different EF/EF-S lens models since 1987. Currently Canon USA lists 68 lenses (I take issue with 5, as they are no longer in production and no longer available new - 300mm f/2.8 IS I, 400mm f/2.8 IS I, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS I, 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM, 15mm Fisheye). Out of the remaining 63 lenses here is how they break down by release date:

0-10 years - 37
10-15 years - 10
15-20 years - 9
20+ years - 7

So his statement is correct - 37/63 (59%) are 10 years old or less, which constitutes 'most'


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 24, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Those are all the lenses, while we're talking about lenses upgraded recently (= within the last few years).


----------



## Daniel Flather (Oct 26, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> If Canon can make an EF 35mm f/2 IS USM with IQ as good as the Samyang 35mm f/1.4, I'm buying one.
> 
> If Canon can make an EF 24mm f/2 USM with IQ as good as the Samyang 24mm f/1.4, I'm buying one.



Then the next logical question I have is: Why not just buy the Samyang lenses?


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 26, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon can make an EF 35mm f/2 IS USM with IQ as good as the Samyang 35mm f/1.4, I'm buying one.
> ...



Already did, but as far as wishing go, I'd like autofocus as well.


----------



## dolina (Oct 26, 2012)

Lenses with large entry pupils use rear drop-in filters with 52mm threads.

A 135/1.4 would roughly weigh 2-2.5kg like a 400/4 DO, 200/2.0 or 300/2.8 as they all have similarly sized entry pupils. It would sell for roughly $6,000-9,000.

Sony's 135/1.8 is designed for a 77mm thread filter. One with IS may require a 82mm thread.

A rather old lens (1993) the 400/5.6 is ripe for a IS version.

The main reason Canon does anything is in reaction to what the competition does. 

A 135 update is very possible because of Sony.

Nikon have updated these lenses of late. I expect Canon to update theirs to catch up. This list in not exhaustive.

28/1.8
85/1.8
50/1.8
35/1.4
28-300/3.5-5.6
17-40/4 VR
35/1.8
50/1.4
85/2.8 tilt shift
45/2.8 tilt shift
14-24/2.8

24-70/2.8 with IS is very possible seeming Tamron has one with VC. It may take Nikon to nudge them along though.



KyleSTL said:


> TriGGy said:
> 
> 
> > A new 135mm f/2L IS would be a dream all right - albeit sharpness can take a slight hit, maybe a 135mm f/1.4L?  Probably they can find a way to let in more light in a longer lens but the lens could look like a longer 85 1.2L and cost too much.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2012)

dolina said:


> The main reason Canon does anything is in reaction to what the competition does.



Ok...but, how does that explain f/1.2 lenses, the MP-E 65mm, the TS-E 17mm, the 800/5.6 which Nikon is only now apparently getting around to releasing, etc.?


----------



## dolina (Oct 26, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > The main reason Canon does anything is in reaction to what the competition does.
> ...


Those are secondary reasons.  They have a technical advantage so they push it. ;D

IIRC Nikon cannot offer 1.2 lenses with AF due to the flange distance of the F mount. A drawback in having to support legacy technology.

In terms of lenses Canon has a larger lineup but they only update in reaction to what the competition is doing.

Like say the 135L will probably get a refresh within 24 months while the 200/2.8, 300/4L IS, 400/4 DO 400/5.6L, 70-200/4L, etc will get one 24 months after today. The those lenses are rather unique to Canon.

35/1.4L is a certainty.




It just a matter of time.




Seeming we all know this will happen allows us the opportunity to set aside money for them when they come out.


----------



## pwp (Oct 28, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Give me a 135L f/1.8 IS. The current 135L is already perfection, but IS and f/1.8 would only make it irresistible.


+1 
How do you improve on the 135 f/2? The only meaningful way forward is 135 f/1.8is. It's almost certain to be bigger. But it's unlikely to be such astonishing value as the current lens; it could not sell anywhere near the price of the 135 f/2 which is easily found for under $1k new. 

-PW


----------



## tron (Oct 28, 2012)

pwp said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Give me a 135L f/1.8 IS. The current 135L is already perfection, but IS and f/1.8 would only make it irresistible.
> ...



IS possibly. BUT, it would cost close to 2K$ and ... who would dare to sell his/hers own superb existing 135mm copy if Canon were to stop its production. I wouldn't ! In addition 1.8 is too much. I cannot find a real reason as it would skyrocket the cost...


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 28, 2012)

tron said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Zeiss already makes a 135 f1.8, adding IS should be straightforward. Its entirely probable and stupendously practical in reach, and speed limited situations. 

It'd be around 85L II price territory but I'd be ok with that.


----------



## dolina (Oct 28, 2012)

$2k for a 135/1.8L IS would be fine by me. The 135/1.8 of Sony is $1,800.


----------



## tron (Oct 28, 2012)

dolina said:


> $2k for a 135/1.8L IS would be fine by me. The 135/1.8 of Sony is $1,800.


Which means Canon with IS would cost around $2.5K not $2K


----------



## dolina (Oct 28, 2012)

tron said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > $2k for a 135/1.8L IS would be fine by me. The 135/1.8 of Sony is $1,800.
> ...


Now now dont be too hasty. Sony has been historically more expensive than Canikon due to economies of scale.

IS and Series II tend to be double that of non-IS and Series I.


----------



## tron (Oct 28, 2012)

dolina said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...


That depends whether the two features will be introduced at the same time or not. IF Canon either gives us IS or 1.8 the price will increase very much and (unfortunately) it will increase again when they will introduce the second feature. If they introduce both features at the same time maybe $2K is possible.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 30, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > pwp said:
> ...



same as long as they dont use the poxy MF focus by wire thing like the 85 has that would anoy me on a lens that costs that much but i'd be super happy for a 135 f1.8 IS


----------

