# Which Canon lens is most in need of updating.



## rfdesigner (Oct 10, 2016)

Title says it all.. I know what I want, I've stated it often enough.. but what would others want without biasing the thread.

Let's list your top 3 in order.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2016)

Many possible lists...

Which three do I think 'most people' want updated?
1. EF 50mm f/1.4
2. EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8
3. EF 85mm f/1.8

Which three do I want updated?
1. MP-E 65mm f/2.8
2. EF 135mm f/2L
3. TS-E 90mm f/2.8

Which three does ahsanford want updated?
1. EF 50mm f/1.4
2. EF 50mm f/1.4
3. EF 50mm f/1.4


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 10, 2016)

The lens I hope the most of, for a soon upgrade, is the 50L. The current is very good in terms of bokeh, and I appreciate the size and weather sealing. However, I wish it focused faster, more precise, and without focus shift when stopping down. It needs to be a little sharper wide open as well. It is too soft wide open, especially with the 5Ds.

Second I hope for a new 85 f1.8 with IS. Third, a 50 f1.4 with IS, with better focusing, better build, and better wide open performance.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 10, 2016)

I agree with the Neuro list.
For most people there are many reasons to not buy Canon 17-55mm, 50mm F1.4, 85mm F1.8.


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Which three does ahsanford want updated?
> 1. EF 50mm f/1.4
> 2. EF 50mm f/1.4
> 3. EF 50mm f/1.4


You beat me to it..


----------



## cookestudios (Oct 10, 2016)

I think the lenses most in *need* of an update are:

1. 85L (autofocus really needs to be modernized)
2. 50 f/1.4
3. TS-E 45/90 (both could use sharpness on par with the 17 and 24)


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 10, 2016)

Writing this list made me realize that Canon has really done a great job updating their most important lenses recently. 

[list type=decimal]
[*]1: 85mm F/1.2L: I've been interested in buying one for portraits but I can imagine it would be so much better for my uses with BR, weather sealing, and faster autofocus. I'd (somehow) accept bigger size if AF could improve to sports-shooting levels. 
[*]2: 50mm f/1.2L: Similar to the 85mm F/1.2L, but I rented one once and really enjoyed the tiny size for such a bright lens. Definitely could improve with BR and finding a way to cope with the focus shift.
[*]3: 28-300mm L: I don't have interest in the current version of this lens, but if Canon could surprise us with a really great upgrade, I'd be in. 
[/list]


----------



## Act444 (Oct 10, 2016)

50 1.4 is numero uno, of course. Doubly so if the replacement has IS...but if it doesn't I'll understand.

The 28-300 would be my 2nd choice. Now that the 24-105 and 70-300 have been updated, the 28-300 could use a refresh as well.


Then, #3 would be perhaps the 1.2 version of the 50...I'd love to see what is effectively a Canon version of the Sigma 50 Art.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 10, 2016)

I'd have to say:
1) EF 400F5.6
2) EF-S 17-55F2.8
3) EF 50F1.4


----------



## pwp (Oct 10, 2016)

135 f/2 (with IS)
50 f/1.4 (of course! Also with IS)
50 f/1.2 (I doubt we'll see this anytime soon)
300 f/4 (modest refresh, current IS)
85 EF f/1.8 (a complete makeover needed here)

-pw


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 10, 2016)

All of canon's latest releases have knocked potentials off the list. 16-35 2.8? Check 100-400? Check 35 1.4? Check 400 do? Check
That leaves the most-favoured pick of the 50mm 1.4
The others imo would be:
50mm 1.2 
85mm 1.2
28-300
I'd include the two longer TS-E's but personally view them as somewhat of a specialty, especially in these days of high res and post processing correction. Is ts-e better? Of course, but not many of us could tell the difference.

A couple holes they could fill would be:
Coma-free FullFrame UWA 24mm 1.4 or 14mm 2.8 (depending on the new 16-35's performance)
Fast UWA for crop
50mm f/1.whatever IS with ring type USM 
Budget supertelephoto [zoom] ~600mm


----------



## unfocused (Oct 10, 2016)

I'm an outlier. Don't care about either 50mm or 85mm lenses.

I'm interested in improvements rather than updates of these three:

15 - 85mm efs to f4 non-variable aperture and maybe an extra mm or two
At the wide end and an extra 10-15 mm at the long end.

300mm f4 with improved IS and other updates.

400 mm f5.6 moved to 500mm with IS.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 11, 2016)

1) 85mm f/1.2 L II - 85mm f/1.2 L III (BR)
2) 50mm f/1.4 USM - 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM
3) 180mm f/3.5 L - 200mm f/4 L IS macro


----------



## peterzuehlke (Oct 11, 2016)

like to have something f/2.0 or faster with IS in the 85mm to 150mm range. (for performance shoots) so, 85, 100, 135 ??


----------



## applecider (Oct 11, 2016)

The 14 mm make it coma free and sharper at edges wide open, and make the wide open f 2.2 or 2.4. The larger aperture would allow exposures without star tracking. 

400L 5.6 gets IS or better yet 400 moves to 500mm with IS.

28-300mmL gets sharpened and modern IS. 

Make an extender that's compatible with more lenses like the 28-300 or make the lens compatible with current lenses.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 11, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> The lens I hope the most of, for a soon upgrade, is the 50L. The current is very good in terms of bokeh, and I appreciate the size and weather sealing. However, I wish it focused faster, more precise, and without focus shift when stopping down. It needs to be a little sharper wide open as well. It is too soft wide open, especially with the 5Ds.



+ 1023

Make a 150mm Macro 2.8 IS rather than updating the 180mm Macro

70-200mm f/4 IS gets latest IS


----------



## cookestudios (Oct 11, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> Writing this list made me realize that Canon has really done a great job updating their most important lenses recently.
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]1: 85mm F/1.2L: I've been interested in buying one for portraits but I can imagine it would be so much better for my uses with BR, weather sealing, and faster autofocus. I'd (somehow) accept bigger size if AF could improve to sports-shooting levels.
> ...



Have you used the Tamrom 28-300 at all? It's no L glass, but I was pleasantly surprised for what it is.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 11, 2016)

Agree with the common opinion: 50/1.4

Or the ancient 16-35 f/2.8L IS III


----------



## john1970 (Oct 11, 2016)

I would like to see the following updated:

Canon 180 mm macro f2.8 with IS (so it works well with 1.4 x extender)
Canon 85 mm f1.2

Cheers,

John


----------



## Refurb7 (Oct 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Which three do I think 'most people' want updated?
> 1. EF 50mm f/1.4
> 2. EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8
> 3. EF 85mm f/1.8



Those are my three. I'd love a better 50/1.4 but not as big as Sigma's 50 Art.

The 17-55/2.8 should be an L-quality lens, as good as the 24-70/2.8L II, not the creaky current version. It does not need image stabilization. The IS on mine failed much too soon. It needs reliability.

The 85/1.8 should be better wide open. And with IS it would be a dream.


----------



## AJ (Oct 11, 2016)

I hope the 50/1.4 gets the same treatment as the 50/1.8. Same optical formula, new coatings, new focus motor, same weight and size, same price.


----------



## FECHariot (Oct 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Many possible lists...
> 
> Which three do I think 'most people' want updated?
> 1. EF 50mm f/1.4
> ...



I would list this as my top three too but I would like to include the 10-22 as an honorable mention to include 2.8 aperture.


----------



## timmy_650 (Oct 11, 2016)

My top three. I can't afford L primes

1) 50mm f1.4
2) 20mm f2.8
3) 85mm f1.8


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 11, 2016)

#1. I want to say the 400f5.6, except that it is still a top performer, so it's hard to say "it needs updating" when it's still the best at what it does.
But I'll take it anyway, the 400f5.6 needs to be updated to the 400f5.6IS.

#2. The 50mm f1.4 needs to be replaced. It's just a non-starter on this market.

#3. I'll just go ahead and say that the flaws in the 85f1.2 are long overdue for a fix, that lens needs some TLC.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 11, 2016)

I find Canon´s lens lineup to be pretty good. The ones I want is (with Otus-matching optical performance):

50mm f1.2L -> 50mm f1.2L IS
85mm f1.2L II -> 85mm f1.2L IS
135mm f2.0L -> 135mm f2.0L IS

All weather sealed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2016)

9VIII said:


> #2. The 50mm f1.4 needs to be replaced. It's just a non-starter on this market.



The 50/1.4 is consistently among the top 10 best-selling dSLR lenses on Amazon, so clearly it's far from a 'non-starter in the market'. So, while I agree it's a lens a lot of people want to see updated, there's a very logical reason for Canon to believe it doesn't _need_ to be replaced.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > #2. The 50mm f1.4 needs to be replaced. It's just a non-starter on this market.
> ...



And it's consistently still in use by wedding photographers for lower light context and detail shots--such as in-laws and friends.

But it is long in the tooth and due. I just don't see it maintaining bargain status with any significant update.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 11, 2016)

I think it's the ef 135mm f2.0 L for the oldest prime design which could do with a refresh.
I think the ef 180mm L macro is as ancient as the hills and could really do with some advancement.
The ef 50mm f1.2 L was an odd ball from inception, while it's not as old as other designs here...it could really do with some sharper optics wide open.


----------



## arcer (Oct 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > #2. The 50mm f1.4 needs to be replaced. It's just a non-starter on this market.
> ...



I have the weird theory that the 50/1.4 is still a top 10 best seller, because the same few thousands of people who loved it will break it just after warranty ended and now they have to buy a new one, while cursing Canon for not updating it yet. Come on Canon, get your glASSes together and give us what we want.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2016)

arcer said:


> I have the weird theory that the 50/1.4 is still a top 10 best seller, because the same few thousands of people who loved it will break it just after warranty ended and now they have to buy a new one, while cursing Canon for not updating it yet. Come on Canon, get your glASSes together and give us what we want.



I have the weird theory that everyone clamoring for an updated 50/1.4 is actually an alterego of ahsanford.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 11, 2016)

While we saw a lot of interesting zoom announcements and replacements - except for the 35L II - I really think it's "prime time" now:

I have no preference of the chronological order but I'd like to see new versions of

50/1.4
85/1.8
135/2.0L
20/2.8

Disclaimer: wider aperture, IS, better AF and mechanical built are always welcome. I am not fixated on the Roman number "II"

If Canon could manage to work through that list in less than two years I'd be pleased - but also very surprised 

And:


neuroanatomist said:


> ...
> I have the weird theory that everyone clamoring for an updated 50/1.4 is actually an alterego of ahsanford.


Nope! not here


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Which three do I want updated?
> 1. MP-E 65mm f/2.8
> 2. EF 135mm f/2L
> 3. TS-E 90mm f/2.8



How would you have the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 updated? I don't own this one yet, but I am impressed with it's range and sharpness.


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> arcer said:
> 
> 
> > I have the weird theory that the 50/1.4 is still a top 10 best seller, because the same few thousands of people who loved it will break it just after warranty ended and now they have to buy a new one, while cursing Canon for not updating it yet. Come on Canon, get your glASSes together and give us what we want.
> ...



Haha, yup. Actually, not here, I'm just one that wants him to shut up ;P


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Which three do I want updated?
> ...



You're right, it's a good lens in its current form. It could use modern coatings, as some contrast is lost to internal ghosting, particularly since it's often used with flash and that sometimes means specular highlights. The tripod ring could be s bit smoother.


----------



## JMZawodny (Oct 11, 2016)

I'm pretty happy on both the tele and wide ends of my lens collection. It is the mid focal lengths that are a bit weak. My list is:

1) EF 200 f/2L
2) EF 85 f/1.8
3) EF TS-E 90 f/2.8

I rarely use 50mm (I like 40 better) so any of those would never appear on my list. The Tilt-Shift was added simply to have a third in my list although it could have easily been the 45 instead of the 90. I see the 135 f/2 showing up in previous comments, but I'm pretty happy with it as is.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 11, 2016)

My two cents:

1. The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, a la ahsanford's EF 50mm f/1.something IS USM.

That is beside the point of a new EF 50mm f/1.4L USM to compete with the new uber-50mm f/1.4, which are in a separate class than the 50mm f/1.2L USM.

2. The 85mm f/1.8 USM. Its a good lens, but the market is moving forward, and people want IS.

3. The 400mm f/5.6 USM. The competition is pressing hard in this segment. A cheap 400mm f/5.6 IS USM would help Canon on this front.

I can see Canon upgrading the 14mm f/2.8L before at least one of those. Its last on the list of ultra-wide lenses to be upgraded, there's competition, the IQ could be improved, and its old enough.

Next on the list would be the 28mm f/1.8 & 20mm f/2.8. The competition is moving forward with lenses in those focal lengths, 28mm is about normal for APS-C cameras, and bringing those primes into the digital era is good for Canon's image & PR.


----------



## In-The-Dark (Oct 11, 2016)

Updates for the following lenses:

1) 100 f/2 (with IS please)
2) 50 f/1.4 (with or without IS)
3) 28 f/1.8


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 11, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> I can see Canon upgrading the 14mm f/2.8L before at least one of those. Its last on the list of ultra-wide lenses to be upgraded, there's competition, the IQ could be improved, and its old enough.



I can't. They probably sell tens of 14 f2.8's not even hundreds. It isn't worth upgrading even though in my experience it is the worst performing L lens I have ever used. Add in the fact that the 11-24 is a stunning optic that raised the bar on ultra wides and the market for the 14 prime got even smaller.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 11, 2016)

1. 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro (1987 design!)
2. 28-300L actually, a smaller 24-200 full frame non-L superzoom would be a great seller
3. 50mm f/1.2L (love the lens, but it could certainly be better)


----------



## JohanCruyff (Oct 11, 2016)

AFAIK the 85mm F/1.8 is the lens used by DPreview in their camera's sharpness comparison, so Canon has to update it to get better overall results.


----------



## Refurb7 (Oct 11, 2016)

jolyonralph said:


> 1. 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro (1987 design!)



Oh goodness, yes! That has to be the OLDEST. It's coming up on THIRTY years. A good lens but that focus motor is just so noisy and buzzy! Come on Canon ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > 1. 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro (1987 design!)
> ...



I think that's the oldest lens that's still 'current', but maybe that one should just die a natural death (like the 135mm f/2.8 SF that was released the same year). For APS-C users, the EF-S 60/2.8 macro is a better choice, and since the 50/2.5 CM needs the life size converter to achieve 1:1, the 100mm non-L macro is probably a better choice there, as well.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I would add, increase the number of aperture blades/make them rounded (hexagonal OOF highlights are a little ugly), and include some sealing (it does rather pump air/dust).

Otherwise I guess my choices would be the 180mm macro (bump it to f/2.8 and add IS), and I suppose the 50mm f/1.4 (I loved it at first, but it is soft wide open, and the CA is a pain), and maybe the 85L (not sure how feasible, but changing it from being focus by wire, and reducing CA wide open if possible).


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Noted and thanks. It's good to hear opinions of this lens, since there seem to be few opinions out there. If upgraded, I probably could not resist buying it.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 11, 2016)

1. The 85 f/1.2L II needs internal focusing (+weather sealing) and IS, maybe better coatings / better CA handling
2. The 135 f/2 L needs an IS
3. Don't need anything else at the moment


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have the weird theory that everyone clamoring for an updated 50/1.4 is actually an alterego of ahsanford.



not here, let me demonstrate.. 


I don't care about IS in this lens.


there, proof!


----------



## hmatthes (Oct 12, 2016)

Yes, EF 50 1.4 II, no IS at this focal length, no STM (hate focus by wire)
Yes, EF 85 1.8 II, IS maybe, no STM (If a step up in IQ)
Yes, 24-80 2.8L, no IS needed.


----------



## e_honda (Oct 12, 2016)

The 300mm f4 L needs an update. The 70-300 L has better center sharpness.


----------



## niels123 (Oct 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Many possible lists...
> 
> Which three do I think 'most people' want updated?
> 1. EF 50mm f/1.4
> ...



What's wrong with the current MP-E?


----------



## niels123 (Oct 12, 2016)

For me it would be:

1) 180 macro: I'd buy it if it was as good as the 100L macro which I have. I have the Milvus100 which blows away the canon 100L macro so the 180 is just too soft for a macro lens. Make it 150 with IS Canon and make it as good as the 100L macro

2) 135L: also here I have the APO-Sonnar 135 from Zeiss which really shows the massive difference between the two. Make it better and with weather sealing Canon. I don't need IS here, better make it f/1.8 instead of f/2

3) 50mm f/1.4 :-X


----------



## MYB (Oct 12, 2016)

As a crop user

1. 17-55mm f/2.8
2. 50mm f/1.4

3. Title is "update" but maybe a wide angle prime, something like EF-S 10mm f/2.8


----------



## MYB (Oct 12, 2016)

unfocused said:


> 15 - 85mm efs to f4 non-variable aperture and maybe an extra mm or two
> At the wide end and an extra 10-15 mm at the long end.



+1


----------



## Haydn1971 (Oct 12, 2016)

Ones I want...
50mm f1.4 IS USM
85mm f1.8 IS USM
200-500mm f5.6 IS - preferably to work with extenders

Ones I'd expect upgraded next
70-300mm L - preferably to work with extenders
200mm f2.8
300mm f2.8
400mm f2.8
800mm f5.6


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 12, 2016)

niels123 said:


> For me it would be:
> 1) 180 macro: I'd buy it if it was as good as the 100L macro which I have. I have the Milvus100 which blows away the canon 100L macro so the 180 is just too soft for a macro lens. Make it 150 with IS Canon and make it as good as the 100L macro



Why not make it sharper than the 100L? I have the Sigma 180 2.8 and am pretty happy with it, but an upgrade to the Canon 180 with TC compatibility, current AF, hybrid IS - what a great multi-function lens for hiking! And...maybe 2X magnification?

And a longer throw - 150 degrees would be nice. That and quick AF would be a challenge for the engineers, but Canon has good engineers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2016)

Haydn1971 said:


> I nes I'd expect upgraded next
> 70-300mm L - preferably to work with extenders
> 200mm f2.8
> 300mm f2.8
> ...



The 70-300L is a young lens, unlikely to be updated. Taking extenders would mean making it physically longer, and one of the main advantages it offers over a 100-400 is its smaller size. 

The 200/2.8 is 'old' but has a place as an 'inexpensive' long+fast lens. Given the 70-200 zooms, I'm not sure we'll see an updated 200/2.8 anytime soon. 

The 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 were updated to MkII relatively recently and are excellent lenses – I really don't see them being updated anytime soon. I could see a 300/2.8 DO lens, though. 

The 800/5.6 was _not_ updated along with the 300-600mm lenses, the 600 II + 1.4xIII beats the 800 for IQ (and is lighter and cheaper), and Nikon recently came out with their own 800/5.6. So, of all the lenses on your list I think this one is the most likely to see an update (along with the 200/2, which also skipped the MkII update).


----------



## j-nord (Oct 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



The 50 2.5 CM filled 2 niche markets for which I don't think there is a direct alternative in the canon lens lineup: product photography and document/artwork reproduction. I'm not sure this lens is as important for these niches anymore but they are certainly the reason they kept the CM around for so long.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 12, 2016)

I think these are probably the lenses Canon *should* update soonest:

- 50 f1.4 (if they go 50 f2 IS - I immediately lose interest. I find the 50 f1.8 STM is a good lens but the working distance to bokeh ratio (I'm sure there is a term for this) is not good enough, and external focus on a small prime is super annoying, and the focus by wire is terrible)
- 85 f1.8
- 85 f1.2
- 50 f1.2 
- 135 f2

I'm not a portrait photographer but, I think Canon is severely lacking in modern standard/portrait primes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2016)

j-nord said:


> The 50 2.5 CM filled 2 niche markets for which I don't think there is a direct alternative in the canon lens lineup: product photography and document/artwork reproduction. I'm not sure this lens is as important for these niches anymore but they are certainly the reason they kept the CM around for so long.



Arguably, the TS-E lenses (90mm or 45mm depending on subject size) are ideal lenses for product photography – tilt allows DoF control that eliminates the need to use really narrow apertures that cost sharpness, and with a short extension tube the magnification gets close to 0.5x. 

Agree on the 50/2.5 CM being great for copy work, but as you say that may be less common than in the past (personally, I use the 100/2.8L for that sort of thing on the rare occasions I've needed to do it).


----------



## ritholtz (Oct 12, 2016)

MYB said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > 15 - 85mm efs to f4 non-variable aperture and maybe an extra mm or two
> ...


EF-S/M 15-85mm f2.8 to 4.0 IS lens for $499 please?


----------



## Crosswind (Oct 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Arguably, the TS-E lenses (90mm or 45mm depending on subject size) are ideal lenses for product photography – tilt allows DoF control that eliminates the need to use really narrow apertures that cost sharpness, and with a short extension tube the magnification gets close to 0.5x.



Tilt-shift lenses for product photography? And I always thought that focus stacking is the way to go for that matter.

For me, the Canon EF 20mm 1:2,8 USM is the one that should get an update. I almost bought it, but didn't do so because of its massive field curvature problems, especially wide open. Otherwise, it is a great compact lens for under 500 bucks without the super-heavy-weight of a Sigma 20 Art for example. 

The very closest modern lens to this one is the EF 24mm IS USM. It's also very small and lightweight, but still no 20mm. Will Canon ever offer one in this price range?


----------



## geekpower (Oct 13, 2016)

135/2 (weather sealing and IS)
200/2.8 (weather sealing and IS)

even if the latter did not outperform the 70-200/2.8 in sharpness, it would still be much lighter and easier to sneak into sports events


----------



## j-nord (Oct 13, 2016)

Interesting that no one has mentioned the 24L for update. It's been brought up a lot but, I guess everyone is more interested in the 16-35iii.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 13, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Interesting that no one has mentioned the 24L for update. It's been brought up a lot but, I guess everyone is more interested in the 16-35iii.



Good point. I have one, but the vignetting, coma and performance wide open are pretty terrible. And it appears that its faults contribute to poor resale value. My copy is like new and recently checked out by Canon, and its value is well less than half what I paid.

So a version III would make sense.


----------



## dsnook (Oct 15, 2016)

+1 to all those who mentioned updating the old 45 and 90 TS-E lenses.

I use these all the time for architectural detail shots and would be glad to see an upgrade!


----------



## geekpower (Oct 15, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Interesting that no one has mentioned the 24L for update. It's been brought up a lot but, I guess everyone is more interested in the 16-35iii.



i almost listed it as my #3 but figured that between the 24 ts-e, 11-24, and two 16-35s, the only thing that sets it apart is being fast, and somewhat like the 50L, people who like the way it renders may be willing to overlook its faults.


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 16, 2016)

Now everyone else has listed theirs, I'll add mine.

1. 50f1.4 - quelle suprise. mechanically, optically and AF deficient.
2. 28f1.8 - canons "affordable" wide-wide, optically deficient off axis wide open (soft + field curvature)
3. 24f1.4 - better than the 28f1.8 but no better than the sigma ART optically and double the price of the ART.


----------



## tron (Oct 16, 2016)

EF 135mm f/2 L needs just IS. It's optics are fine. I believe 24mm 1.4 L II needs updating to perform decently fully open (sharpness and coma wise)


----------



## ritholtz (Oct 16, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> Now everyone else has listed theirs, I'll add mine.
> 
> 1. 50f1.4 - quelle suprise. mechanically, optically and AF deficient.
> 2. 28f1.8 - canons "affordable" wide-wide, optically deficient off axis wide open (soft + field curvature)
> 3. 24f1.4 - better than the 28f1.8 but no better than the sigma ART optically and double the price of the ART.


Canon should make 28mm 1.8 as EFS lens.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 17, 2016)

My top three:- 

1. EF50mm f1.4 - replacement
2. EF85mm f1.8 - replacement
3. EF135mm f2.8L Macro - New


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 17, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > Now everyone else has listed theirs, I'll add mine.
> ...



why?.. surely you just buy the current 28f1.8

note: you can use the ET-63 hood for use on a crop which deals with glare a lot better.


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 18, 2016)

Well Canon's lens lineup is looking pretty awesome these days, especially with the recent UWA zooms. It's more for me to figure out what lens I need to get then what lens Canon needs to update.

I know the 50mm has got to be at the top of their list and many are clamoring for it. I'm more a 35/85 combo shooter so I can pass on the 50mm. 

1) 85mm f/1.8
2) 85mm f/1.2L
3) 20mm f/2.8

I'd love to see some sort of cross between the two 85mm lenses. Maybe an 85mm f/1.4, no IS, lose the focus by wire, very fast and accurate AF, optically stunning, top notch glass.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Oct 18, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 70-300L is a young lens, unlikely to be updated. Taking extenders would mean making it physically longer, and one of the main advantages it offers over a 100-400 is its smaller size.
> 
> The 200/2.8 is 'old' but has a place as an 'inexpensive' long+fast lens. Given the 70-200 zooms, I'm not sure we'll see an updated 200/2.8 anytime soon.
> 
> ...



I'd expect the 70-300L to be a huge seller, thus prime for getting mods to keep it attractive and importantly maximise the profit margin, thus why in my list.

Slip of the f stop 200mm f2.0 not 2.8 ;-) It's kinda old now by big white prime standards

800mm - fully expect a DO version next


----------



## Steve Todd (Oct 18, 2016)

Still hopeful for an updated 28-300L in the next few years. The one I have has served me well for over 11-years as my one-body, one-lens, travel set up! I usually carry multiple bodies and lenses on road trips, however I find myself using the single body/lens option more and more as I grow older! The images it produces on the latest EOS bodies are still great! However, newer AF, IS, zooming method and refined lens elements would be a welcomed upgrade!


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 18, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Many possible lists...
> 
> Which three do I think 'most people' want updated?
> 1. EF 50mm f/1.4
> ...



Sorry. Late to the party. Yes. This.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 18, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have the weird theory that everyone clamoring for an updated 50/1.4 is actually an alterego of ahsanford.



;D

For the record, I only have one ID here (or anywhere else that I post, for that matter). 

An EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM is just a good idea. I'd guess it's the #1 most wanted lens now that the White Unicorn and 24-105L have both been updated.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 18, 2016)

niels123 said:


> What's wrong with the current MP-E?



Never used it myself, but I read it did not handle dust well. I think that was less of a general dust problem so much as _how unforgiving dust is at 5x_. So maybe it could be better sealed?

But I defer to the macro-rail-sliding, fly's-eyeball-shooting 5x lovers on this forum. They would know where it needs improvement.

- A


----------



## j-nord (Oct 18, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Many possible lists...
> ...



Wait I'm confused, do you want a:
1) 50 f1.4 II
2) 50 f2 IS
3) 50 f1.4 IS (I think this is what everyone _wants_ but seems unrealistic considering the other recent prime releases)

It goes with out saying these would be all be internal focus. None of the extending prime nonsense.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 18, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Wait I'm confused, do you want a:
> 1) 50 f1.4 II
> 2) 50 f2 IS
> 3) 50 f1.4 IS (I think this is what everyone _wants_ but seems unrealistic considering the other recent prime releases)
> ...



Short answer: a new 50mm with internal focusing and modern reliable USM and in a non-enormous size.

Longer answer: It depends on what Canon offers us, as many have conceded that a 50 f/1.4 IS USM could steal 50L sales and Canon may not offer us that. So here's my spectrum of Yes/No for this lens (from a prior post):

"As far as what I would / would not buy in a new 50:

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM II = Buy. Opportunity lost with no IS, but if it's this or nothing, I'll take it.

EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM = Buy. Pricey, but if still relatively small compared to the pickle jars, I'd be in.

EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM = Buy.

EF 50mm f/2.0 IS USM = Buy. Could be awesomely tiny and low-profile, but I imagine they'd never put this out given that the budget STM lens is still f/1.8.

EF 50mm f/anything *L* USM = *Not* buy. Presumably too big/expensive/specialized for my needs, but we'll see. If it was not a draw/bokeh specialist of a lens and was sharper across the frame, I'd maaaaybe consider it.

EF 50mm *f/2.5 1:2 compact macro* USM = *Not* buy. I think I need f/2 or quicker, and I don't need another macro (either due to a large internal focusing housing or non-internal focusing design that leans out a great deal.)

EF 50mm of *any sort with STM* = *kill it with a hammer*. Not good enough for this class of lens.

I imagine everyone's personal buy / not buy list is quite different, though."

- A


----------



## JMZawodny (Oct 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Wait I'm confused, do you want a:
> ...



I'm sorry, but a new 50mm at any f# is not a major priority. Despite your adamant protestations to the contrary. Nevertheless, a new 50mm is likely in the next 12 months, but that is because it will will be a kit lens they toss in with their newer bodies. There is so much more fertile ground to be plowed.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 19, 2016)

JMZawodny said:


> I'm sorry, but a new 50mm at any f# is not a major priority. Despite your adamant protestations to the contrary. Nevertheless, a new 50mm is likely in the next 12 months, but that is because it will will be a kit lens they toss in with their newer bodies. There is so much more fertile ground to be plowed.



Respectfully disagree. Canon doesn't have a sharp across-the-frame 50mm prime with anything resembling a modern feature set. That is not an extravagant need, and as such, I find it a gap for the world's largest imaging company.

We presently have a choice of:


The 50L = a fairly specialized large aperture tool due to its nutty not-quite-a-plane of focus (not to mention ordinary lenses outresolve it after f/2.8 or so)
The ancient 50 f/1.4 USM = decent IQ but fragile build quality and it lacks a ton of modern features
An _even ancienter_ f/2.5 1:2 macro that I won't even spend another moment on
The 50 f/1.8 STM is fine... if you like STM, focus by wire, plasticky build, no distance scale, external focusing, etc. The optics are not terrible but the user experience suffers due to all the things it cannot do

Canon needs a workhorse 50mm that says yes to all the needs of general use. Just take the same old vanilla double-gauss optics from the 50 f/1.4 USM and put it in an internally focusing package with modern USM and IS (like the 24/28/35 non-L IS lenses) and it will solve the gap I am referring to. 

It doesn't need to resolve like an Art or Otus (the next 50L will surely pull a 35L II, get huge, and compete with Sigma and Zeiss on that front) -- the new non-L 50 just needs to be an 8 out of 10 in everything in a reasonably sized package... _just like the 24/28/35 non-L IS lenses_. That's what irks me the most -- Canon has the perfect roadmap for this lens from 24/28/35 IS re-designs, but those designs (apparently) tanked commercially and Canon appears to be gunshy to expand that refresh effort to the 50mm and 85mm focal lengths. #sadness

- A


----------



## JMZawodny (Oct 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Respectfully disagree. Canon doesn't have a sharp across-the-frame 50mm prime with anything resembling a modern feature set. That is not an extravagant need, and as such, I find it a gap for the world's largest imaging company.
> - A



While expected and I likely agree with you, this is not where Canon will distinguish itself. Canon will dance around an improved 50mm for at least a year.


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 19, 2016)

JMZawodny said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Respectfully disagree. Canon doesn't have a sharp across-the-frame 50mm prime with anything resembling a modern feature set. That is not an extravagant need, and as such, I find it a gap for the world's largest imaging company.
> ...



Canon has been without like for llike competition for the Sigma-ART since it came out in April 2014. The 50STM is a competent little lens, and must by now be eating sales of the 1.4, my bag contains one example of this.

From a purely commercial point of view I would expect Canon to want to update the 1.4


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 19, 2016)

Which Canon lens is most in need of updating? 

Seems it may be the Canon EF 24-105 f/4.0 IS USM mkii ;D


----------



## tron (Oct 19, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> Which Canon lens is most in need of updating?
> 
> Seems it may be the Canon EF 24-105 f/4.0 IS USM mkii ;D


Funniest entry but who knows maybe true also. Let's wait tdp to test it ;D ;D ;D


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 20, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> niels123 said:
> 
> 
> > What's wrong with the current MP-E?
> ...



Like others said before in this thread: modern coatings would be a nice upgrade. As for the dust, my copy sucked in a fiber, which is a a pain to clone out in LR. But thankfully it has moved out of the frame now after going from 1x to 5x a few times


----------



## GammyKnee (Oct 20, 2016)

#1 for me would be the 50 1.4. I know the current offering has its fans, but honestly I consider it to be an embarrassment. The replacement would have to be pretty decent to tempt me away from my Tamron 45 though.

#2 17-40L. Yes, I'm sure the 16-35 IS USM is wonderful, but I like having that extra 5mm on the long end. Sharpen up the corners a lot, and the centre a bit, and it'll be fine. Don't even need to give it IS.

#3 You know, I'm actually struggling to fill this slot. Maybe the 85 1.8, just a tad sharper and with less CA.


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



I just checked the B&H, Adorama and Amazon websites; the 50CM is nowhere to be found on the first two, and only on Amazon used. So I'm not sure it's still "current" ... its "natural death" may have already occurred. Interestingly, B&H still sells the 50CM's accessory Life Size Converter.

I have a 50CM in my bag; it's the oldest piece of glass in my kit -- in terms of my personal ownership, as well as release date. And it's my only 50mm prime. I now use the 100/2.8L for macro work, but since the 50CM is faster and sharper than my normal-range zoom (24-105L v1), I'll hang onto it until the AHSanford Autograph Special is released. Truth be told, I may never get rid of it; it's just so old and cute and weird and special ...

2) As for the rest of the wish list, I would trade my excellent 100-400 II for either:
-300mm f/4L IS USM + built-in 1.4x extender
- 400mm f/5.6L IS USM

3) 24-70*mm f/2.8L IS USM (* it would be great if this would extend to 85mm without an IQ hit)


----------



## j-nord (Oct 20, 2016)

JMZawodny said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Respectfully disagree. Canon doesn't have a sharp across-the-frame 50mm prime with anything resembling a modern feature set. That is not an extravagant need, and as such, I find it a gap for the world's largest imaging company.
> ...



hahahaha "at least a year"? They've been dancing around it for *MANY * years already.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 20, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Refurb7 said:
> ...



To clarify, the 50mm f2.5 CM was discontinued as per Canon retailers. I don't know why Canon still lists it on their website. They are probably just waiting for stock to run out completely.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 20, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Wait I'm confused, do you want a:
> ...



Interesting, I'd never consider anything narrower than f1.4 for such a lens. I have the 50 f1.8 STM and I find the focal length to aperture ratio is barely passable. The AF is insanely slow, focus by wire barely works, external focus is super annoying, but for $125 it's hard to argue against having one 'just because'. I want a 50 f1.4 II USM with all the specs we are expecting AND maybe IS (wishful thinking). 

The 50 f1.4 II would have to have similar optical performance while being smaller and cheaper than the Sigma 50 ART. I think there in lies the problem for Canon, it's a difficult expectation to live up to while also maintaining room for a 50L II market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2016)

j-nord said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Thanks for clarifying. My criterion for 'current' was being listed on the Canon USA website.


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > JonAustin said:
> ...



How Canon will ever exhaust its stock of the 50CM, if none of the major retailers list it for sale?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...



The Canon USA online store also lists it as out of stock...

EDIT: But they _do_ have stock of the Life Size Converter (like B&H), so maybe that's why they leave the 50CM listed in their lineup?


----------



## tron (Oct 21, 2016)

tron said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Which Canon lens is most in need of updating?
> ...


On second thought, now that 16-35 f/2.8L II is obviously discontinued may I suggest the ... 16-35 f/2.8L III for its extreme vignetting? ;D ;D ;D I was waiting to replace my 14 2.8L II and 16-35 f/4L IS with this but now I have second thoughts.... Hmmm, maybe a 14 2.8L III will do the trick. Ohhh, Canon hello, ....


----------



## tcmatthews (Oct 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I still think that Canon should replace the 50CM with a 50-58mm f2 Macro with IS. It really needs to be a true 1:1 macro without the life size converter. There are time when I would like a 50mm Macro and Canon's just does not do it for me. It could also be a hit with the video shooters. 

As for it being discontinued. I think Canon is slowly replacing all non USM lenses that have normal micro motors with STM because they are cheaper to produce. If you fall that logic all lens that have the old micro motors such as the 50CM will be retired or replaced. As existing parts supplies are exhausted.

My list 

50CM re-envisioned as a true 1:1 Macro with f2 and IS
50 f1.4 better USM update better rounding on blades
85f1.8 newer coatings rouder iris blades with IS
135f2 newer coatings rounder iris blades add IS (I believe newer coatings or a slight tweak to design can remove the occasional purple fringe that exists in both the 85mm and 135mm)
180 L macro updated with IS

I do not see how they add IS to the 50f1.4 without taking sales from the 50L. I am not really in the market for a new 50mm but if Canon releases a new 50 f1.4 or a Macro I might be tempted.


----------



## SkynetTX (Oct 30, 2016)

Any lenses with focus by wire technology. Those lenses are good only for videographers. For still photographers the support of FullTimeManual focusing is much more important. Most of the times I take macro shots and want to focus before I turn the camera on. With FBW that's impossible, so Canon should make EF-V lenses for videographers and EF(-S) lenses for still photographers with Ring Type USM and FTM support.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2016)

SkynetTX said:


> Any lenses with focus by wire technology. Those lenses are good only for videographers. For still photographers the support of FullTimeManual focusing is much more important. Most of the times I take macro shots and want to focus before I turn the camera on. With FBW that's impossible, so Canon should make EF-V lenses for videographers and EF(-S) lenses for still photographers with Ring Type USM and FTM support.



+1. I hate FBW lenses -- I want full-time mechanical manual focusing.

That Sony thinks they'll successfully court pros with FBW lenses -- which I believe their three new G Master lenses are -- is beyond me.

- A


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> SkynetTX said:
> 
> 
> > Any lenses with focus by wire technology. Those lenses are good only for videographers. For still photographers the support of FullTimeManual focusing is much more important. Most of the times I take macro shots and want to focus before I turn the camera on. With FBW that's impossible, so Canon should make EF-V lenses for videographers and EF(-S) lenses for still photographers with Ring Type USM and FTM support.
> ...



+1

I hate the STM focus on my 50STM, if the focus remained live or the camera woke up when you moved the focus ring it wouldn't be quite as bad, but you still end up with a detached feeling.


----------



## pj1974 (Oct 31, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > SkynetTX said:
> ...



I own several USM lenses (and have sold a few of my earlier Canon USM lenses). I also currently own 3 different STM lenses (50mm STM, 18-55mm STM, and 10-18mm STM), and have owned some other STM lenses in the past (e.g. 55-250mm STM). While I definitely prefer USM to STM, I must admit that I much prefer STM to the 'non STM' versions. 

The STM snaps into focus faster, and more reassuringly than the 'non STM' / older versions did. I was so frustrated with the AF from the old 50mm f/1.8 ii that I sold both copies I had. When the 50mm STM came out, I gave it a try and I am much happier with the 50mm STM's AF than that of the 50mm f/1.8 ii.

Like many others, I look forward to Canon putting together a 50mm f/nooneknows with true ring USM. The new EF-S 18-135mm's nano-USM has blazingly fast AF on the 80D, it has to be experienced to be believed. However yes, USM still has a definite advantage in terms of a tactile, responsive focus mechanism.

Actually, my ideal would be a fairly small EF 50mm f/1.6 IS USM with 58mm filter that already has great IQ wide open, and super IQ from f/2. (Just putting it out there, Canon!) 

Regards, 

Paul 8)


----------



## SkynetTX (Nov 9, 2016)

The worst thing in FBW lenses is the Initial Focus Reset. This "feature" is the worst idea Canon ever had. I hope that it will not be available in any new lenses.


----------



## photojoern.de (Nov 14, 2016)

I would really very much want the f2.8 28-70 II L to have an IS. It´s such a widespread lens, so many people use it or have it top on their list. But then without IS I have my limits just too many times, i.e. early blue hour shots handheld or portrait shots in a soft low light environment. That´s really a pity. 

An IS would make this lens just perfect, because the optical performance is superb.


----------



## e_honda (Nov 15, 2016)

All the 50mm (except the 1.8 STM) and 85mm lenses could use some updating.

The 300 F4 and 400 F5.6 I think are in the most need of updating, but I doubt it happens. The 400 F5.6 needs IS, but adding it likely increases size and weight, and by then Canon probably figures most people would just prefer the 100-400 II.

The 300 F4 definitely needs an update. The 70-300 L is sharper in the center (albeit at a smaller aperture) and it could use a newer IS.


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 16, 2016)

Do we think adding the 16-35 f2.8 MkIII to the list is a touch cruel (vignetting)


----------



## tron (Nov 16, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> Do we think adding the 16-35 f2.8 MkIII to the list is a touch cruel (vignetting)


No it is not! Right now vignetting is the only drawback so I guess the 4th time will be a charm!


----------



## Jerryrigged (Nov 16, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> Title says it all.. I know what I want, I've stated it often enough.. but what would others want without biasing the thread.
> 
> Let's list your top 3 in order.



Canon's Zooms are pretty amaziing, and recently they gave some love to the primes with the 35 1.4L II. I think they need to address updates to their L primes.

50mm f/1.2L. I actually really like this lens, but if they were to give it some of the 35L 1.4L II love, it could be truly amazing! 
85mm f/1.2L. Improve the AF (or maybe I just got multiple bad copies), and CA. I'd even be OK with changing aperture to 1.4 if needed to improve AF performance.
135 f/2. Only tried this lens once, and it was OK. If only they could update it with similar IS to what is in the 100mm f/2.8L Macro!


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Nov 17, 2016)

24-105 III needs to be updated to be a competent high res lens. 

What a great range, what an annoying "update"


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 17, 2016)

tron said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > Do we think adding the 16-35 f2.8 MkIII to the list is a touch cruel (vignetting)
> ...



version IV with a bulbous front element. :


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 17, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...



...yet retaining front filter threads. That's an absolute staple 'must' feature for lens bought by bushel by events / sports / reportage folks. Drop the filter thread with a next version and folks will hang on to their last copy or look for other companies' solutions.

So perhaps they should do both: pull a Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 style design out there (see below, but drop the integral hood to allow 4x6 filter holders to work) with a comically large front filter ring. You'd have a bulbous front element to combat vignetting, _and_ a 95mm filter ring for those who need an ND, CPL, or landscape filters. Have cake and eat it too?

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 17, 2016)

Busted Knuckles said:


> 24-105 III needs to be updated to be a competent high res lens.
> 
> What a great range, what an annoying "update"



Even though its considerable more expensive than a 50mm f/1.4 or 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, its still a zoom kit lens, and should be expected to bottom of the L pile.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Front filter threads are a must for landscapers too. Screw on CPL and ND filters are a given requirement.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 27, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Front filter threads are a must for landscapers too. Screw on CPL and ND filters are a given requirement.



Of course, but traditional (non-astro) landscapers aren't buying the 16-35 f/2.8L III unless they want to future proof with a lens that lets them get into a completely different realm of photography someday. But for your standard landscape work, they'd be hurting their back and their wallets for an aperture they will never use. They'd be much better served with the 16-35 f/4L IS.

Hence my focus on why _event / sports / reportage_ folks need the front filter: for a CPL to cut glare / reflections (even at those wide angles) or an ND for flash sync reasons.

- A


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> Busted Knuckles said:
> 
> 
> > 24-105 III needs to be updated to be a competent high res lens.
> ...



Writing off the 24-105 L II with the pejorative "kit lens" is lens snobbery. It has hardly been bettered by a full-blooded attempt by Sigma or the version III and is a well-built lens. You are treating a whole segment of the community with contempt by using "kit" in such a way because they buy or can only afford to buy a lens + camera package.


----------



## Gongedan (Dec 19, 2016)

1. 50mm F1.4
2. 85mm F1.2
3. 135 f2


----------



## fussy III (Dec 19, 2016)

Canon EF 20mm/2.8
Canon FD TS 35mm/2.8 S.S.C.
Canon FD 150-600mm/5.6 L


----------



## picturefan (Dec 19, 2016)

+1

EF24-105LII needs to be updated, soon! Putting in what is technically feasibly without listening too much to some marketing guys...

;D


----------



## IglooEater (Dec 19, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Canon FD 150-600mm/5.6 L


Oh yes! Absolutely! I'd forgotten about that one; I saw one more recently being used in the behind the scenes of BBC's Earthflight- attached to a RED camera. One bazooka of a lens.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 24, 2016)

fussy III said:


> Canon EF 20mm/2.8
> Canon FD TS 35mm/2.8 S.S.C.
> Canon FD 150-600mm/5.6 L



What would you get from an updated FD TS 35mm f/2.8 that you wouldn't get from a TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II + EF extender 1.4? Would 2 f-stops matter that much?


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 24, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Busted Knuckles said:
> ...



The EF 24-105mm is my most commonly used lens, in spite of having bought other L lenses, because its a useful lens with good price-performance ratio. My contempt to myself has been duly noted.

It is no more a pejorative than macro or ultra wide. Its what a lens sold in "a lens + camera package" called, in this case because its a useful lens with good price-performance ratio.

The Sigma 24-105mm Art is cheaper than the EF 24-105mm L, so I doubt Sigma made "a full-blooded attempt" to better it.

[Oh, yes, I know the Canon L can be bought for a lower price. Its only because Canon sells it in a kit, and gives up some of the profit margin on it, which Sigma can't.]

Are you satisfied, or should I send written apology with a bokeh of flowers?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 4, 2017)

Most in need updating / creating 

1. EF 50mm f1.4L 
2. EF 65mm f1.4L
3. EF 85mm f1.4L
4. EF 100mm f1.4L

Along with the 24mm f1.4II, 35mm f1.4L II gives a consistent maximum F stop which makes them suitable for stills & video.


----------



## coldmist (Jan 6, 2017)

The 50mm 1.4 is the lens I want updated the most with IS. Ring type USM, improved IQ wide open, internal focusing, and better build quality similar to the 24/28/35 IS lenses would be excellent.

An update of the 85mm 1.8 with IS is my second want.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 6, 2017)

coldmist said:


> The 50mm 1.4 is the lens I want updated the most with IS. Ring type USM, improved IQ wide open, internal focusing, and better build quality similar to the 24/28/35 IS lenses would be excellent.
> 
> An update of the 85mm 1.8 with IS is my second want.



FTR, I did not write the above. ;D

Well put, coldmist, and welcome!

- A


----------



## AJB (Jan 6, 2017)

coldmist said:


> The 50mm 1.4 is the lens I want updated the most with IS. Ring type USM, improved IQ wide open, internal focusing, and better build quality similar to the 24/28/35 IS lenses would be excellent.
> 
> An update of the 85mm 1.8 with IS is my second want.


EXACTLY these 2 for me! Although I could probably only justify buying one or the other - whichever they do first. Here's hoping!


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> coldmist said:
> 
> 
> > The 50mm 1.4 is the lens I want updated the most with IS. Ring type USM, improved IQ wide open, internal focusing, and better build quality similar to the 24/28/35 IS lenses would be excellent.
> ...



Very happy to share this common ground, but my biggest Canon wish is for the 50mm 1.2L to be updated to be just as good as the marvelous 35mm 1.4L II. As I'd be shooting it mostly only up to f/2.8, I can happily live without the IS--though it would be a nice bonus, but apparently just adds too much weight and size to the fastest lenses that fit FF...


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 6, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Very happy to share this common ground, but my biggest Canon wish is for the 50mm 1.2L to be updated to be just as good as the marvelous 35mm 1.4L II. As I'd be shooting it mostly only up to f/2.8, I can happily live without the IS--though it would be a nice bonus, but apparently just adds too much weight and size to the fastest lenses that fit FF...



Yep. The future of the 50L remains at a fork in the road: Canon could either stick with the compact double gauss design or join the Art and Otus lenses with huge new designs. Your guess is as good as mine there.

One would also expect the BR gunk to make a comeback based on the performance of the 35L II.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Yep. The future of the 50L remains at a fork in the road: Canon could either stick with the compact double gauss design or join the Art and Otus lenses with huge new designs. Your guess is as good as mine there.
> 
> One would also expect the BR gunk to make a comeback based on the performance of the 35L II.
> 
> - A



Not really. That 35mm f1.4 L MkII you mention is the same family of design as the Otus and Sigma 50's, retrofocus. That the next 50L will be a retrofocus design is pretty much a given.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 6, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Not really. That 35mm f1.4 L MkII you mention is the same family of design as the Otus and Sigma 50's, retrofocus. That the next 50L will be a retrofocus design is pretty much a given.



Oh, so you think it's a done deal -- Canon will build a big / killer resolution lens and abandon the weird magic and draw of the current 50L? It's a logical guess, sure, but do we know that's what they'll do?

- A


----------



## ritholtz (Jan 6, 2017)

15-85mm and 17-55mm lens and new corresponding lens for M.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Not really. That 35mm f1.4 L MkII you mention is the same family of design as the Otus and Sigma 50's, retrofocus. That the next 50L will be a retrofocus design is pretty much a given.
> ...



None of us know anything! 

But yes I believe a new 50L would have to be a retrofocus design not a double gauss. However I don't believe a 50L 'upgrade' is imminent, when Canon designed the 50L they made what they consider to be the ultimate portrait lens with no consideration to cost or processes, in other words they built what they wanted to build and the aberrations that are there are there by design.

Now a 50 f1.4 upgrade with the 35 f2 IS treatment at f1.4-f2 makes a huge amount of sense to me. As does a full on 85 f1.2 MkIII.

Of course this means we will never get an 85L MkIII or that 50 f1.4 IS.........


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 6, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> None of us know anything!
> 
> But yes I believe a new 50L would have to be a retrofocus design not a double gauss. However I don't believe a 50L 'upgrade' is imminent, when Canon designed the 50L they made what they consider to be the ultimate portrait lens with no consideration to cost or processes, in other words they built what they wanted to build and the aberrations that are there are there by design.
> 
> ...



Well, I just rented that 'ultimate portrait lens' over the holiday to take some nice shots of the family, and there is nothing 'ultimate' about the AF hit rate with that lens on my 5D3. Despite getting the AFMA dialed-in, I ended up camping out around f/2 with that lens because I had too many misses when I shot wider than that, even with painstakingly careful AF technique (single cross point only, no focus and recompose, completely static subject, etc.).

From what I've read, the 35 f/1.4L II has the droid AF I am looking for. Something like that in a 50 prime would make me very happy.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > None of us know anything!
> ...



That's because you expected the kind of AF performance other lenses with different design concepts deliver together with the exceptionally narrow dof at close focus distances and the technique and familiarity needed to optimize it.

Many people use and love the 50 f1.2L, that you couldn't on your first outing with it really isn't any kind of comment on the lens, and knowing your self deprecating nature I wouldn't expect you to blame the lens especially had you had more time with it. 

Having said all that, I'd be surprised if you didn't have more than one keeper that has a certain something you can't quite put your finger on and that is why that lens, with it's 'character', has so many fans and so many haters. But it does do what Canon wanted it to do, it can deliver images with a certain magic that seems impossible to quantify yet was deliberately built in regardless of any other compromises needed to achieve that look.


----------



## slclick (Jan 6, 2017)

I'd love to see another FF pancake. The 40 needs a brother.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 6, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> That's because you expected the kind of AF performance other lenses with different design concepts deliver together with the exceptionally narrow dof at close focus distances and the technique and familiarity needed to optimize it.
> 
> Many people use and love the 50 f1.2L, that you couldn't on your first outing with it really isn't any kind of comment on the lens, and knowing your self deprecating nature I wouldn't expect you to blame the lens especially had you had more time with it.
> 
> Having said all that, I'd be surprised if you didn't have more than one keeper that has a certain something you can't quite put your finger on and that is why that lens, with it's 'character', has so many fans and so many haters. But it does do what Canon wanted it to do, it can deliver images with a certain magic that seems impossible to quantify yet was deliberately built in regardless of any other compromises needed to achieve that look.



My second rental with it, actually, but my experience was similar both times.

Your comments are fair. I make no proclamation that I have mastered how to handle the 50L by any stretch, and working with small DOF absolutely has it's challenges. And yes, it definitely net some very nice shots for me. It didn't miss _all_ the time! 

But I still believe that a photographer -- throwing out all artistic ambition / composition / judgment / intuition for a moment -- should be able to say 'I want to nail my nephew's eyes at f/1.4 (when he's not moving)', commit to accomplishing that task _and repeatedly accomplish it_. That was not my experience at all, and such, _I actually do hold the lens accountable in this case_. I expected a far-from-perfect hit rate towards the wide-open end, but I also experienced misses at f/2, even f/2.8 on non-moving subjects with decent available light. That's borderline inexcusable to me.

I'm not categorically indicting the lens, and I fully recognize that people work magic with it on a regular basis. I'm just saying that I have _much_ more faith in even non-L glass like my 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS to do what I want it to do. I recognize those aren't nearly the same AF ask as a 50mm f/1.2 lens, but those little guys are fire and forget and _never_ let me down. In comparison, the 50L -- even at more pedestrian apertures -- whiffed somewhat regularly.

- A


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That's because you expected the kind of AF performance other lenses with different design concepts deliver together with the exceptionally narrow dof at close focus distances and the technique and familiarity needed to optimize it.
> ...



did you use an Eg-s focus screen?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 6, 2017)

rfdesigner said:


> did you use an Eg-s focus screen?



The 5D3 doesn't allow screen changeout, and my complaint was about the _AF_, not MF use. Without a focusing screen and shooting handheld 95%+ of the time, I am at the mercy of the AF.

- A


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > did you use an Eg-s focus screen?
> ...



Ah.. I forgot the 5D3 won't let you. Point is on my 6D (+Eg-S) I'm finding that my wasted shot rate has gone down compared to my last camera as I can see more easily if it's missed focus, so I try again rather than take a shot I know will be off.


----------



## RGF (Jan 9, 2017)

how do propose that we determine which lenses most need updating?

Potential revenue growth for Canon (we would need to see market data), potential improvement in IQ (we would need to talk the guys in the lab - sorry ladies), ones we would like to see updated soonest because we want a new / updated lens. The latter question we can answer


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 11, 2017)

RGF said:


> how do propose that we determine which lenses most need updating?
> 
> Potential revenue growth for Canon (we would need to see market data), potential improvement in IQ (we would need to talk the guys in the lab - sorry ladies), ones we would like to see updated soonest because we want a new / updated lens. The latter question we can answer



It's also a system

Canon recognised the substantial weakness in their landscape lens segment and have well and truely fixed that with the 11-24 and 16-35 f4

They've produced the best 70-200 on the market and have a great choice for lesser budgets/biceps, and the rest of the big whites are, between them, out of this world, so sports and wildlife are pretty sorted (minus a 600-150)

The "wedding primes" is where some questions should be asked. the 35LII is the best available if I win the lottery I'll buy one the same day, while the 50L and 85L produce the best boke but are a comprimise in other respects.

Mid zooms are great, nothing to really complain about there, though IS on the 2.8 would be welcomed.

The mid-lenses is where things get a lot more troublesome. The 35f2 might be reasonably good but the 28f1.8 really needs an optical update, though mechanics are good and AF has nothing wrong that better optics wouldn't fix. The 100F2 is fine.. the 85 is not as good as the 100 and is more in need of an update, though I'd happily upgrade my 100 to get IS and reduced logitudinal chromatic abberation. The 501.4 though is just awful.. optically way behind the curve, mechanically it's just a joke, unlike the 50STM which for the money is a fine lens.

Point is as a SYSTEM, the mid primes are not what they need to be in 2017, and the 50L/85L let it down in some respects.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 11, 2017)

I could go for an inexpensive and lightweight 60-65-70-75mm f/2.8 prime to match the Shorty 40. The 40mm (and I suppose the 24mm on APS-C) is a good landscape focal length for me. I'd love to have a lightweight kit


----------



## slclick (Jan 12, 2017)

NancyP said:


> I could go for an inexpensive and lightweight 60-65-70-75mm f/2.8 prime to match the Shorty 40. The 40mm (and I suppose the 24mm on APS-C) is a good landscape focal length for me. I'd love to have a lightweight kit



I totally get your needs but I want the 24 FF pancake!


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 12, 2017)

rfdesigner said:


> Point is as a SYSTEM, the mid primes are not what they need to be in 2017, and the 50L/85L let it down in some respects.



Interesting way to slice it, RF. My take, as a system (EF only):

*UWA primes* --> Underwhelming. It's not exactly Zeiss with different prime FLs every few mm or so. The 14L is fine, but a new 20L to replace the ancient non-L 20mm f/2.8 would be welcomed I think. As a niche/specialty comment, Canon (and most everyone else!) can't seem to make a fast + ultrawide + coma free lens -- there's astro business to be had if they could offer such a lens.

*UWA zooms* --> Canon threw the house at improving here and it paid off. They have killed it with their recent high quality releases. We can debate the 16-35 f/2.8L III's 16mm vignetting as an inexplicable 'what happened?', but sharpness-wise, the 11-24L and both recent 16-35 Ls are all fine instruments. Some bellyache about the lack of an f/2.8 IS UWA zoom or something wider than 16mm @ f/2.8, but most everyone else is pretty pumped at what Canon's been doing in this segment.

*Standard primes, L* --> Good, but aging and not without room for improvement. The 50L and 85L have been outclassed with third party offerings in recent years. We're just starting a refresh cycle here on the 24/35/50/85, but if the new ones are as good as the 35L II, we're in business. 

*Standard primes, mid-level *--> This is the sucking belly wound of the portfolio. The 24/28/35 IS lens refresh was a home run (esp. once prices came down), but the original USM line of 28(1.8 )/50/85 are _old enough to drink_ in the US now. ;D We can debate the need for a fast 28mm lens, but in no uncertain terms the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 need to be updated.

*Standard zooms *--> The most options but also the most butt-hurt / complainy market. The 24-70 f/2.8L II is apparently top drawer _but it has no IS_. The 24-70 f/4L IS is terrific, _but should cost $600._ And some 24-105L II folks seem to believe that a 4.5x zoom should punch its weight versus the 24-70s... and possibly be tack sharp throughout the range... _and possibly go to 120mm while they are at it_. And yet others think Canon should offer huge faster-than-2.8 glass for those that will pay for it. But I'm hard pressed to think of a company with more options here. Objectively, f/2.8 IS is the only clear missing piece in this segment. 
*
Short tele black primes *(100-200, not including the 200 f/2) --> All good, but aging and in need of a refresh. The 100 non-L non-macro, 100 non-L macro, 100L macro, 135L, 180L macro and 200L are 26, 17, 8, 21, 21 and 21 years old, respectively. I recognize we're moving into lower volume sales areas, but one could argue only the 100L and legendary 135L are worth buying new in 2017.

*Short tele zooms* (70-200, 70-300) --> Great. More options than anyone at a host of price points and they all perform quite well. There's a lot of competition in the 70-200 f/2.8 space as it's a staple pro tool, but Canon acquits itself awfully well here.

*Big White primes* --> I've never owned or shot one, but Canon's reputation is based on them and they are coveted. The only downside is dollars -- there are only a few 'affordable' options in there, though, and folks have been screaming for IS on the (wonderfully inexpensive) 400mm f/5.6 for a long time now.

*Big White zooms* (100-400, 200-400) --> the gaping hole in the lineup. Those two lenses are terrific, but currently, those are all we have. I flag as a red because there's no way to shoot Canon glass past 400mm on FF without the drawbacks of a teleconverter or some $9k leaving your pocket. A 'modestly-priced' zoom option ($2-3k) up to 600mm is sorely needed, though many have done the 600mm / 5.6 math and doubt Canon can offer one so inexpensively.

*On aggregate? * _Fuhgeddaboudit_. Nikon has some special lenses and m43's semi-standardization has led to a lot of lens development, but on aggregate, Canon coasts to victory here. 

T/S, Video-centric lenses, 5x macro, etc. --> Not really my wheelhouse. Can't comment.

Curious to see how others assess the strengths and weaknesses of the lens portfolio. Please don't quote the whole post in replying to one point or people will stop reading this thread very quickly. 

- A


----------



## geekpower (Jan 12, 2017)

on the subject of an affordable big white zoom, i too was thinking that there was a need for something longer than 70-200, faster than the 100-400, and more affordable than the 200-400, but when i started a thread about it the overwhelming response was that this problem was solved by throwing a 1.4x on the 70-200.

i don't have an opinion on mid-levels, but for L's i agree the biggest opportunities are with the primes. if new a new 85L and 135L are in the works, then 24L and 50L should probably be next, and the addition of an 18 or 20L would be great too.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 12, 2017)

geekpower said:


> on the subject of an affordable big white zoom, i too was thinking that there was a need for something longer than 70-200, faster than the 100-400, and more affordable than the 200-400, but when i started a thread about it the overwhelming response was that this problem was solved by throwing a 1.4x on the 70-200.
> 
> i don't have an opinion on mid-levels, but for L's i agree the biggest opportunities are with the primes. if new a new 85L and 135L are in the works, then 24L and 50L should probably be next, and the addition of an 18 or 20L would be great too.



Sigma sells a 120-300 f/2.8 OS if memory serves. They were gunning for the longer and as quick as the 70-200 2.8 lenses, but I recall it was not a cheap or small lens.

If I had to rank the primes that needed the most urgent attention:

[list type=decimal]
[*]50mm f/1.4 USM --> 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM

_[a cavernous gap between #1 and the rest]_


[*]400mm f/5.6 --> modernize it, give it IS, put it on a diet, etc.
[*]50L --> likely a major overhaul to a big pickle jar like the 50 Art / 55 Otus, give it the BR gunk
[*]85L --> IS, BR gunk, internal focusing, AF speed upgrade, possibly upgrade the focus by wire to proper FTM _mechanical_ focusing?
[*]The great wide/fast/low-coma astro lens
[*]180L Macro --> no idea what it's missing as I don't shoot with this or read much about it, but many people want a longer-than-100mm macro option for more working distance with more skittish or more dangerous subjects.
[/list]

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 12, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > Point is as a SYSTEM, the mid primes are not what they need to be in 2017, and the 50L/85L let it down in some respects.
> ...



the 200/2.8L II is no slouch either btw. it's small, and optically excellent with near perfect coma.

as soon as canon touches the 400/5.6L the price will jump immediately. part of the charm of that lens is the price. it will have less of a charm if it's around 2500 or so.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 12, 2017)

geekpower said:


> on the subject of an affordable big white zoom, i too was thinking that there was a need for something longer than 70-200, faster than the 100-400



you do realize that's the 200-400/4 and costs 11k or so?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 12, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> the 200/2.8L II is no slouch either btw. it's small, and optically excellent with near perfect coma.



There are fans of that lens on this forum, but unlike the 135 f/2L, the 200 f/2.8L doesn't have IS and isn't markedly better than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II that so many folks already own. It's a forgotten great value L lens much like the 17-40L was for so long.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 12, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > on the subject of an affordable big white zoom, i too was thinking that there was a need for something longer than 70-200, faster than the 100-400, and more affordable than the 200-400, but when i started a thread about it the overwhelming response was that this problem was solved by throwing a 1.4x on the 70-200.
> ...



I'd rank what they don't even have before them.

17 and 20 or 21L's 

I'd also like to see before some of those remakes some APS-C love in either EF-S or EF-M or both. f4 holy trinities of 10-22, 15-45, 45-150mm


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 12, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > on the subject of an affordable big white zoom, i too was thinking that there was a need for something longer than 70-200, faster than the 100-400
> ...



400 f/4 and shooting at all longer than 400mm without a TC (with Canon glass) are the two explosive inflection points for price.

400 f/5.6 --> $1200
400 f/4 --> $6900 and up
Anything longer than 400mm at any speed without a teleconverter --> $9000 and up

An inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 IS or (more likely) a 150- or 200-600 f/5.6 zoom is sorely needed. For reasons we've covered ad nauseam in other threads, what 'inexpensive' means probably is probably 2x what Sigma and Tamron are currently charging for their 150-600 lenses, because I believe they pull some f/6.3 shenanigans on the long end that Canon will never do with an EF lens.

- A


----------



## slclick (Jan 12, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > the 200/2.8L II is no slouch either btw. it's small, and optically excellent with near perfect coma.
> ...



However, it is light and it's black! I enjoyed my copy when I had one.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 12, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > geekpower said:
> ...



again, that's not faster than 400/5.6 on the long end of the 100-400 which was my comment.


----------



## geekpower (Jan 12, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



"affordable" when talking big teles probably means under $3k, and no, that isn't going to happen in a zoom at 400/4, but it ought to be possible at 300/4, right?


----------



## slclick (Jan 12, 2017)

geekpower said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



The 300 f/4 IS L costs $1349 (it does need some serious updating as it has one of if not the oldest IS system in production)


----------



## geekpower (Jan 12, 2017)

slclick said:


> The 300 f/4 IS L costs $1349 (it does need some serious updating as it has one of if not the oldest IS system in production)



indeed, and that makes it an attractive option for those who don't mind it being a prime.

but to extrapolate from the price difference between the 70-200/f4L IS and the 70-200/f2.8L IS II (not scientific at all, but food for thought), making the 70-300/f4-5.6L IS a stop faster would take it from $1359 to $2288. still in the same ballpark as the 70-200/2.8 plus 1.4x, but without the need to make lens changes in the field.


----------



## SteveM (Jan 12, 2017)

Pardon the sarcasm, but I would say the 24-105mm f4 has the most need for updating.


----------



## tron (Jan 12, 2017)

SteveM said:


> Pardon the sarcasm, but I would say the 24-105mm f4 has the most need for updating.


Ehhmmm it is not exactly sarcasm. I also believe this has been mentioned already in this thread


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jan 12, 2017)

geekpower said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > The 300 f/4 IS L costs $1349 (it does need some serious updating as it has one of if not the oldest IS system in production)
> ...



Now that is intriguing! a 70-300 2.8-4 L would tempt me, if it would take extenders, not extend as does the current version and be sharper on the long end. But my preference would be a 300 or 400mm prime.


----------



## SteveM (Jan 13, 2017)

I'd like to see a little improvement on the 85mm 1.8, namely the fringing that occurs between 1.8 and 2.2. Very good lens otherwise.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 26, 2017)

SteveM said:


> I'd like to see a little improvement on the 85mm 1.8, namely the fringing that occurs between 1.8 and 2.2. Very good lens otherwise.



Go and try the 100 f2.0, unlike the 85 f.8, it's performance doesn't dive anything like as much wide open. IMHO the 85 @2.8 is about equal to the 100 @2.0


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 28, 2017)

Can't pick any single one of them, but Canon needs to upgrade the low end 50mm, 85mm, and 100mm primes same as the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm primes.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II does such a good job for me, I sold the 85mm f/1.8. The zoom's IQ & IS make me pass on the extra stop, weight, and switching lenses.

I keep the 50mm f/1.4 because it has a two stops advantage on the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 and three on the EF 24-70/105mm f/4 IS.

Actually, the Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG HSM ART is cheap enough, that I'm considering not waiting for Canon to make the upgrade, or buy the Sigma.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 28, 2017)

ef 50mm f/2 Macro. It has been discontinued. Works great for food!


----------



## canonman123 (Jan 28, 2017)

i relalise they are 'noob' lenses, but i would like to see an updating of either or both of the 18-135 and 18-200.

whilst the latter reportedly has worse performance than the the former i got rid of the 18-135 because it doens't have a way to lock the lens so it kept extending when hanging at my side - may sound trivial but it became really annoying, and i didn't fancy messing about with elastic bands as some advised. Plus i wanted the longer zoom.

i know all about the limits on quality but the versatility for certain situations is so useful.

i realise 200's pushing it so may something inbetween, say an 18-175, (with lens lock!) might be the answer?

also while we're here, any suggestion on other lenses that do a better job? i read about the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM C lens, but not sure it's advantages are sufficiently better than the Canon to warrant the purchase?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 28, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> Can't pick any single one of them, but Canon needs to upgrade the low end 50mm, 85mm, and 100mm primes same as the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm primes.
> 
> The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II does such a good job for me, I sold the 85mm f/1.8. The zoom's IQ & IS make me pass on the extra stop, weight, and switching lenses.
> 
> ...



The 'low' 50 was just revised to the 50mm f/1.8 STM, lest we forget. It's the 'middle' one -- the EF 50 f/1.4 USM -- that is in desperate need of a corporate makeover.

But going all retrofocus and chasing Art / Otus resolution makes the lens huge / heavy / expensive, and that's best left for the next 50L. I think Canon can make a 50mm in something like the 35mm f/2 IS USM footprint (hat's the 35mm f/2 IS body I've PS'd below) and keep it small, and I would strongly prefer that over a pickle jar form factor.

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 28, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Can't pick any single one of them, but Canon needs to upgrade the low end 50mm, 85mm, and 100mm primes same as the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm primes.
> ...



Point taken.



ahsanford said:


> But going all retrofocus and chasing Art / Otus resolution makes the lens huge / heavy / expensive



The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is ~20% more expensive than the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM.

The Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 VC is ~10% more expensive than the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, and based on the digital picture, seems to have better IQ than the EF 50mm f/1.4

If I can get improved IQ + IS + same price bracket as the 35mm f/2 IS, I'll live with the size, weight, and even slightly smaller max aperture.



ahsanford said:


> I think Canon can make a 50mm in something like the 35mm f/2 IS USM footprint (hat's the 35mm f/2 IS body I've PS'd below) and keep it small, and I would strongly prefer that over a pickle jar form factor.



I hope Canon can do it.


----------



## MikleK (Feb 3, 2017)

Definitely 50 mm f/1.2! 
It's going to happen soon I guess  And will surely cause it cost more than 35 f/1.4 II


----------



## scyrene (Feb 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> *Big White zooms* (100-400, 200-400) --> the gaping hole in the lineup. Those two lenses are terrific, but currently, those are all we have. I flag as a red because there's no way to shoot Canon glass past 400mm on FF without the drawbacks of a teleconverter or some $9k leaving your pocket. A 'modestly-priced' zoom option ($2-3k) up to 600mm is sorely needed, though many have done the 600mm / 5.6 math and doubt Canon can offer one so inexpensively.



I dunno. I suppose the whole premise is based on the assumption Canon should compete with every lens other manufacturers make, which may be fair enough (I personally don't think so). The -600mm zooms seem to be imperfect/significantly compromised: they don't really go to 600mm, they aren't f/5.6 at the long end, and they are pretty soft especially at the long end, so I've read. If you're on a very tight budget, they are a reasonable prospect, but they're hardly a headline product for a big manufacturer to show off. This has been discussed at length in other threads, but I think Canon is unlikely to bother. They have the 100-400 II, which will take the 1.4x extender and still AF on more and more bodies, and supposedly maintains reasonably IQ in doing so. There can't be a huge amount of profit in a £1000 150-600mm lens (say) in any case, so why bother? And the 600 f/5.6 maths is unavoidable.

I still think a 500mm f/5.6 IS is a reasonable lens to replace the 400 f/5.6, albeit at a higher price, but that's it for this segment (and it's obviously not a zoom - I think we've seen the long zooms that Canon will make for the foreseeable).


----------



## scyrene (Feb 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> 180L Macro --> no idea what it's missing as I don't shoot with this or read much about it, but many people want a longer-than-100mm macro option for more working distance with more skittish or more dangerous subjects.



Image stabilisation, simply put. For less money, you can get the Sigma which is a half stop wider and has 4-stop IS, and the image quality is superb. It's one area I would recommend a third party lens over a native one.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 6, 2017)

scyrene said:


> I still think a 500mm f/5.6 IS is a reasonable lens to replace the 400 f/5.6, albeit at a higher price, but that's it for this segment (and it's obviously not a zoom - I think we've seen the long zooms that Canon will make for the foreseeable).



This 500mm f/5.6 IS would be perfect for me. I am beginning to crave this like ahsanford craves a 50mm IS.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 6, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I still think a 500mm f/5.6 IS is a reasonable lens to replace the 400 f/5.6, albeit at a higher price, but that's it for this segment (and it's obviously not a zoom - I think we've seen the long zooms that Canon will make for the foreseeable).
> ...



It would be an exciting lens for them to produce, and I hope they do.


----------



## neonlight (Feb 6, 2017)

+1 for zoom lock on 18-135; gimme a 500 f/5.6 for half the price of a f/4 ...


----------



## uri.raz (Feb 27, 2017)

I've settled on a trio of f/2.8 zooms, and plan to upgrade to the 16-35mm f/2.8 mkIII. Those lenses' IQ is good enough that I'm selling my primes - the one stop difference isn't worth it.

So, I think the two lenses most need in an upgrade are the 50mm f/1.4 (the cheap model, where it's worth my money for the two stops difference), and EF 24-70mm f/2.8 - I'd love an IS on that one.


----------



## tron (Feb 28, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I still think a 500mm f/5.6 IS is a reasonable lens to replace the 400 f/5.6, albeit at a higher price, but that's it for this segment (and it's obviously not a zoom - I think we've seen the long zooms that Canon will make for the foreseeable).
> ...


If only Canon made a 600 5.6 DO. I know they are preparing a 600 f/4 DO but a 5.6 version would be lighter and cheaper...


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 1, 2017)

Canon is lacking in the WA & UWA prime lens department  There's only the 14L (which is not the best in its class to be honest), the TS-E 17L and the very old EF 20mm (poor performer). All of these 3 lenses are either very expensive, very old, or just underwhelming regarding optical performance.

I really do like primes and so I wish that Canon would surprise me one day with a really good and affordable UWA prime lens (that's why I am so excited about the next EF-S prime). Something between 10-15mm, f2-2.8 and superb image quality like they've managed to achieve with the EF-M 11-22mm. I imagine they could do even better (optically speaking) with an EF-S/EF-M 11mm f/2.8 for example. I believe that'd also sell like a hotcake!


----------



## tron (Mar 1, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> Canon is lacking in the WA & UWA prime lens department  There's only the 14L (which is not the best in its class to be honest), the TS-E 17L and the very old EF 20mm (poor performer). All of these 3 lenses are either very expensive, very old, or just underwhelming regarding optical performance.
> 
> I really do like primes and so I wish that Canon would surprise me one day with a really good and affordable UWA prime lens (that's why I am so excited about the next EF-S prime). Something between 10-15mm, f2-2.8 and superb image quality like they've managed to achieve with the EF-M 11-22mm. I imagine they could do even better (optically speaking) with an EF-S/EF-M 11mm f/2.8 for example. I believe that'd also sell like a hotcake!


14L II is quite good and so is 17TS-E. Have you used them? I have both of them and I use them. 
Good and affordable and uwa cannot coexist! Get real and choose 2 out of 3 attributes. You can't have the cake and eat it!


----------



## Ah-Keong (Mar 1, 2017)

If I am the Canon's lens team, I would propose:

EF mount
1) 14mm f/1,2
2) 85mm f/1,4 IS
3) 135mm f/1,4 IS
4) 105mm f/1,4 IS
5) 180mm f/4,0 IS macro


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 1, 2017)

tron said:


> You can't have the cake and eat it!



Then I might just have to buy into Samyang lenses. They have all the good and affordable wideangle primes (10mm 2.8, 12mm 2.0, 16mm 2.0... to name a few), just manual focus only. If they can design such great performing lenses at such a low price, Canon could also do it and maybe charge 100 bucks more for AF... which I'd still consider as inexpensive "hotcake". I don't get it why they still didn't do something in that department. Is it because such lenses are more of a niche product?


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 1, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > You can't have the cake and eat it!
> ...



The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM costs about half as much as as either of those prime costs, and you could AF.

You have to look at it from the manufacturer's point of view as well. Canon makes lenses for one mount only, Samyang reuses the same design for several mounts. Possibly, there's not enough money in primes for Canon to make them just for EF-S, but Samyang can make a nice profit by selling for several mounts.

In other words, Canon might intentionally leave this niche for third party manufacturers.


----------



## TheDrift- (Mar 1, 2017)

For me....

1) 50 1.2L
2) 50 1.2L
3) 50 1.2L


----------



## tron (Mar 1, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > You can't have the cake and eat it!
> ...


Of course you can. If you don't care for manual focus, distortion (samyang 14mm) and decentering (samyang 24mm 1.4). I am talking about FF. I have no opinion about APS-C and 4/3rds though...


----------



## Pandy (Mar 1, 2017)

TheDrift- said:


> For me....
> 
> 1) 50 1.2L
> 2) 50 1.2L
> 3) 50 1.2L



I have to second this; it needs updating very badly to match up with the performance of their new 35mm.


----------



## slclick (Mar 1, 2017)

Because this thread needs more pages, I'll re chime in.

50 1.4-naturally
400 5.6-add IS
100L- updated IS
135L-IS added, BR gunk
20/24/28 1.8 primes Non L


----------



## uri.raz (Mar 1, 2017)

slclick said:


> Because this thread needs more pages, I'll re chime in.
> 
> 50 1.4-naturally
> 400 5.6-add IS
> ...



The 24mm non-L prime was updated with IS ~5 years ago.


----------



## slclick (Mar 1, 2017)

uri.raz said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Because this thread needs more pages, I'll re chime in.
> ...



yea and it with the 28 and 35 were either 2.8 or f/2. I'm quite aware of the newer IS primes thank you for your help though. I did type 1.8 to clarify the models and not confuse anyone with the IS trio.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 1, 2017)

slclick said:


> uri.raz said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



There is no 24mm f/1.8


----------



## slclick (Mar 1, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > uri.raz said:
> ...



Thank you, no need to update then


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 1, 2017)

[quote author= link=topic=31035.msg653779#msg653779 date=1488381891]

There is no 24mm f/1.8
...
Thank you, no need to update then 
[/quote]

But it would be nice to see an update to the EF 20 2.8, maybe with stabilizer - in the same fashion as the 24IS.
And in the future something between 10 and 12mm at f2.5 or faster for FF... to basically give us a "prime version" of the EF 11-24, just a lot faster and an interesting rival to the new Sigma 14mm 1.8.


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 1, 2017)

can't believe this thread is still going, glad I started it.

still waiting for my 50mmf1.4


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 1, 2017)

rfdesigner said:


> still waiting for my 50mmf1.4



Do NOT wait. SHOOT!


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 2, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > still waiting for my 50mmf1.4
> ...



indeed, hence the 50STM in my kitbag.


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 2, 2017)

rfdesigner said:


> indeed, hence the 50STM in my kitbag.



I do also have that lens  Well made (considering the price) and superb optical performance (except from wide-open to about f/2.8, which I don't use a lot because I'm more into landscapes). I believe that even the very expensive Zeiss Otus 55mm will not be any better, when you compare them both between f/4 and f/8.

So optically speaking... I don't need anything better at that focal lenght, seriously. I'd only sell it for a double gauss 50mm with IS & USM and about the size/weight of the 35IS. Now such a lens would be the only "real" upgrade imo.


----------



## benkam (Mar 8, 2017)

The EF-S 17-55 2.8 is overdue for an update, isn't it?

Also wish Canon would come up with something like an EF-S 45-120 2.8 IS. That's a relatively fast 70-200-ish equivalent but also less massive, say around the size of the EF 70-300 non-L and not that of the big white 70-200 2.8 or Sigma's 50-100 1.8.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 8, 2017)

benkam said:


> The EF-S 17-55 2.8 is overdue for an update, isn't it?
> 
> Also wish Canon would come up with something like an EF-S 45-120 2.8 IS. That's a relatively fast 70-200-ish equivalent but also less massive, say around the size of the EF 70-300 non-L and not that of the big white 70-200 2.8 or Sigma's 50-100 1.8.


45-120mm f/2.8 is equivalent to "70-200" f/4.5 8)


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 11, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> 45-120mm f/2.8 is equivalent to "70-200" f/4.5 8)



"Equivalent" is a fun word to argue. Or not.


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 12, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > 45-120mm f/2.8 is equivalent to "70-200" f/4.5 8)
> ...



in this case it is equivelent, depth of field, speed, field of view are all equal, effectively it would be the same lens with a little variation in the rear group to focus the same light over an APS-C sensor rather than a FF sensor.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 12, 2017)

rfdesigner said:


> in this case it is equivelent, depth of field, speed, field of view are all equal, effectively it would be the same lens with a little variation in the rear group to focus the same light over an APS-C sensor rather than a FF sensor.



Sure... and then you lose the size advantage the OP wanted.


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 12, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > in this case it is equivelent, depth of field, speed, field of view are all equal, effectively it would be the same lens with a little variation in the rear group to focus the same light over an APS-C sensor rather than a FF sensor.
> ...



not disagreeing.. I blame physics


----------

