# Which Canon lenses DON'T need an update?



## dirtcastle (Apr 10, 2012)

Is there any Canon lens that DOESN'T need an update. Or at least, for which it is unlikely that an update will make significant improvements.

1. IQ and sharpness
2. Great AF
3. Reasonable weight
4. IS, if appropriate

From what I hear, it sounds like the following lenses are pretty damn close to perfect (given current technology)...

TS-E 24mm f/ 3.5 L II
24mm f/1.4 L II
100mm f/2.8 L macro
200mm f/2 L 
300mm f/2.8 L II
400 f/2.8 L II 

And maybe the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II will be added to this list??


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 10, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> 100mm f/2.8 L macro



I want a L macro with a metal body that fits the high price tag instead of the plastic on the current 100L ... because I'm frequently crawling though the woods, I've decided I'll either get very cheap, replaceable lenses or expensive sturdy ones - but not something like the 17-55. But as Ken Rockwell always says: "That's just me."


----------



## akiskev (Apr 10, 2012)

Lenses that don't need an update in my oppinion:
70-200 f/4L USM IS
70-200mm f/2.8L USM IS II


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 10, 2012)

100mm non L. Nothing bad to say about it.


----------



## iaind (Apr 10, 2012)

You can add 8-15L fisheye zoom


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 10, 2012)

All the lenses that were updated in the last 2 years


----------



## unruled (Apr 10, 2012)

canon 85mm f1/.8

its old, but great AF, great IQ.


----------



## tron (Apr 10, 2012)

TS-E 17mm f/4L


----------



## tron (Apr 10, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> And maybe the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II will be added to this list??



The funny thing is that this lens although new it might be considered as being eligible for
an update due to the lack of IS ;D

Whether it will be updated with an IS version soon is a totally different matter...


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 10, 2012)

70-200mm f4 USM IS
70-200mm f2.8 USM II IS
300mm 2.8 USM IS II
400mm f/2.8 USM IS II 

i think most older lenses could be improved with better coatings. 
some could need more aperture blades or circular blades for better bokeh.

the mentioned 85mm f1.8 is an example.

that it is a good lens does not mean it could not be better with todays technology/materials.


----------



## JRS (Apr 10, 2012)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 11, 2012)

50 1.4..... I kid, I kid


----------



## squarebox (Apr 11, 2012)

I thought the 24L had all kinds of IQ issues and is inferior to the 35L design?

And just because the EF-S always get ignored, the 10-22 ef-s is pretty good.


----------



## pj1974 (Apr 11, 2012)

For the price, build quality, size / weight and awesome image quality, I'll add the following two lenses (which I have) to the list of 'not needing an update'. They are pretty much 'spot on' in my humble opinion, and do not need to have a version II:

Canon EF 70-300mm L USM IS
Canon EF-S 15-85mm USM IS

I like having options (eg smaller lenses - usually not as fast glass - with still very high IQ). The above two are ideal as a two lens travel combination. 8)

*Jamesy*.... I almost cliked the "Report to moderator" link... about your post of the 50mm f1.4 ;D Ha ha.. I know you were joking!! That's* the* one lens I do hope gets an update soon - with true ring type / full time USM focussing, and very good image quality wide open... in fact if it is f1.8 that would also suit me). IS would be a bonus (but not necessary).... 

Regards

Paul


----------



## nickbj05 (Apr 11, 2012)

one of my favorite lenses to use is my 135mm F/2L. Not sure why no one mentioned that, but I think it is one of the best lenses they make.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 11, 2012)

pj1974 said:


> Canon EF 70-300mm L USM IS



I've got this lens, and while I don't think it'd justify an "update": They left out the focus limiter switch to make sure there was a difference to the 70-200L (thanks, Canon!). But I'm dual-using it for walk-around/macro and tele, so I'd really like to be able to pre-set it to 2.5m+ if don't want the af to hunt once it misses on tele shots.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 11, 2012)

nickbj05 said:


> one of my favorite lenses to use is my 135mm F/2L. Not sure why no one mentioned that, but I think it is one of the best lenses they make.



maybe because some think it could benefit from IS.
some people want IS in any lens.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 11, 2012)

squarebox said:


> I thought the 24L had all kinds of IQ issues and is inferior to the 35L design?
> 
> And just because the EF-S always get ignored, the 10-22 ef-s is pretty good.



Maybe the original 24L, but the 24L II is a friggin outstanding lens and as good or better than the 35L in my opinion.


----------



## squarebox (Apr 12, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> squarebox said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the 24L had all kinds of IQ issues and is inferior to the 35L design?
> ...



Ah, i stand corrected... Kept looking at the mk1 for some reason.


----------



## tron (Apr 12, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> nickbj05 said:
> 
> 
> > one of my favorite lenses to use is my 135mm F/2L. Not sure why no one mentioned that, but I think it is one of the best lenses they make.
> ...



I agree, it is a very good lens. Even if Canon made an IS version (which I assume it would cost double) I would hesitate to upgrade it.


----------



## RC (Apr 12, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> 100mm f/2.8 L macro





akiskev said:


> 70-200 f/4L USM IS



+ 1 on these. I'm fine with the high tech plastic on the 100.


----------



## unruled (Apr 12, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> 70-200mm f4 USM IS
> 70-200mm f2.8 USM II IS
> 300mm 2.8 USM IS II
> 400mm f/2.8 USM IS II
> ...



if you count the 85 1.8 as needing an upgrade, then you might as well add every lens under the sun as needing an upgrade. I think that at the current price point and quality, the 85 1.8 is one of the best canon lenses there is, I wouldn't want a better coating at double its price.


----------



## preppyak (Apr 12, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I want a L macro with a metal body that fits the high price tag instead of the plastic on the current 100L


You probably need IS, but, if you didn't, the non-L has a pretty solid construction. Feels like a Maglite flashlight to me.


keithfullermusic said:


> 100mm non L. Nothing bad to say about it.


Same, especially since an update would make it cost more. I don't need the IS for most of my macro work, so i was glad to get it pretty cheap used.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 12, 2012)

preppyak said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > I want a L macro with a metal body that fits the high price tag instead of the plastic on the current 100L
> ...



Um, I've got the 100mm non-L - and while its the ok Canon "gold ring" quality: Did you ever get your hands on something like the 70-300L or 70-200L/2.8? These are real metal cases and and entirely different thing.


----------



## gerga (Apr 14, 2012)

akiskev said:


> Lenses that don't need an update in my oppinion:
> 70-200 f/4L USM IS
> 70-200mm f/2.8L USM IS II



Though it'd be nice if the 70-200 shed half a kilo!

If we're including value for money in this discussion, then perhaps the 50mm f/1.4 could be thrown into consideration? It's my understanding the optics haven't really changed since the days of the Canon A-1 (if not before): light, fast, decent IQ, very sharp esp. when stopped down. While many would like it to be metal-barelled, faster, and having more aperture blades for nicer bokeh, there's already the 50mm 1.2L (which I wouldn't include here as that _could _ do with an update!).


----------



## squarebox (Apr 14, 2012)

gerga said:


> akiskev said:
> 
> 
> > Lenses that don't need an update in my oppinion:
> ...



the 50mm 1.4 uses an outdated USM mechanism, though fast, isn't as fast as the new version. I think that has been the only complaint (if any) that could be said about the 1.4. It's a great lens btw, I have it as well.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 14, 2012)

squarebox said:


> the 50mm 1.4 uses an outdated USM mechanism, though fast, isn't as fast as the new version. I think that has been the only complaint (if any) that could be said about the 1.4. It's a great lens btw, I have it as well.



While being a good medium-budget lens, the 1.4's af is louder than ring-type usm, too. But the main "issue" is technical evolution: Canons 50mm is the simple legacy "normal" which is outperformed (wide open sharpness, bokeh) by newer designs with more glass by Nikon and Sigma, and these don't have the focus shift of Canon's f1.2.


----------

