# New Lenses Imminent? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 2, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=7657" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=7657"></a></div>
<strong>New Prosumer Primes?

</strong>I was told a moment ago to expect refreshes of the EF 35 f/2, 85 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8 â€œsoonâ€.</p>
<p>No specific date was given.</p>
<p><strong>CRs Take?

</strong>I couldÃ‚ definitelyÃ‚ see the 35 and 50 getting updates. Maybe not the 50 most of you were hoping for. The 85 f/1.8, Iâ€™m a little less sure about. Itâ€™d be nice to see a new 85 f/1.4 non-L.</p>
<p>I donâ€™t recognize the source, but I have <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/10/lens-announcement-cr1/">heard previously</a> of existing lenses getting updated in droves for 2012.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## ericski (Nov 2, 2011)

Are there (valid) complaints about the 85 f/1.8? Mine is one of my best lenses I own. I can't imagine improvements and it staying in the same price range/class.


----------



## kode (Nov 2, 2011)

I don't really think there's much to complain about the 85/1.8, except for the time lapsed between introduction and present day. An 85/1.4 from Canon would be sweet, though...


----------



## JR (Nov 2, 2011)

I was really hoping for a new 35mm 1.4L II!

:-[


----------



## KyleSTL (Nov 2, 2011)

I would preorder the updated 35mm f2 if it's in the same price range as the lens it replaces. Same build quality and features as 28mm f1.8 USM, but simpler optical design, should make it more affordable (than 28mm, not cheaper than current 35mm).


----------



## lol (Nov 2, 2011)

Optically I don't think the 35/2 could be improved without bumping up the cost significantly, other than perhaps putting in some more aperture blades. However replacing the noisy AF motor would be nice. A minor weakness in Canon's lens lineup is the lack of a modern 35/1.8 (crop sensor), so could there be something there?

50/1.8... I think popular due to its price so that will be a challenging point for any update. I suspect they might be able to do a further cost save on it. Somehow. If they can do it to the kit lenses they can try here too.

The 85/1.8... here I think they can do more with the optical side since physically it is already pretty good. Personally I think the LoCA is rather strong and also susceptible to purple fringing. If they can tame that a bit without affecting its sharpness and price too much, that would be nice.


----------



## AJ (Nov 2, 2011)

I can't remember the last time an affordable non-L prime came out? I think it was the 60/2.8


----------



## arn (Nov 2, 2011)

I have been *so* waiting for an updated 35/2, I wish this rumor turns out to be true. It's sharp, small and light, much more convenient for everyday use than the large f/1.4 lens. All the 35/2 needs is a better, more reliable AF and it's a dream come true.


----------



## KyleSTL (Nov 2, 2011)

dilbert said:


> In APS-C terms, that's 56mm(35), 80mm(50) and *either 153mm(85) or 38mm (28)*



You mean 136mm (85) and 45mm (28)



AJ said:


> I can't remember the last time an affordable non-L prime came out? I think it was the 60/2.8



Non-L Primes (excluding 400mm DO):

60mm f/2.8 Macro USM (2005)
100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (2000)
MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro (1999)
28mm f/1.8 USM (1995)
50mm f/1.4 USM (1993)
20mm f/2.8 USM (1992)
85mm f/1.8 USM (1992)
100mm f/2 USM (1991)
TS-E 45mm f/2.8 (1991)
TS-E 90mm f/2.8 (1991)
35mm f/2 (1990)
50mm f/1.8 II (1990)
100mm f/2.8 Macro (1990)
24mm f/2.8 (1988)
15mm f/2.8 Fisheye (1987)
28mm f/2.8 (1987)
50mm f/1.8 I (1987)
50mm f/2.5 Macro (1987)
135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus (1987)


----------



## Tarrum (Nov 2, 2011)

35mm - please bring an affordable 35mm f/1.8 with better performance. The f/2.0 is alright but if they bring it out I'm gonna be first in the line

50mm - f/1.8 III? Maybe they'd do the same as with 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses, but the only one I think is due for an upgrade is 50mm f/1.4. Better AF and better f/1.4 performance.

85mm f/1.8 - I don't think we'll be seeing an upgrade for a long time. Perhaps f/1.4?


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 2, 2011)

I hope this becomes a CR4 and then reality!! :

The prime lenses listed in the CR1 for update are some of the lenses that I am looking forward to... particularly the 50mm f1.8

I have the 50mm f1.8 II, and love it's optical qualities (apart from the somewhat nervous bokeh at some settings) - howver I HATE it's AF: inaccurate, jumpy, and noisy. On my 350D the 50mm just 'didn't work' for focus critical applications and even on my 7D it is not consistent enough to be enjoyable.

So a 50mm f1.8 II upgrade (to a 50mm f1.8 III with USM would be a very desireable lens, if it is sharp & contrasty wide open, good bokeh and accurate AF. Build quality similar to some other prosumer lenses I own (eg Canon's 15-85mm, Canon 100mm f2.8 macro non L) or even my Canon 28-135mm would be great.

Hope I can say this on this forum without receiving virtual stares / glares  but I'm actually jealous of one of my friend's Nikon 35mm f1.8 It's a very versatile lens & he's used it to take lots of good low light shots... So an upgrade to Canon's 35mm f2 (either at f2 or f1.8) would please a lot of Canon shooters like me too. 

The current 85mm f1.8 has received a lot of praise due to it's USM, decent build quality & high optical performance (though it has noticeable LoCA...) However this isn't always field critical for every application. Personally, this lens isn't on my wish list. But I can understand others for whom an update & improvement to that lens would be a real winner.

Now... just putting it out there.... I wonder if any of these prosumer primes (35mm, 50mm or 85mm) would get IS? Now *that* would be impressive. Without IS I'd be prepared to pay around $500 - $600 for say the 50mm f1.8 if it was a good performer optically / decent build quality (though prices would probably come down in time). With IS, I'd be prepared to pay a few hundred dollars more. 8)

Others' thoughts?

Paul


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 2, 2011)

KyleSTL... thanks for your very useful post with the list of non L primes and releases! Much appreciated!

Paul


----------



## traveller (Nov 2, 2011)

Canon badly need a decent 'normal' prime for APS-C users because the current offering all have significant weaknesses, as does the main third party alternative. Beyond that, there is a need for some affordable wide angle primes. To be honest, if it saves money they might as well make them EF-S, as anyone that can afford a full frame camera should really be able to afford 'L' glass (and if not, they've probably got their buying priorities wrong!). I don't buy the argument that some people make that it's only full frame users who care about prime lenses. A decent full frame setup will cost you many thousands of your local currency; it's a little insulting to suggest that only the rich can afford to be 'serious photographers'.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2011)

dilbert said:


> The 85/1.8 doesn't quite fit into any specific bracket for APS-C in terms of effective focal length.



85mm f/1.8 on APS-C is equivalent to 136mm f/2.9 on FF. That puts it in line with the 135/2.8 SF (and the 135/2L), both of which are 'classic' portrait lenses, particularly for tight/head shots. In fact, I liked and used my 85/1.8 so much on my 7D that I changed to the 85/1.2L II, and after subsequently getting a 5DII, I got the 135L to replicate the framing of 85mm on APS-C. 

I agree with lol - the 85/1.8, while IMO one of the best values in the Canon lineup, could stand a little less LoCA (although that's a known 'feature' of fast primes). New coatings and an optical redesign might help reduce that problem. But then Canon would probably add $200 to the price, making it less of a value lens. 

Overall, though, I'm skeptical. I can't see then releasing a 35/2 II, but I can see an EF-S f/1.8 version. I can see an update to the 50/1.8 II equivalent to the recent changes to the EF-S kit lenses (18-55, 55-250), cosmetic changes to reduce production costs (even a few yen per lens would mean big profit on a popular lens like that), and 'new AF algorithms' because those are essentially free.


----------



## gravy (Nov 2, 2011)

this would be great for APS C shooters if they just updated to USM and coatings for those that don't have digital types.
I've wanted the 28mm f/1.8 for a long time but don't like the CA. have the 35/2 and 50/1.8 but don't like the AF noise.
but start at the wide end please, and the 85 may not need any attention right now.

I just had to create an account and chime in on this one because I think this would be the biggest bang for the buck right now and I'm on a budget. I'd buy all that I could afford, maybe a grands worth and not regret it. 24 and 35 first.


----------



## branden (Nov 2, 2011)

Any update to the primes in these focal lengths would be much appreciated, even among full frame users, since light, portable primes are a preferred way of shooting for many, such as me.


----------



## Dave (Nov 2, 2011)

I was hoping for a new 50mm >1.4<... Why the hack a new 1.8 again?


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 3, 2011)

Dave said:


> I was hoping for a new 50mm >1.4<... Why the hack a new 1.8 again?



Ditto. I've got the 50/1.8ii on my 7D and love it. Sharp as hell after f/4, slightly worse centres and better edges than the 50/1.4 for the same aperture. The pentagonal aperture is a bit of a downer, but i'm either shooting high DOF at f/5.6, or f/1.8-2.5 where the pentagons don't show that much. The coma, loca, and wide-open softness of the f/1.4 are what put me off it for the increased price from the 1.8ii. If they come out with a better f/1.4 i'll be all over it.

I recently pulled the trigger on the Samyang 35/1.4, and it's the sharpest lens I own. Still, it's a bit of a brick, if canon come up with an EFs 28-35 f/1.4-1.8 then i'll get one for a walkaround/street lens and keep the samyang for critical landscapes.

The 85/1.8 doesn't need updating as badly, it's my next lens to buy (I have to decide between that and 100/2 before my mum gets to Hong Kong in january), i've picked those two over the samyang and sigma 85/1.4. But if they can come up with an 85/1.8ii i'll happily buy it on release (they can't release a mk2 worse than the current one, so if the pricing is the same the newer version would be the go), if it's an 85/1.4 then that's 3 lenses i'll have to choose between...


----------



## Fandongo (Nov 3, 2011)

The current 50 1.8 still has damn good IQ. It's just such a cruel joke to give the lens with the weakest AF the worst manual focus ring ever made. If magic lantern has taught us anything, it's that there is great potential in controlling the AF motor through the camera... Unfortunately Canon's software end is being gimped by an interdepartmental memo stating something similar to the following "You had your fun with the 5d2, now stop making good things...our video department has only had 3 years with our head in the dirt to catch up." We'll find out tomorrow if they have.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 3, 2011)

A lot of users would benefit from a improved 35mm f/2. The 85mm f/1.8 has a lot of LoCa which can make it difficult to use for subjects with bright lighting, so I have to be careful when using it, otherwise, its great.


----------



## RC (Nov 3, 2011)

I'm ready for my next lens purchase but I am dragging my feet at the moment to see what Canon is going to release prime lens wise. I want a fast prime around 35 to 50mm for portrait work using my APS-C camera. 

I've had my eye on the 50 f/1.4 for a while but It seems like it should be due for an update--more so than the f/1.8 II. I'm hoping for a ring USM upgrade to f/1.4.

On the other hand 35mm is closer to a "normal" lens (56mm FF) so I'm considering 35. I really want to go faster than f/2 since I have a APS-C camera and as you can see from signature, my fastest lens is a f/2.8.

For me I'll take a 50 f/1.4II please. . . or do I want to go with the 35 f/1.4? :-\


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 3, 2011)

What's going on here??? Is canon "optimizing" their prime lenses for use with EF mount camcorders?


----------



## Stone (Nov 3, 2011)

When my 70-200 2.8 isn't fast enough, the 85 1.8 is my go to lens in darkly lit gymnasiums. It's the only reason I haven't sold it, but it does suffer from some pretty brutal CA wide open. A canon 85 1.4 would be a dream come true, and make for a very versatile complement to my zoom I know sigma has an 85 1.4 and I've had good luck with their glass, but I admit that I prefer Canon glass.

I rarely shoot at 50mm since I find the 30mm range more versatile but I'd like to see a Canon 35 mm just a little faster than 2.0


----------



## Woody (Nov 3, 2011)

I am just excited about new lenses.


----------



## KyleSTL (Nov 3, 2011)

pj1974 said:


> KyleSTL... thanks for your very useful post with the list of non L primes and releases! Much appreciated!
> 
> Paul


You're welcome. Also, the amazing thing about that list is only two have been discontinued:

50mm f/1.8 I (replaced by II)
100mm f/2.8 Macro (replaced by USM)


----------



## EYEONE (Nov 3, 2011)

Ah, excellent! These lenses are due for an update I think. Except the 85mm 1.8 maybe. I have heard it is excellent.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 3, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> What's going on here??? Is canon "optimizing" their prime lenses for use with EF mount camcorders?


Good catch - there's the rumor stating that there would be multiple (I read three) PL or EF lens announced alongside this new video camera. If they are updating these lenses to match a video system, though, I don't expect they would end up being recognizable as the current three lenses mentioned. Price would balloon pretty markedly just to give them a constant angle of view and improve the manual focus ring (it also seems it would be difficult to market these old primes as good for video if they keep their current long manual focus path).


----------



## Scott_7D (Nov 3, 2011)

traveller said:


> Canon badly need a decent 'normal' prime for APS-C users because the current offering all have significant weaknesses, as does the main third party alternative. Beyond that, there is a need for some affordable wide angle primes. To be honest, if it saves money they might as well make them EF-S, as anyone that can afford a full frame camera should really be able to afford 'L' glass (and if not, they've probably got their buying priorities wrong!). I don't buy the argument that some people make that it's only full frame users who care about prime lenses. A decent full frame setup will cost you many thousands of your local currency; it's a little insulting to suggest that only the rich can afford to be 'serious photographers'.



I disagree with your statement regarding FF users and the cost of an FF setup. FF users are not much more likely to be rich than your average prosumer APS user these days: here in Canada, a 5D2 is $1999 and a 7D is $1449, which is not a huge difference. Also, used 5Dc's and 1Ds(II)'s can easily be had for less than $1500.

Secondly, a 5D2 with a 35/2 provides better performance at a cheaper price than a 7D with 24L (my set up); similarly, said 5D with 50/1.4 is much cheaper and better than said 7D with 35L. You can pretty much go on forever with similar comparisons. A 5D2 with 24/2.8 isn't even comparable to APS, as an EF-S 15/1.8 doesn't exist and if it did, the price would be frightening. 

If you look at it this way, you can see that your statement about a "decent" FF kit being expensive is quite wrong. One (myself included) might even say the opposite is true. I suppose that makes me look dumb, as I have a 7D/24L, but in my defense, they were purchased years apart, I need the 7D's features and my mkI 24L was way less than the new one is.

If you don't need high PD or the AF/FPS of a 7D, how exactly are your priorities wrong in buying a 5D2 with cheap glass? You get better performance for less $$$ and often end up with a lighter, smaller kit as well. There's no rule stating that FF users are stuck buying L glass and honestly, they need it less than us APS guys.

This is why I like the idea of Canon updating these non-L primes: they would benefit both APS and FF shooters. These lenses are mostly fine optically, all they need is USM, more aperture blades and maybe a tweak here and there. They should definitely be kept EF though, even if there is a small cost savings to make the wider ones APS, there's more than enough interest in them from FF users. Personally, I'm looking to add an FF body as soon as I can afford it and would definitely buy a 35/2.


----------



## J. McCabe (Nov 3, 2011)

I hope those lenses aren't going to be refreshed the same way the EF-S 18-55mm was.

I have a 35mm f/2, and if it was upgraded with USM and improved boken (lines in the background look bad), it will be an attractive upgrade for me.

Am not sure where the 85mm f/1.8, which is a favourite of mine, can be improved. Maybe IS, though it's absence in this lens didn't bother me.


----------



## Fandongo (Nov 3, 2011)

Want: Canon Anamorphic!
Chance of happening: .004%


----------



## moreorless (Nov 3, 2011)

I wouldnt be supprized if the 35mm f/2 actually goes the same way as the 50mm 1.8, cheaper build and a cheaper price.

It does afterall make for a good normal lens on a crop and if Canon can knock say a third off the price then that offers them an easy way to compete with Nikon's 35mm 1.8 without having to go though a costly total redesign.

Another option could I spose be that these lenses are the rumoured ones with an amature dial on them designed for the video market.


----------



## unruled (Nov 3, 2011)

the 85 1.8 is an amazing lens, dont see it needing replacing. without lenshood i have no CA or other issues with it, lenshood always helps to that (its massive).

the 50 1.8 dont see it being replaced as its just too cheap for canon to profit from. they should (imho) refresh the 1.4 with proper USM. IQ could be improved on it aswell im sure. Ive read reviews that commented the 1.8 version being sharper overall than the 1.4 - something which at 3x the cost is just not right.

-P


----------



## goodmane (Nov 3, 2011)

Typical! I just got the 35 f2 for 5dc two weeks ago. But I love it and my 24-70L is almost anathema now its so big.

I haven't noticed the focusing being slower than my 24-70 which really surprised me, its much faster than the other non-usm lenses I've used.

Even so I don't think any dslr lens should be without usm these days. Its not exactly new technology. Just don't let it get any bigger. Also fixing the flare in direct sunlight would be good. To be honest I'd pay for an L version that was f2 and compact; I love this focal length.


----------



## dstppy (Nov 3, 2011)

ericski said:


> Are there (valid) complaints about the 85 f/1.8? Mine is one of my best lenses I own. I can't imagine improvements and it staying in the same price range/class.



x2 -- nothing wrong with the 85mm. 

What would the point of improving the 50mm f1.8 be? Don't get me wrong, there's room for improvement, but improving build quality/speed would make it basically exactly the same thing as the 50mm f/1.4 except for gaining the (think???) 2/3 of a stop? There would be no motivation to buy the f/1.4. _"I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there."_

Maybe we're back to bored tipsters making crap up again . . . we'll know soon enough if more 'official 5DmkIII specs come in


----------



## dhofmann (Nov 3, 2011)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
- Needs IS and new optics.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6L IS II USM
- Needs new optics and IS update.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L II USM
- Needs new optics.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L II (or IS) USM
- Needs new optics and possibly IS.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 II (or IS) USM
- Needs new optics and possibly IS.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II USM
- Needs the new optics from the updated IS version.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L II USM
- Needs the new optics from the IS version.

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L IS USM
- Needs IS and new optics.


----------



## Ziggy (Nov 3, 2011)

dhofmann said:


> Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
> - Needs IS and new optics.
> 
> Canon EF 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6L IS II USM
> ...



you forgot, 200-400mm f4 w/ x1.4 converter
this just needs to come out


----------



## whatta (Nov 3, 2011)

it is good to see that I am not the only one who wants a fast normal prime for aps-c 
I would prefer 28mm rather than 35mm though.

28 1.4 usm or 30 1.4 usm below 500 euros would be nice.
for me it could be ef-s, I do not mind.

currently the canon 28/1.8 (which is 16 years old) or the sigma 30/1.4 seem to be the best option.

I think there is not much to update either the 50/1.8 or the 85/1.8, rather the 50/1.4 then..


----------



## moreorless (Nov 3, 2011)

whatta said:


> 28 1.4 usm or 30 1.4 usm below 500 euros would be nice.
> for me it could be ef-s, I do not mind.



If either of those happened I'd guess they'd have to be EF-S to avoid killing the sales of the L lenses.

If Canon did make them EF-S though I doubt they'd stick with those focal lenghts, they'd probabley go with something like 22mm and 31mm to get the crop equivilents of 35mm and 50mm.


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 3, 2011)

unruled said:


> the 85 1.8 is an amazing lens, dont see it needing replacing. without lenshood i have no CA or other issues with it, lenshood always helps to that (its massive).



You're thinking of lens flare, the hood does nothing for the CA (chromatic aberration). CA is particularly visible at sharp, high-contrast edges near the corners of the field of view, especially with the lens wide open. The lenshood is one of the smaller, I don't understand why you call it "massive", perhaps you confuse it with another lens'.


----------



## Justin (Nov 3, 2011)

Soft wide open till about 2.2 or 2.8. Too many chromatic abberations for me at wider appertures. No IS.

Compact, affordable, and light are working for it. 



ericski said:


> Are there (valid) complaints about the 85 f/1.8? Mine is one of my best lenses I own. I can't imagine improvements and it staying in the same price range/class.


----------



## Justin (Nov 3, 2011)

It would seem strange for Canon to have neglected these lenses for so long only to begin to refresh them without any strong rationale. EF mounted video camera may be that catalyst. 

Most important upgrades in my book for video and stills in order of want/need (I'm throwing IS in there. A guy can dream): 

85 1.8 -> 85 1.4 IS
90 ts-e -> 90 ts-e II
28 1.8 -> 28 1.8 IS




KyleSTL said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > In APS-C terms, that's 56mm(35), 80mm(50) and *either 153mm(85) or 38mm (28)*
> ...


----------



## traveller (Nov 3, 2011)

Scott_7D said:


> I disagree with your statement regarding FF users and the cost of an FF setup. FF users are not much more likely to be rich than your average prosumer APS user these days: here in Canada, a 5D2 is $1999 and a 7D is $1449, which is not a huge difference. Also, used 5Dc's and 1Ds(II)'s can easily be had for less than $1500.



Your entitled to disagree, but don't forget that the 7D itself it quite an expensive camera that most photographers can't justify spending out on. I take your point with used full frame, but I think the age of the cameras you mention is a put off. Not only do they lack a lot of the features that even the Rebel line has these days, but I would also be concerned about spending a significant wad of cash on such a old camera; these days cameras are basically consumer electronics and as such, I would not trust their reliability long term versus a film camera (maybe that's just me). By the way, a used 1Ds MkII still sells for more than a 7D, here in the UK at least. 



Scott_7D said:


> Secondly, a 5D2 with a 35/2 provides better performance at a cheaper price than a 7D with 24L (my set up); similarly, said 5D with 50/1.4 is much cheaper and better than said 7D with 35L. You can pretty much go on forever with similar comparisons. A 5D2 with 24/2.8 isn't even comparable to APS, as an EF-S 15/1.8 doesn't exist and if it did, the price would be frightening.



Sure, but a 5D2 with a 35mm f/1.4L will perform even better; are you suggesting that you should shell out over Â£1500 for a camera and put a Â£220 lens on it (I'm sticking to my home currency here)? You're right when you state that there is no comparing the 5D2 with a 24mm lens to an APS-C camera, that's my point -Canon haven't bothered to produce a fast 24mm equivalent prime for APS-C. You believe that a 15mm f/1.8 for APS-C would cost a fortune; I'm not sure that I'd agree, wide angles crop lenses require a lot less glass than for full frame, which is the whole point of EF-S (but I think that a 15mm f/2 would be a better performance-price compromise). 



Scott_7D said:


> If you look at it this way, you can see that your statement about a "decent" FF kit being expensive is quite wrong. One (myself included) might even say the opposite is true. I suppose that makes me look dumb, as I have a 7D/24L, but in my defense, they were purchased years apart, I need the 7D's features and my mkI 24L was way less than the new one is.



No need to defend yourself, your main camera requirements dictated that a 7D was the better choice of body for you. The fact that you had to shell out for a 24mm f/1.4 to get a (roughly) 35mm equivalent fast prime demonstrates that there is a demand for dedicated EF-S lenses in this range. How many people haven't bought a 24mm f/1.4L because it's too expensive for their budget, but would buy an EF-S 22mm f/1.8 (for example). Now you are thinking about buying a 5D MkII in addition to your 7D to meet your ndesire to use fast wide angle primes (I'm guessing -am I correct?). This would mean that you've covered all bases, but it's hardly an affordable option. 



Scott_7D said:


> If you don't need high PD or the AF/FPS of a 7D, how exactly are your priorities wrong in buying a 5D2 with cheap glass? You get better performance for less $$$ and often end up with a lighter, smaller kit as well. There's no rule stating that FF users are stuck buying L glass and honestly, they need it less than us APS guys.



First, what if you do need both (like you?), buy a 7D and a 5D2? Second, how much do you think that a 5D2 be worth in ten years and how will your 24L be worth? Third, you keep insisting that it's a 5D2 or a 7D; most people shoot with Rebels and XXD cameras. 



Scott_7D said:


> This is why I like the idea of Canon updating these non-L primes: they would benefit both APS and FF shooters. These lenses are mostly fine optically, all they need is USM, more aperture blades and maybe a tweak here and there. They should definitely be kept EF though, even if there is a small cost savings to make the wider ones APS, there's more than enough interest in them from FF users. Personally, I'm looking to add an FF body as soon as I can afford it and would definitely buy a 35/2.



If Canon could do this, it'd be ideal. I just think that, especially with wide angle glass, there are quite a lot of cost savings to be made by going EF-S. Compare the price of the Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8 G DX to the much poorer spec Canon EF 35mm f2.0; or the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8.


----------



## shenshaw (Nov 3, 2011)

They seemingly have to be related to the cine-theme. I'm guessing those 3 primes, if that is the case, would be cine-ied out with optional manual iris and a cp.2-sized focus gear. I don't think they're just going to be refreshed stills lenses.


----------



## whatta (Nov 3, 2011)

seems to be:

Canon Prime Lens CTZ-029 (24mm)
Canon Prime Lens CTZ-030 (50mm)
Canon Prime Lens CTZ-031 (85mm)


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 3, 2011)

whatta said:


> Canon Prime Lens CTZ-029 (24mm)
> Canon Prime Lens CTZ-030 (50mm)
> Canon Prime Lens CTZ-031 (85mm)



Yes, but what are the maximum apertures? Expected prices would also be interesting.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 3, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> whatta said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Prime Lens CTZ-029 (24mm)
> ...



Just up on Engadget:
24 T1.5
50 T1.3
85 T1.3

Now T is normally higher than F/, so i'd be guessing 24 f/1.4, 50 & 85 f/1.2. But that's too close, so it may even be 24 f/1.2-1.3, 50 & 85 f/1.0-1.1.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 4, 2011)

I knew i'd find it eventually:
According to DXOMark
the EF 24 f/1.4Lii is T 1.6 and the EF 50 f/1.2 and 85 f/1.2ii are both T 1.4.

So if the new lenses are T1.5 and T1.3, then they're probably f/1.3 and 1.1, or else they've cut vignetting down a lot and/or made it with more highly transmissible glass.

Still, they may be EF mount, but more zeiss-like, Manual Focus and Manual ring-aperture.
I'd expect prices at least in the range of the current EF-L models, save money because of the lack of AF, but add more money in from the much higher-quality (i'm presuming) optics and better contruction. Compared to the size of the mount they look a lot wider than their counterparts (standard-sized focus/T-stop rings for rigs?). I doubt they're weather-sealed, but we'll see.


----------



## DJL329 (Nov 4, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> Dave said:
> 
> 
> > I was hoping for a new 50mm >1.4<... Why the hack a new 1.8 again?
> ...



Double Ditto!! ;D


----------



## whatta (Nov 4, 2011)

at least now we are sure that these three new (cinema) primes are not the ones we have been waiting for


----------



## unruled (Nov 4, 2011)

Justin said:


> Soft wide open till about 2.2 or 2.8. Too many chromatic abberations for me at wider appertures. No IS.
> 
> Compact, affordable, and light are working for it.
> 
> ...



yeah, sorry I mixed up CA.

The hood, considering the lens size and the fact that its a prime, is rather large. Doubles the length of the kit mounted on the SLR, essentially. Ofcourse telezooms have larger ones, but then... thats proportionally large. Compare it to the lenshoods on the 50mm prime.


----------



## polpaulin (Nov 4, 2011)

i'd like to see a 50 mm 1.2 mark II ( 82mm) or a new 50 mm 1.0


----------



## DJL329 (Nov 5, 2011)

polpaulin said:


> i'd like to see a 50 mm 1.2 mark II ( 82mm) or a new 50 mm 1.0



The 50mm f/1.2L is only 5 years old, so a replacement is probably _more than_ a few years away.


----------



## Woody (Nov 5, 2011)

I will not be too happy if the CR sources got their info wrong about Canon releasing many lens updates in the next two years. For all we know, Canon may be more interested in releasing more C lenses and less keen on updating still photography lenses.  :'( I'll be rather disappointed if that comes to pass.


----------



## nounours18200 (Nov 5, 2011)

I have been waiting a new 50/1.4 for years, as the current one needs to be refreshed (the current 50/1.2L is pricey for its opptical quality IMO). But if Canon releases this new 50/1.4 with a good optical quality, the current 50/1.2L will be even less attractive....

The current 85/1.8 is largely good enough for 99% of the users and its refresh is not a priority compared to the old 50mm...

I would also mention a 500/5.6 that would be far cheaper (and lighter) than the current 500/4: this would be a very interesting lens IMO...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2011)

nounours18200 said:


> I would also mention a 500/5.6 that would be far cheaper (and lighter) than the current 500/4: this would be a very interesting lens IMO...



A 500/5.6 would be cheaper and lighter than the current 500/4, but cheaper is relative. Based on the needed iris diameter (89mm) and the associated front element size, it would still be in the supertele class and likely in the range $5-7K (in line with the current MkIIs, because as a new supertele it would have those features). So, while a $6K lens would be 'far cheaper' than the 500/4 II, it likely would not be much cheaper than the current 500/4. 

ICanon has one pro supertele per focal length (with the exception of the 400/4 DO), and they're unlikely to release a slower 500mm lens. I think a 400/5.6L IS is more likely, priced in the 'consumer range' i.e. $2K or a little higher.


----------



## Cropper (Nov 6, 2011)

A while back a patent for a 600 F5.6 DO surfaced. 
Now that seems like a very interesting lens design, provided that some of the current DO IQ limitations are improved.

Never the less the price should still be painfully steep.


----------



## OELM (Nov 7, 2011)

I use a d5 m2 and looking forward to new light prime lenses 35/2,0 and 85/1,8 USM and maybe with IS would be very nice. I prefer this kind of lenses because I usually wearing my cameras for hours and and I am not a bodybuilder. I think is more then me as prefer this kind of lenses.


----------



## polpaulin (Nov 9, 2011)

DJL329 said:


> polpaulin said:
> 
> 
> > i'd like to see a 50 mm 1.2 mark II ( 82mm) or a new 50 mm 1.0
> ...


yes but for the difference of qualty between the 1.4 and the 1.2 the 1.2 is lost money


----------

