# Most requested lenses for replacement?



## Radiating (May 27, 2012)

I just thought I'd see what everyone wanted to see replaced most in Canon's lineup. Feel free to post your top requests for lenses that need replacement. I'll start:

Rank - Lens Name - What Needs Fixing

#1 - 50mm 1.2L - sharpness, CA (even at the the cost of aperture speed in my oppinion)
#2 - 50mm 1.4 - sharpness, Modern USM (Badly needs updating, Nikon's is far ahead)
#3 - 35mm 1.4 L - sharpness, CA (very badly needs updating, 14 year old design, Nikon's is much much better)
#4 - 135mm f/2.0 L - aperture, image stabilization (16 year old design, there are plenty of 135mm f/1.8 lenses around, would love to see f/1.8 + IS, like a mini 200mm f/2.0 IS)
#5 - 16-35mm f/2.8 II L - sharpness, CA - (it's a good lens but Nikon's 14-24mm gives it a run for it's money)

Feel free to list your own top 5


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2012)

100-400mm - updated coatings, weather sealing, updated IS

35L - updated coatings, weather sealing



Radiating said:


> #1 - 50mm 1.2L - sharpness, CA (even at the the cost of aperture speed in my oppinion)



FWIW, the cost wouldn't be aperture, the cost would be the incredible bokeh for which the 50L is known. Also, it's a recent design - this one is really far down in Canon's list.


----------



## monzak (May 27, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> 100-400mm - updated coatings, weather sealing, updated IS



+1

i'm waiting for this lens to be updated before i go ahead and purchase it


----------



## EOBeav (May 27, 2012)

Radiating said:


> #4 - 135mm f/2.0 - aperture, image stabilization (16 year old design, there are plenty of 135mm f/1.8 lenses around, would love to see f/1.8 + IS, like a mini 200mm f/2.0 IS)



It's interesting that you mention this. I was just looking at both 135mm's today online, this one and the f/2 L that is a far more recent design. If they did redesign this one, added IS, maybe a little wider aperture, I wonder if they would need to price it at the level of the current 135mm f/2 L. I'm not sure that they would have two similarly priced primes of the same focal length on the market at the same time. My take is that they'll keep producing the non-L 135mm as long as there is a market for it, then discontinue it altogether. I could be wrong, though.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 27, 2012)

The 135mm f2.8 SF.

Replace with USM version. Perhaps even drop the SF bit.

I loved this lens on APS-C, but the AFD motor was horrifically slow for the focal length.

Was compact, fairly cheap, and pretty good optically.


----------



## crasher8 (May 27, 2012)

*My weird requests*

OT I know but I'd love a EF 100mm 1.8 or 2.0 L non macro, weather sealed all Al body. 

Besides that to stay on topic, I'd like to see the 35 f/2 get an update but not for video like it's cousins. Also how about true ring on the 50 1.4.


----------



## Ricku (May 27, 2012)

The world needs a 50L II.

I want it to be sharper wide open (on par with wide open shots from the 85L II and 135L), and I want it to be free from focus shift issues.


----------



## Imagination_landB (May 27, 2012)

50 1.4(the sigma is so much better imo), 135 f2(sony has a 1.8, why not canon?), 400 5.6 (with IS it could be wonderful) or maybe an 2500$ f4 ?, a 14-24 or 12-24(like the sigma) could also be a big seller.


----------



## briansquibb (May 27, 2012)

135II would get better contrast. IS is a complication/weight that is not needed.


----------



## Ricku (May 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> 135II would get better contrast. *IS is a complication/weight that is not needed.*


Thats what I said until I tried and bought the 70-200 2.8 IS II. Now I can't live without the IS. 

Canon's latest image stabilizing tech is truly remarkable.

Who doesn't want to be able to shoot 1/10 - 1/20 sec handheld at 200mm?

All lenses should come with IS, even wide angle ones.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 27, 2012)

Ricku said:


> The world needs a 50L II.
> 
> I want it to be sharper wide open (on par with wide open shots from the 85L II and 135L), and I want it to be free from focus shift issues.



+1....sharp as 35L wide open - fix the focus shift !!!PLEASE!!!


----------



## briansquibb (May 27, 2012)

Ricku said:


> Who doesn't want to be able to shoot 1/10 - 1/20 sec handheld at 200mm?
> 
> All lenses should come with IS, even wide angle ones.



If you dont get motion blur then a monopod/tripod is even better

So the answer from me is no - for the 135 I shoot at a minimum about 1/200 which is why it is so sharp


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 27, 2012)

> Who doesn't want to be able to shoot 1/10 - 1/20 sec handheld at 200mm?



+1 for me. I would far prefer to use a monopod. If my exposure was this low with such a long lens I would consider upping the iso, or getting in closer and using a shorter focal length.

IS never has and never will solve subject motion blur, which at 200mm is more likely to be the killer.

I shoot video so I never venture away from 1/50th for moving footage anyway, and I tend to have my camera on a fig rig, video monopod or solid video tripod anyway. I will ALWAYS have at least one form of camera support with me.

But thats me doing video. Whole different ball game.


----------



## nikkito (May 27, 2012)

Does someone know if the 85mm 1.2 will be updated soon?


----------



## pdirestajr (May 27, 2012)

50mm f/1.8 mkIII. Metal mount, real focus ring (basically the mkI), they can even leave the USM out to keep it real cheap!


----------



## photophreek (May 27, 2012)

> Does someone know if the 85mm 1.2 will be updated soon?



Why do you need this lens to be updated? It's sharp at all apertures, unreal bokeh and very accurate AF. It really isn't as slow as what you read in reviews IMHO and the "focus-by-wire" is not sometng you need to get used to at all...tremendous lens. To answer your orginal query, the lens was released in 2006, so an update is a long way away.


----------



## westr70 (May 27, 2012)

Ricku said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > 135II would get better contrast. *IS is a complication/weight that is not needed.*
> ...



Here, here..... Love my 200 mm.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 27, 2012)

photophreek said:


> > Does someone know if the 85mm 1.2 will be updated soon?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you need this lens to be updated? It's sharp at all apertures, unreal bokeh and very accurate AF. It really isn't as slow as what you read in reviews IMHO and the "focus-by-wire" is not sometng you need to get used to at all...tremendous lens. To answer your orginal query, the lens was released in 2006, so an update is a long way away.



I've shot sports with the 85 f/1.2L. It's amazing and I didn't notice it being slow. I had a lot of keepers with it. My requested update would be a 50mm lens, but that isn't going to happen because the 1.2L is too new. I don't see a 1.4 II coming out, even though I'd personally like one. 

I'd like a 35L II perhaps, maybe a 100-400L II IS, or some other odd prime focal length, like a 70L. That'd be cool. Oh well I'm not contributing here, just wishing, sorry. (20L and 28L too  )


----------



## pwp (May 28, 2012)

I don't own a 135 f/2 at the moment but it's a brilliant piece of glass which feels very last century now that I've been spoiled by IS in the brilliant 70-200 f/2.8ISII. My 135 f/2 wasn't getting any use so was traded. I don't hold as steady as some photographers who can hand-hold at insanely low shutter speeds. I do value IS! The 135 f/2 lens would be a popular candidate for upgrade. I'd like to see it presented at the design level of the L100 f/2.8is macro. Even with the inevitable price boost, this would be a great seller.

EF50 f/1.4 would be another welcome upgrade, as would an optically improved 16-35 f/2.8III. Lessons learned in the redesign of the 24-70 f/2.8II may flow through to the 16-35. 

There will always be time lapses in the development cycles, but that's life. But overall I see Canon's lens set as offering brilliant choices for just about any shooting style or special project. 

PW


----------



## EOBeav (May 28, 2012)

Folks, they're not going to update the 135mm f/2 SF just so that it can compete with the current 135mm f/2 L. Remember, and updated version isn't going to come out at ~$500USD where the current one is. The hypothetical lens would come out more like ~$1000USD, where the 135mm f/2 L currently sits. It's just not gonna happen.


----------



## pwp (May 28, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> Folks, they're not going to update the 135mm f/2 SF just so that it can compete with the current 135mm f/2 L.



I assume you're talking about the 135 f/2.8SF, an old design with film era relevance which will probably quietly disappear from Canon's inventory sometime soon. I wonder how many they sell per year? It's the venerable 135 f/2L which also hales from last century, April 1996 to be exact which I'm hoping to see upgraded. 

PW


----------



## sharka23 (May 28, 2012)

the entire world is just waiting for brand new TS-E 45mm and the TS-E 90mm .


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (May 28, 2012)

A 16-35/2.8L, still with 82mm filter size, but with a better edge and corner sharpness. And not extending (like the present 16-35) when zooming.


----------



## JoeDavid (May 28, 2012)

How about a new version of the 400/5.6L adding IS. Also, now that Canon has boosted the price of the big white lenses to beyond reason, maybe a 500/5.6L with IS also...


----------



## Marsu42 (May 28, 2012)

pwp said:


> I'd like to see it presented at the design level of the L100 f/2.8is macro.



Well, the 100L certainly has a nice design, but it's still just a plastic lens. Maybe I should be grateful because sturdier build would double the price, but I wouldn't mention it as a prototype what to expect from a lens.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 28, 2012)

> the entire world is just waiting for brand new TS-E 45mm and the TS-E 90mm .



Is it? These are very very specialist lenses, the 90 in partucular is an exceptionally high performer as it is.

Could use free rotating shift position (relative to the tilt) like the 24 II and 17 got, but most folk who have the problem do the simple home modification anyway.


----------



## RC (May 28, 2012)

35L II with WS, and please keep the price increase reasonable. 8)


----------



## Marsu42 (May 28, 2012)

RC said:


> 35L II with WS, and please keep the price increase reasonable. 8)



That sounds like the next offer for extended flame wars after the 5d3  ... what would you consider "reasonable" for added sealing & the same iq (which can get hardly any better)?


----------



## EOBeav (May 28, 2012)

pwp said:


> EOBeav said:
> 
> 
> > Folks, they're not going to update the 135mm f/2 SF just so that it can compete with the current 135mm f/2 L.
> ...



I stand corrected: The 135mm "Soft Focus" lens is an f/2.8. My point is that there were some calls on here to upgrade that lens, and I just don't see it happening. Personally I'd like to see the 135mm f/2 L get upgraded AFTER I buy this current version. A new one will undoubtedly be out of my price range.


----------



## friedmud (May 28, 2012)

After just trying to purchase a 16-35 f/2.8L and coming up with two duds (see here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6391.0 ) I feel like an upgrade is in order there.

The Nikon offerings are much sharper, and the 16-35 has quite a bit of CA and distortion... Definitely a lot of room for improvement!


----------



## Razor2012 (May 28, 2012)

IS with anything slower such as the 400 5.6.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (May 28, 2012)

Non-L primes: add ring USM, faster aperture, better IQ, more apreture blades, and IS where applicable - 20mm f/2 USM, 24mm f/2 USM, 35mm f/2 USM, 50mm f/1.4 [IS would be nice for APS-C cameras], 85mm f/1.8 IS USM, 135mm f/1.8 IS USM.

A new lens to compete with the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8

A big, healthy, resounding upgrade to my wallet, so I could buy all of the above, as well as the 8-15mm f/4 L, TS-E 17mm f/4 L, and 200mm f/2 L IS USM.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 28, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Non-L primes: add ring USM, faster aperture, better IQ, more apreture blades, and IS where applicable



Since there are the L primes, why don't you just ask Canon to write you a paycheck? However, I agree with you that the micro usm like on the 50/1.4 really needs to phased out, there are enough other things to distinguish lenses.


----------



## tron (May 28, 2012)

Radiating said:


> #3 - 35mm 1.4 L - sharpness, CA (very badly needs updating, 14 year old design, Nikon's is much much better)


It is rummored to be very sharp appart from the edges/corners at f/1.4 - f/2.0 . However when someone uses such an open aperture they use it to photo people who are not at the extremes. Since I haven't this lens (but I'd love to) and I would use it for astrophotography I would like an improved 35mm f/1.4. It would cost almost the double though...



Radiating said:


> #4 - 135mm f/2.0 L - aperture, image stabilization (16 year old design, there are plenty of 135mm f/1.8 lenses around, would love to see f/1.8 + IS, like a mini 200mm f/2.0 IS)


I have that lens and I believe it's close to being perfect. True, IS would help but:
There is always the danger that IS could subtract a little sharpness unless the price doubles (see 70-200 f/2.8L IS II vs. 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS)



Radiating said:


> #5 - 16-35mm f/2.8 II L - sharpness, CA - (it's a good lens but Nikon's 14-24mm gives it a run for it's money)


I agree. I do have the version I with the known problems around 16mm but the version II has problems in the longer part. So I am stuck with version I until (possibly) a very good version III...


----------



## RLPhoto (May 28, 2012)

For me These lenses would be nice to see an update.

1. 50mm 1.4, seriously needs a revamp.

2. 135mm f/2, Fabulous lens but F1.8 and IS would just make it an utter stunner. i'd pay 2000$+ for that, as long as they keep it black also.

3. The canon 35mm primes both need a revamp. The F/2 isnt great and the 35mm 1.4L isn't as good as the 24mm L II update and shows thats its overdue for a revamp.

4. An 200mm DO F/2 under 5000$ would be nice also but a pipe dream at best.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (May 28, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > Non-L primes: add ring USM, faster aperture, better IQ, more apreture blades, and IS where applicable
> ...



I'll settle for non-L primes and half a check 

And on a serious note - I'm griping about the prices Canon charge for upgraded lenses. If those lenses were released with a reasonable price tag, I'd be happy to buy and/or upgrade them one by one over time. If I made a living off my equipment (I wish I did, I wish I did, I wish I did), maybe I could afford all L lenses, but as I don't, I have to opt for the non-L & used lenses.


----------



## tron (May 28, 2012)

JoeDavid said:


> How about a new version of the 400/5.6L adding IS. Also, now that Canon has boosted the price of the big white lenses to beyond reason, maybe a 500/5.6L with IS also...


+2
Two excellent ideas !!


----------



## briansquibb (May 28, 2012)

70-300L ===> f/4 throughout the range


----------



## Marsu42 (May 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> 70-300L ===> f/4 throughout the range



But if this would add 500g (not to speak of the price tag), I'd rather stay with the current design or carry around a 70-200L + tc :-o


----------



## unfocused (May 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> 70-300L ===> f/4 throughout the range



I never understood why they didn't do this in the first place. They could have priced it in the range of the 70-200 2.8II and still done well. I'm afraid that the current 70-300 L probably precludes this from happening.



tron said:


> JoeDavid said:
> 
> 
> > How about a new version of the 400/5.6L adding IS. Also, now that Canon has boosted the price of the big white lenses to beyond reason, maybe a 500/5.6L with IS also...
> ...



Agreed.

How about a 200 f2.8 with IS?

Some wide EF-S primes (15mm, 22mm) would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. 

I used to want a new 100-400mm but upon hearing the rumored price, not so much anymore. I'll make do with the current version.


----------



## briansquibb (May 28, 2012)

unfocused said:


> How about a 200 f2.8 with IS?



The 200 II is f/2.0 and has IS


----------



## unfocused (May 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > How about a 200 f2.8 with IS?
> ...



It's also $6,000.


----------



## briansquibb (May 28, 2012)

unfocused said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Well we all know that Canon has a price hike for the Mk2 

I have both - and the f/2.0 version is so much better!!


----------



## RC (May 28, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> RC said:
> 
> 
> > 35L II with WS, and please keep the price increase reasonable. 8)
> ...


20 - 25% seems reasonable to me. 




tron said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > #3 - 35mm 1.4 L - sharpness, CA (very badly needs updating, 14 year old design, Nikon's is much much better)
> ...



100% price increase is unreasonable.


----------



## pwp (May 29, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> Personally I'd like to see the 135mm f/2 L get upgraded AFTER I buy this current version. A new one will undoubtedly be out of my price range.


There would definitely be a price hike, but if/when there is a new 135 f/2 I'd expect large numbers of mint condition pre-owned copies hitting the market as _upgraditis _kicks in.

PW


----------



## tron (May 29, 2012)

RC said:


> 100% price increase is unreasonable.



I agree but check the prices of the new 24mm f/2.8 and 28 f/2.8 lenses. Also compare the price of the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II and the old one. Trust me I want badly to be wrong (the more wrong the better  assuming I err on the higher end...)


----------



## dhofmann (May 29, 2012)

The 17-40L needs new optics (even the EF-S 15-85mm non-L lens is sharper) and image stabilization.


----------



## BRNexus6 (May 29, 2012)

35mm F2 
50mm 1.8 ll

Both need better build quality, better AF and 7 circular aperture blades. 

Nikon's new 50mm 1.8G lens is fantastic and still pretty inexpensive.


----------



## briansquibb (May 29, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> The 17-40L needs new optics (even the EF-S 15-85mm non-L lens is sharper) and image stabilization.



Why is there such a fixation for IS when on wide lens there will be very little/no benefit as motion blur will be intrusive before IS kicks in. If it is a stationary object then a monopod/tripod is the answer.

I am not convinced that the 17-40 is not sharp, especially at f/5.6 or slower


----------



## Marsu42 (May 29, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> The 17-40L needs new optics (even the EF-S 15-85mm non-L lens is sharper and image stabilization.



You may be correct about the 17-40L (but Canon will rather update a f2.8 ultrawide because they can get more money out of it). But "even" the ef-s lenses are very good, it's just that Canon decided for marketing's sake not to put any red rings on them or let them have better build quality.


----------



## moreorless (May 29, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> The 17-40L needs new optics (even the EF-S 15-85mm non-L lens is sharper) and image stabilization.



I think Canon should look at making whatever replaces it there big UWA performer, at least beyond the TSE's that most users can afford. Rather than try to mix performance and f/2.8 together as Nikon have leave the 16-35mm as the "action UWA" where boarder performance is less of an issue and have the f/4 zoom as the sharper boarder to boarder option for the landscape market who are going to be stopping down anyway most of the time leaving a smaller cheaper lens.


----------



## moreorless (May 29, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> dhofmann said:
> 
> 
> > The 17-40L needs new optics (even the EF-S 15-85mm non-L lens is sharper and image stabilization.
> ...



It'll be interesting to see what happens should the 7D mk2 be shifted up in the market as has been rumoured. The 1D could get away with using adapted EF lenses with the more limated crop factor but I'd guess that if this camera really is aimed at the same kind of users they'd greatly welcome a 17-55mm 2.8 IS with L build quality/sealing.


----------



## dhofmann (May 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> If it is a stationary object then a monopod/tripod is the answer.



IS would weigh substantially less and be significantly more compact than a monopod or tripod.



briansquibb said:


> I am not convinced that the 17-40 is not sharp, especially at f/5.6 or slower



It is less sharp in the corners at 24mm than the non-L 15-85, even at f/5.6 and f/8. Given that the 17-40 is an L lens and not a superzoom, it has two reasons why it should be sharper than the 15-85.


----------



## briansquibb (May 29, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > If it is a stationary object then a monopod/tripod is the answer.
> ...



A monopod/tripod would give much longer shutter speeds than IS

I keep hearing that the 17-40 is less sharp than the 15-85 - but on a aps-C you will find it sharper, particularly at f5.6 or slower.


----------



## dhofmann (May 30, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I keep hearing that the 17-40 is less sharp than the 15-85 - but on a aps-C you will find it sharper, particularly at f5.6 or slower.



Why do you keep repeating that long after I disproved it in my original post? (Hint: follow the link I provided.)


----------



## AdamJ (May 30, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I keep hearing that the 17-40 is less sharp than the 15-85 - but on a aps-C you will find it sharper, particularly at f5.6 or slower.
> ...



Comparing the EF-S 15-85mm with the EF 17-40mm is spurious; it only shows that the EF 17-40mm isn't optimised for a crop-frame camera. Its field of view on FF is more or less equal to the EF-S 10-22mm on a crop frame. Try TDP's comparison of these two lenses at 17mm and you'll find the 17-40mm fractionally sharper.

15-85mm on crop-frame is a simpler optical design than 17-40mm on full frame so it should be no big surprise that the 15-85mm is sharper on a crop-frame. On full frame, the 17-40mm is much better than the 15-85mm, not least because it doesn't smash the mirror to pieces.


----------



## briansquibb (May 30, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I keep hearing that the 17-40 is less sharp than the 15-85 - but on a aps-C you will find it sharper, particularly at f5.6 or slower.
> ...



Did you try it stopped down then? I thought everyone knew that the 17-40 is soft at F/4. It is a landscape lens


----------



## dhofmann (May 30, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Did you try it stopped down then?



Yes, at f/5.6 and f/8. It's still not as sharp as the non-L superzoom.


----------



## briansquibb (May 30, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Did you try it stopped down then?
> ...



OK - mine must be a very sharp version on ff. It is sharp enough for me


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 31, 2012)

Radiating said:


> I just thought I'd see what everyone wanted to see replaced most in Canon's lineup. Feel free to post your top requests for lenses that need replacement. I'll start:
> 
> Rank - Lens Name - What Needs Fixing
> 
> ...



Agree with 1-4. 

I think the 135f2 is an amazing lens but it really needs IS - that's all it needs IMO. I certainly wouldn't buy it for any optics upgrade.

As for 5, I'm happy with the 16-35 personally... For number 5, I'd add an 85 1.4. The 1.2 is too heavy / big / slow and the 1.8 isn't good enough for my needs. Sorry - I know it's not a replacement as such 

There may be some in the 200+ range that need work but I stop at 200mm personally.


----------



## kpk1 (May 31, 2012)

#1 35/1.4 L - Needs more sharpness under 2.0
#2 85/1.8 IS - Make it 1.8 IS with faster AF and keep the 1.2 without IS
#3 50/1.8 IS - The same thing as above
#4 135/2 L IS - A new design with IS and that's all


----------



## EOBeav (May 31, 2012)

kpk1 said:


> #4 135/2 L IS - A new design with IS and that's all



Why does this lens need IS? Others have mentioned that as well. A mkII version of this lens with IS gets knocked out of the price range into the 'why bother' category, IMO. The two categories where this lens shines--portraits and low-light sports--rarely benefit from IS. As you can tell, I'm not a fan of IS in general, at least I don't find myself in situations where it would be useful. To me, it just adds bulk and cost to a lens that doesn't need any more of either.


----------



## tron (May 31, 2012)

kpk1 said:


> #1 35/1.4 L - Needs more sharpness under 2.0l



It is very sharp at the center. It needs more sharpness at the edges. However, when you shoot portraits the subjects are more or less at the center and anyway the problematic edges may be out of focus anyway.

However I agree with you. More sharpness is always welcome and it is my No1 criterion.


----------



## BRNexus6 (May 31, 2012)

One lens that I hope Canon makes in the future. 

50mm 1.8 with IS, Metal mount, 7 circular aperture blades and a smooth manual focus ring. I'd glady pay up to $499 for this lens.


----------



## AdamJ (Jun 1, 2012)

kpk1 said:


> #2 85/1.8 IS - Make it 1.8 IS with faster AF



How much faster could its AF be??

I agree with EOBeav that a 135mm with IS could make it too expensive to remain popular. A large part of the 135's appeal is its price. If it went to $2,000+, it might not have a viable market.

This is even truer of the 200mm f/2.8. If that lens received IS and a $1,500+ price tag, only prime-obsessives would buy it. If ever there were a certain candidate for a lens not being replaced, this is it, IMHO.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 1, 2012)

> This is even truer of the 200mm f/2.8. If that lens received IS and a $1,500+ price tag, only prime-obsessives would buy it. If ever there were a certain candidate for a lens not being replaced, this is it, IMHO.



Absolutely agree. It was light enough to hand hold steady anyway. My favourite lens I've ever owned (I had the later II with the snap on hood, would probably buy a mk1 if I saw one used)

IS is over-rated. IMHO.

If you are using a fast L prime like a 200mm then you are using it to shoot subjects can only do better with a monopod.

Slow shutter is a con because by that point subject motion is more likely to cause blur.

What happened to breathe in, brace and motordrive.

A lot of folks out there screwing up plenty of decent designs with un-necessary and expensive extra electronics.


----------



## BRNexus6 (Jun 2, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> > This is even truer of the 200mm f/2.8. If that lens received IS and a $1,500+ price tag, only prime-obsessives would buy it. If ever there were a certain candidate for a lens not being replaced, this is it, IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



IS is very handy, especially when shooting video. Not everyone wants to lug around a huge rig to keep shots stabilized.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 2, 2012)

Current IS is not optimised for contiguous video. Its too aggressive and sporadic for 25fps or 30fps second after second after second. 

If you are shooting video your shutter should be no slower than 1/50th or 1/60th anyway, so the benefit on wide angle lenses is entirely negated. If you are shooting with a standard or tele lens then you should be supporting the camera, or you'll sprain your bicep or back. Agree re: rigs, some are just silly huge and cumbersome. 

Fig rig great for run and gun, manfrotto video monopod excellent if travelling light, but 8 times out of 10 I'll be using a tripod with bowl and fluid head. Old habits, and being mindful that shakey footage on 50" plasmas is unwatchable.


----------



## tron (Jun 3, 2012)

Some thoughts which may not be liked by some:

It seems to me that the update of some lenses is desired because it is considered ... fashionable.

Maybe some who have money to spend wish for minor upgrades in lenses (like IS to wide, medium or slightly tele lenses) and are willing to pay major increases in price...

DON'T THINK I EXCLUDE MYSELF 100%.

I am as "guilty" as you. For example I wish for a 400mm f/5.6L updated with IS (and a latest generation one of course!)

I do understand the need for IS but I believe that it is immensely more useful to tele lenses.

However, there is no real need to add it to almost every lens available and ... increase the price of all canon lenses...

Anyway we can Relax! Canon will do it anyway sooner or later. They want our money!


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 8, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> All of these made me pull the trigger, I'm a happy owner of 35L and completely satisfied (Paired with 1Ds2)



Congrats, that's a lens I'm thinking about, too. The only issue seems to be the heavy vignetting that is so strong that it may affect dr (i.e. noise) after de-vignetting in post - do you notice it in your real world shots?


----------



## bycostello (Jun 8, 2012)

i'd like a black 70-200, bit less obtrusive...


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 8, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Congrats, that's a lens I'm thinking about, too. The only issue seems to be the heavy vignetting that is so strong that it may affect dr (i.e. noise) after de-vignetting in post - do you notice it in your real world shots?
> ...



Do the vignette in pp


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Jun 8, 2012)

Tse 90, could be a very interesting portrait lens
100-400 for birding (wishful thinking, I know)


----------



## PhotoCat (Jun 8, 2012)

50/1.4

-not vy sharp under f2.0
-AF motor gets stuck easily
-no real USM

Keep the bokeh and no IS!

Actually canon doesn't have a decent 50mm at a reasonable price range!

50/1.8 - color not good, not usm, plastic construction etc
50/2.5 macro - slow to focus, not usm, not f1.8 or below, vignette
50/1.2 - price, weight 

Canon really needs to update this "standard" lens


----------



## tron (Jun 25, 2012)

EF16-35mm f/2.8L II: It is better than version I at 16-20mm and worse in 28-35mm !!! This is a joke! It has to be a superset (in quality)
in all focal lengths to be a worthy upgrade.

EF100-400mm L or EF400mm f/4.6L or both: Canon has to update at least one of them (actually it has to update both of them...)
the 100-400 for additional sharpness, weather sealing and better IS and the 400 for IS.


----------



## vlim (Jun 25, 2012)

I want a new version with an IS II and weather sealing of the 300 f/4 L IS !!!


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 25, 2012)

When I go FF it will be difficult to not keep a crop body around because besides weather sealing I just can't see too many reasons why the 16-35 and 17-40 are better than the 10-22. Love that lens. So I'd say something in between the 16-35 and 17-40 pricepoints ~ 1000-1200, and better wide open and corner sharpness. Perhaps a 2.8 17-40.


----------



## whatta (Jun 25, 2012)

50 1.4 usm
28 1.8 usm II or ef-s 30 1.4 (a standard fast prime for crop)


----------



## whatta (Jun 25, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Some wide EF-S primes (15mm, 22mm) would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.


if there had been an affordable efs 15/2.8 maybe I would not have bought the 15-85..


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 25, 2012)

I wouldn't say the 17-40 is woeful by any means, I also wouldn't be upset if they refreshed it provided A) they keep it 77mm, and B) keep it under the 1K mark...


----------



## KitsVancouver (Jun 25, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> I wouldn't say the 17-40 is woeful by any means, I also wouldn't be upset if they refreshed it provided A) they keep it 77mm, and B) keep it under the 1K mark...



It depends on your definition of "woeful", but I would say it is. I believe the other poster was referencing FF performance and in that respect, the 17-40 is very weak in the corners with respect to sharpness. The 16-35 Mk II may cost way more but it's definitely better. The sad thing is that the 16-35 Mk II isn't that great either. 

I agree with all the posters that 50mm nees a good solid entry from Canon. In the film days, it was what I shot with more than anything. Now I own 7 L lenses but not one 50mm.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 25, 2012)

dilbert said:


> KitsVancouver said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



17mm f4L TS, 14mm 2.8L II and the 8-15 f4L.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 25, 2012)

KitsVancouver said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't say the 17-40 is woeful by any means, I also wouldn't be upset if they refreshed it provided A) they keep it 77mm, and B) keep it under the 1K mark...
> ...



While I do not wish to start another debate about the 17-40, I do have to say that i'm in agreement that the lens does have room for improvement. That being said, the copy I got has been used on crop and full frame... pictures from it has been published to magazines, catalogs, etc.. AT LEAST FOR MY COPY, i would say it's not bad. At the 24-40 range, I will grab my 24-105 over the 17-40 in almost any situation, but for me, when shooting in raw, how I do my edits and such, the 17-40 gives me just enough to keep me using it and keep it's place in my bag. Now if canon were to come out with a new version with even sharper pictures and keep the price reasonable, then by all means my 17-40 will end up on craigslist pretty quickly... but until then, it will be my UWA lens in my bag.


----------



## KitsVancouver (Jun 25, 2012)

If you don't pixel peep, you're not likely to notice the imperfections of any lens. Since I've never worked in print publication, I can't comment, but as a pixel peeper (self admittedly), I feel the 17-40 is quite weak (sharpness wise). 

I have the 17mm TS-E and from my pixel peeping, it is about on par if not a teeny weeny bit less sharp in the center as the 16-35. However, in the corners, the 17 mm TS-E blows the 16-35 out of the water. Not even close. The challenge with the 17 mm TS-E is that it is manual only focus. I bought that lens this year for a trip to Italy and noticed for myself, I was paying a lot more attention and time on shots because of the manual focus and the protruding element.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 25, 2012)

KitsVancouver said:


> If you don't pixel peep, you're not likely to notice the imperfections of any lens. Since I've never worked in print publication, I can't comment, but as a pixel peeper (self admittedly), I feel the 17-40 is quite weak (sharpness wise).
> 
> I have the 17mm TS-E and from my pixel peeping, it is about on par if not a teeny weeny bit less sharp in the center as the 16-35. However, in the corners, the 17 mm TS-E blows the 16-35 out of the water. Not even close. The challenge with the 17 mm TS-E is that it is manual only focus. I bought that lens this year for a trip to Italy and noticed for myself, I was paying a lot more attention and time on shots because of the manual focus and the protruding element.



That's a great lens... If i had a need where I could justify that purchase, I definitely would... As far as pixel peeping... from what i have played with, I shot with that lens and had it outputted on A3 and 16x20 paper... I had plenty of detail for my tastes in the corners... Although the center subject of my shot admittedly, was in the center (architectural) and it worked great for me... I have no doubt if I took the same shot and composed it so the main focal point of the shot was in the extremities of the shot, I would be less than blown away, but I suppose for what I ask of it and what it gives me, It never has let me down. It's not perfect and i dont have my head in the sand, but from my personal experience, very few, and i mean a select few, outperform it. (16-35 II, 17 TSE, 17-55 on crop, and the 14-24) that's pretty good company to be in and considerably cheaper than all of those....


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 26, 2012)

vlim said:


> I want a new version with an IS II and weather sealing of the 300 f/4 L IS !!!



for sure! also keep the integrated lens hood, love that thing


----------



## TeenTog (Jun 26, 2012)

I would say that the most needed lens for replacement is the 50 1.8 Yes it is canon's cheapest lens at the moment, but it could use a serious upgrade. The manual focusing ring is tiny, which doesn't make it an ideal lens for macro. (hey, i'm on a really tiny budget). Also, the construction is really bad, it fells like i would crush it if I held it too tightly. However, I was very pleased when the 40mm came out, it sounds like a fairly decent lens.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 26, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



None.


----------

