# The future of Canon L primes



## Ruined (Nov 9, 2013)

Hi all,
Was curious if anyone saw any patents or info that might imply some of the L classic primes might have an update in the pipeline.

For instance, maybe adding IS to the 135 f/2? Or correcting some of the focusing issues some have with the 50 f/1.2 (I don't have personal experience with this)?

We have some of the consumer lenses coming out with IS and all new optics, and while the L primes are fantastic, one might wonder if they could be even better with new designs (as we have seen quality improvement with new designs of L zoom lenses and consumer primes). 

So anyone see any hints of updates of the classic L primes, or no? Just curious  Note these updates might include IS, increased sharpness or focusing, etc...


----------



## J.R. (Nov 9, 2013)

No hints, Canon almost never releases any till such time they want to start a teaser campaign (probably) ... but I want an update to the 16-35 II and the 35mm L


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 9, 2013)

J.R. said:


> ... but I want an update to the 16-35 II and the 35mm L


I think - or better hope - after Sigmas 35mm challenge, Canon has to pick up the gauntlet. 
But I suppose, that first some L zooms will reach the market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2013)

IIRC, there have been two patents for a 35/1.4 from Canon fairly recently. Not that that means much…


----------



## ERHP (Nov 9, 2013)

Honestly I've been expecting Canon to release an updated 800 v2 to counter Nikon's initial release. Shaving a pound or two off like the 600f/4 remake did would be pretty nice. Or making an f/4 version that weighed what the old 600 did. 

It really comes down to market share and profitability. What demand signal towards lens updates are they getting from the consumer/prosumer crowd?


----------



## Ruined (Nov 9, 2013)

Found this too!

http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-patent-85mm-f1-2-85mm-f1-8-135mm-f2-50mm-f1-4/


----------



## preppyak (Nov 9, 2013)

I think it stands to reason that Canon will release a new ultrawide zoom sometime soon, whether its a 16-35 update or a 14-24. They just updated both the 24-105 and 24-70 lenses, as well as the 70-200. That leaves the 100-400 to update sometime in the next year or two.

Of the primes, the 35L is the oldest by almost 10 years. The 135L is also in that timeframe. So, I'd say those are the next two L updates. That said, I think the 135L is still selling well, not sure it really needs an update yet. 

The100-400 seem to be the most likely update, since Canon has updated all their tele lenses in the last few years. 35L and ultra-wide probably come after that. But, with a lot of good L lenses, you may see them update their non-L lenses before. I think the 50mm IS update is coming, and they've refreshed all the kit lenses with STM


----------



## LookingThroughMyLens81 (Nov 9, 2013)

Canon will definitely update their lenses to get coverage for the new high-megapixel DSLRs and many of the older ones have been around almost ten years or more, so they are due for an update with all the advances since then.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 9, 2013)

If they only listened to us ... we would have been out testing new great gear 

With the incredible performance of the 600 f4L IS II, with the 1.4xIII extender, I don´t see a new 800 f5.6 as very likely. I would never consider that lens. 
The 35 1.4L and 50 1.2L is under heavy fire and could do with updates. I got the Sigma 35/1.4 and I have ordered the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4. And the (high) number of photographers who are buying these lenses should be a concern to Canon.
Personally I would really like to see an update to the 85mm 1.2L II´s AF performance. I can easily live with the rest. the 135 f2L from an IQ perspective is still great, but it would be helped by including IS. 
Of the zooms, I am waiting for the 12-24 or 14-24, whatever it´ll be. I am not very fond of my 16-35 f2.8L II. And the much used and well liked 100-400 is overdue. But they have a dilemma with this lens, since it might steal customers from the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x. If the 100-400 gets close to 70-200 f2.8L IS II IQ, who would pay +8-9k$ for the other?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 10, 2013)

At this point I think the 50mm L lens is the worse performance-price ratio. The question is whether only improves optics and a bit more expensive, or also adds Image Stabilizer and becomes much more expensive. :-\


----------



## Zv (Nov 10, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> At this point I think the 50mm L lens is the worse performance-price ratio. The question is whether only improves optics and a bit more expensive, or also adds Image Stabilizer and becomes much more expensive. :-\



Agree. I would like to own a 50L but at that price I may as well just fork out a little more and get the excellent 24-70II, which would give me 24, 35 and 50mm prime quality if not better. However, carrying a large zoom lens just to get 50mm is leas than ideal. 

Also, if Canon updated the 50L it would only make the new lens more expensive. In fact any L prime update is gonna be reaching the $2000 mark. For some that's prob pocket change but for us poor folk we just have to wait several years for the price cuts! (Which, again is why I reckon the 24-70II is the best value vs performance lens if you need primes in that range).


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 10, 2013)

ERHP said:


> Honestly I've been expecting Canon to release an updated 800 v2 to counter Nikon's initial release. Shaving a pound or two off like the 600f/4 remake did would be pretty nice. Or making an f/4 version that weighed what the old 600 did.
> 
> It really comes down to market share and profitability. What demand signal towards lens updates are they getting from the consumer/prosumer crowd?



Unfortunately, an 800f4 would have a 200mm front element, just 14mm away from the size of the 1200f5.6, a lens that cost as much as a small house.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 10, 2013)

Patents are coming out all the time, and for many different types of lenses. That really means nothing as far as what might be coming. Canon has about 2000 patents released a year.

I don't expect to see many if any new "L" primes in the near future. Canon is smart enough to know that there is so much pressure on prices that it would be a poor investment. They are conservative and hang on to their cash when sales are slow, it costs many millions of dollars to bring a new "L" lens into production, including tooling, distribution, inventory, advertising and probably more. That's why prices are so high for early adopters.


----------



## preppyak (Nov 10, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I don't expect to see many if any new "L" primes in the near future.


I agree for everything but the 35L. That one has fierce competition, and by age, it's due for a replacement. That said, they might not even be able to compete with the Sigma lens. The current 35L retails for $500 more than the Sigma, and an update would be an even bigger gulf. They'd have to release the perfect 35mm lens to make it worth it.

It's not a situation like the Tamron 24-70 where they made a nice lens with VC, but the Canon version was clearly sharper and better and worth the extra


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2013)

Eldar said:


> With the incredible performance of the 600 f4L IS II, with the 1.4xIII extender, I don´t see a new 800 f5.6 as very likely.



I think that's exactly why we *will* see an 800/5.6 II, and soon. I agree that the 600 II + 1.4x makes the current 800L superfluous. But the bare 600 II is sharper than the 400 II + 1.4x, and I'd expect the bare 800 II to be sharper than the 600 II + 1.4x. Also, like the 800/5.6 is lighter than the older 600/4, the MkII would again be lighter. Also, there's a black version of the 800 for a different mount that looks to be quite sharp. Canon has reigned supreme in the supertele class - it's likely they'll want an 800 II to keep the crown. 



preppyak said:


> I agree for everything but the 35L. That one has fierce competition, and by age, it's due for a replacement. That said, they might not even be able to compete with the Sigma lens. The current 35L retails for $500 more than the Sigma, and an update would be an even bigger gulf. They'd have to release the perfect 35mm lens to make it worth it.
> 
> It's not a situation like the Tamron 24-70 where they made a nice lens with VC, but the Canon version was clearly sharper and better and worth the extra



I'd expect a new Canon 35L to be a bit sharper than the Sigma, or be f/1.2 It would also be weather sealed, and of course, have the Canon logo. I expect it would sell well.


----------



## dolina (Nov 10, 2013)

A replacement for the 800/5.6 will come in by 2020. By then I hope they shave off at least 25% of the weight. I expect Canon to sell it for say $20,000-26,000.

35/1.4, 135/2, 180/3.5 Macro, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6 are prime candidates for an update.

What I would love to see is a 600mm f/2.8 that weighs under 23lbs/8.25kg.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 10, 2013)

Looking at what Canon really need to do, there's not a lot, I think.

800f/5.6 II, needed to compete with Nikon's new Lens, and I've seen it, it's good (Nikon's 800 I mean), probabely within the next 6 to 12 months, they have to, no choice for Canon.

35f/1.4 II, needed, forget what Sigma can & can't do, Canon need to revamp this Lens, again, next 6 to 12 months.

135 L II, needed, current lens is a beauty, but Zeiss have raised the Bar, so Canon will reciprocate, maybe 12 to 18 months away.

200f/2 II, hard to judge, how do you improve on perfection ?? but this Lens will probably get the Series II treatment, 12 to 18 months away.

TSE's, Overdue for a 50 & 90 revamp, 2014 for sure.

Man, 2014 looks to be a year to live for, of course we will all be poorer by 2015, but that's like 2 years away, why worry now.


----------



## Fabian (Nov 10, 2013)

I really hope for a 400/5.6 update. I mean, the 300/4 got its update like almost 17 years ago.


----------



## ERHP (Nov 10, 2013)

dolina said:


> 35/1.4, 135/2, 180/3.5 Macro, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6 are prime candidates for an update.



I was just thinking about buying a 180/3.5 macro today from Canon's refurb site. Then thought, this is fairly old and as soon as I buy it, a new one with IS will be announced  

Eldar, totally agree that making a v2 of the 100-400 too good will most likely take sales away from the 200-400. But the price point is the determining factor. And supposedly lots of samples in the wild.


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 10, 2013)

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon focuses more on the enthusiast market over the next couple of years. Updated 100-400 and 400/5.6 lenses would be welcome additions (especially if their release coincided with a new 7D2). The 17-40 is also in need of some minor tweaking. For a more budget conscious photographer, an updated 17-40 seems a natural choice for a 6D.


----------



## aroo (Nov 10, 2013)

Any guesses what a 400mm f/5.6 IS might cost if it appears?


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 10, 2013)

I'd be guessing that it would approach $2,000 upon release (ie approx. 50% increase). But they'd probably add IS and beef up weather sealing. A new 100-400 could be around $2,500. As a "cheap" lens person, the current 400/5.6 was a simple decision for me - Noticeable cheaper than the 100-400 and arguably faster focusing and sharper at 400/5.6. But if the price gap percentage between the two narrows, I might be tempted by a new 100-400. A tough decision to make when you are weighing up two hypothetical lenses.


----------



## dolina (Nov 10, 2013)

Reasons why Canon will not have a EF 200mm f/2L IS USM and EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM within 12, 24, 36, 48 or even 60 months from now.

200mm: Canon vs Nikon 
CFD: 1.9m vs 1.9m
Weight: *2.52kg* vs 2.9kg
Stops of IS: *5* vs 3 
Price: *$5,700* vs $5,820

800mm: Canon vs Nikon 
CFD: 6m vs *5.9m*
Weight: *4.5kg* vs 4.59kg
Stops of IS: 4 vs *4.5*
Price: *$13,250* vs $17,900

Source: Canon USA and Nikon USA product pages.

The previous super tele L primes with IS were marketed in 1999 (300/400/500/600) the current super tele L primes with IS II were marketed in 2011 (300/400/500/600). 

That is 12 years.

Nikon's 400/500/600 were marketed in 2007 and sold at a higher price than Canon's 1999 products. Canon updated theirs 4 years after 2007.

Nikon's first 200/2 VR was marketed in 2005, two years after the discontinuation of EF 200mm f/1.8L USM in 2003. Canon announced their EF 200mm f/2L IS USM 3 years after 2005.

The EF 200mm f/1.8L USM was marketed from 1988 to 2003. That's a solid 15 years for the fastest L prime. I often wish I picked one up brand new for a "bargain price" when I got a EOS 10D in 2003.

EF 200mm f/2L IS USM and EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM were marketed in 2008 and there is no competing product today with significant weight or price difference that would induce any deviation from a 12 year product cycle. These are low volume products that do not sell as well as other L zooms or primes.

Source: Canon Museum product pages.

The major selling point of the 2011 super tele L Primes is the weight reduction that yielded up to 25% less product weight than the previous model. If you're a sports, journalist or wildlife photog this is a godsend. Improvements in image quality, focusing motor, image stabilization and other items are largely secondary.

Canon would profit more from updating a 35/1.4, 135/2, 180/3.5 Macro, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6. A whole lot more people can afford, demand and carry them than any fast super tele L prime. Not to mention these are far more simpler to manufacture.

If Canon wanted to make a splash with a flagship lens then they could update the EF 1200mm f/5.6 USM from 1993to include IS with modes 1, 2 and 3 and Power Focus. It would be awesome if they can manage to halve the product weight to 8.25kg from 16.5kg.


----------



## dolina (Nov 10, 2013)

aroo said:


> Any guesses what a 400mm f/5.6 IS might cost if it appears?


Double current prices based on the pricing of 70-200/4 without IS to 70-200/4 IS and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM.

I am also interested with a EF 400mm f/5.6 IS USM as a walk around lens but I really wish Canon would release a EF 500mm f/5.6 IS USM or EF 600mm f/5.6 IS USM instead.


----------



## dolina (Nov 10, 2013)

Judging from Canon's product releases in 2013 we can expect more Cinema EF lenses instead of more EF L prime lenses.

The profit center for Canon appears to be towards Cinema EOS cameras and future MILCs like the EOS M.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 10, 2013)

dolina said:


> aroo said:
> 
> 
> > Any guesses what a 400mm f/5.6 IS might cost if it appears?
> ...



As much as I would love a 600f5.6, it would still cost about $7,000, which is most of the way to paying for a 500f4, which gets you a 700f5.6 with the excellent 1.4x TC.
Really, anyone wishing for a bridge lens between the 400f5.6 and the big whites would probably be best off just to take the plunge.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > With the incredible performance of the 600 f4L IS II, with the 1.4xIII extender, I don´t see a new 800 f5.6 as very likely.
> ...


From a pure market perception point of view, I agree. An improved 800 would be the last jewel in the big white crown to cement their reigning position. But, in a strained market with reduced profitability, I have some difficulty seeing the business case. 
But if weight was sufficiently lowered from the version I and sharpness that much better I´m sure there is a market for it. But again, with the flexibility and performance of the 600 II with the 1.4x/2xIII extenders, I believe a lot of photographers would say good enough to that. I also believe that the weight penalty of the 600 version I represented significant motivation for those who bought the 800. That penalty is now vastly reduced and the question is if Canon can establish the equivalent ratio between the version II of these lenses.
Does anyone know how many copies of the current 800 that has been sold?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2013)

dolina said:


> Reasons why Canon will not have a...EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM within 12, 24, 36, 48 or even 60 months from now.
> 
> 800mm: Canon vs Nikon
> CFD: 6m vs *5.9m*
> ...



Reason why Canon will have an EF 800mm f/5.6L IS II within 18-24 months:

800mm: Canon vs Nikon
Less sharp vs. *sharper*

What makes you think a '12 year product cycle' is generally applicable? Technically, two points can define a line - but n=2 makes for a pretty crappy extrapolation. The 200/2.8L was updated after 5 years - by now, they should be replacing the MkIII version of that lens with a MkIV pretty soon, at least by your logic. Why are we still on MkII? Because the product landscape is different, because of high quality f/2.8 zooms. It's different now for the 800/5.6, too, because of the 600 II (which clearly obviates the current 800L), and because there's now competition at 800mm. 

Your comparison above shows how equivalent the two 800's are, except for price (and sharpness). Price isn't really a huge differentiator at that level, and even so, Canon has never been afraid to charge high prices (e.g., 1D X vs. D4). Canon doesn't want a lens that's just equivalent - they want better...and they'll deliver it relatively soon, not I. 7 years.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 14, 2013)

dolina said:


> 35/1.4, 135/2, 180/3.5 Macro, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6 are prime candidates for an update.



I agree that these are the prime suspects. Canon is definitely losing sales to Sigma's 35mm. 

Just as a side note, here are my three dream primes:
EF 105mm f/1.4 L IS
EF 200mm f/2.8 L IS Macro
TS-E 90mm f/2.8 L II


----------

