# Two New Professional Lenses Coming Ahead of Photokina? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 1, 2018)

```
<p>We’re expected the announcement of <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/two-new-lenses-coming-from-canon-next-week-cr3/">two new lenses from Canon next week</a>, but it looks like that won’t be it for 2018.</p>
<p>Other than the EF-M 32mm f/1.4, we’re told that two more “professional” lenses are scheduled to be announced ahead of Photokina in September.</p>
<p>We were not told what focal lengths would be coming, or if they were replacements for current lenses, or all new designs.</p>
<p><em>More to come….</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 1, 2018)

I assume one of these has to be the new 135mm that's been discussed before.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 1, 2018)

EF 800/5.6 L IS Mk. II and EF 1200/5.6 L *IS* - since most of Canon's attention goes into "marking up" big white lenses (pun intended). ;D


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jun 1, 2018)

I like how the 50mm is posted for the picture related to this rumor. ;D ;D Gotta keep up your hope!


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2018)

.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 1, 2018)

Go big (aperture, say 1.2) or go home.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> .


Still waiting for replacement to 50mm Compact macro and 180mm L Macro.


----------



## Foxdude (Jun 1, 2018)

EF 50mm F1.2 L IS USM, anyone?
Fingers crossed.


----------



## Alexlin (Jun 1, 2018)

I dun get it

Does it mean the two new lens 70200 are not coming next week?!


Disclaimer: Non-English speaker


----------



## Foxdude (Jun 1, 2018)

Alexlin said:


> I dun get it
> 
> Does it mean the two new lens 70200 are not coming next week?!
> 
> ...




No. Two 70-200 are coming for sure. But more lenses are on the way, closer to Photokina


----------



## Kit. (Jun 1, 2018)

Alexlin said:


> Disclaimer: Non-English speaker


It won't be "that's it" for 2018. So, there will be more.


----------



## Rowk (Jun 1, 2018)

EF 135mm f/2L USM @ 1996...
It's time!!


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2018)

Rowk said:


> EF 135mm f/2L USM @ 1996...
> It's time!!



Take a number, dude. It's not your turn yet.

- A


----------



## slclick (Jun 1, 2018)

135 and 50. Why? Because I have those already.


----------



## melgross (Jun 1, 2018)

Ive never really found f1.2 to hold a real advantage over 1.4. With normal focus issues, both automatic and manual (particularly with the crappy manual focus aids on digital cameras) things could even be worse, not better. I’d rather have a seriously improved 1.4 instead.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2018)

melgross said:


> Ive never really found f1.2 to hold a real advantage over 1.4. With normal focus issues, both automatic and manual (particularly with the crappy manual focus aids on digital cameras) things could even be worse, not better. I’d rather have a seriously improved 1.4 instead.



+1. But how an improved f/1.4 arrives might herald another f/1.4.

The more I think about it, if a non-L 50 f/1.4 USM II is coming (sans IS, as the rumors indicate), there's a near certainty a 50 f/1.4L IS in the vein of the recent 85 f/1.4L IS has to happen as well. IS has to show up in a 50 in at least _one_ price point.

And would a bigger/sharper/better focusing 50 in the vein of the 35L II or 85 f/1.4L IS really be that bad of a thing? (Spoiler: No. Not at all.)

Bring on the 50 f/1.4L IS. I personally may not buy it while I continue my vigil for the non-L 50 f/1.4 USM replacement, but such an L lens would surely be a hit.

- A


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jun 1, 2018)

melgross said:


> Ive never really found f1.2 to hold a real advantage over 1.4. With normal focus issues, both automatic and manual (particularly with the crappy manual focus aids on digital cameras) things could even be worse, not better. I’d rather have a seriously improved 1.4 instead.



I'd love to see canon make a 50mm like their new 85mm f1.4. If the improvements are similar, I'd jump on that real quick.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 1, 2018)

Ring USM, 9-blade diaphragm and no barrel distortion would be nice for the new 50/1.4. IS would unlikely be helpful.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2018)

cellomaster27 said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > Ive never really found f1.2 to hold a real advantage over 1.4. With normal focus issues, both automatic and manual (particularly with the crappy manual focus aids on digital cameras) things could even be worse, not better. I’d rather have a seriously improved 1.4 instead.
> ...



Agree, but I am curious to see how big it will get. 

The 35L --> 35L II got slightly bigger, and man did we thank them for what that II could do optically. 

The 85 f/1.2L II --> 85 f/1.4L IS, though not a true sequel, got a lot bigger, but that was in large part due to moving to an internally focusing design. (Compare here at MFD without hoods to see what I mean.)

But the next 50L may be a major change from double gauss to a retrofocus design. If that happens, it could be _huge_, like Sigma Art / Zeiss Otus big.

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Rowk said:
> 
> 
> > EF 135mm f/2L USM @ 1996...
> ...



They did say "professional" lenses


----------



## Talys (Jun 1, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Rowk said:
> ...



50mm f/0.7

mass market


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> there's a near certainty a 50 f/1.4L IS in the vein of the recent 85 f/1.4L IS has to happen as well. IS has to show up in a 50 in at least _one_ price point.



With image resolution on the rise, every other manufacturer making an uber 50mm f/1.4, and the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM, I think a 50mm f/1.4L IS USM is inevitable.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> The more I think about it, if a non-L 50 f/1.4 USM II is coming (sans IS, as the rumors indicate), there's a near certainty a 50 f/1.4L IS in the vein of the recent 85 f/1.4L IS has to happen as well. IS has to show up in a 50 in at least _one_ price point.



For a while I was of the opinion that fast non-telephoto primes didn't really need IS, but testing out the 35mm f/2 IS changed my mind on that.

Even at 35mm, the IS was an awesome addition. Especially as a photojournalist, shooting video/stills together is normally a tough game of switching lenses or going on and off a tripod, but with the 35mm it was like having a tripod built in and still having a fast prime to bring ISO down on stills. I was considering the 35mm f/1.4L II for a while, but now I honestly might just pick up the IS.

So with that in mind, I hope Canon seriously considers releasing a 50mm f/1.4 IS, L or not. I would probably replace my back-up 50mm f/1.8 with that easily and get much more use out of it.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jun 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > melgross said:
> ...



True.. but the implementation of IS will make it bigger. The other lenses that you mentioned, do not have IS. In terms of front filter size, the 85 1.2 was a 72mm and the 85 1.4 is 77mm. I don't know too much about lens construction but since the current 50 1.2 is also 72mm, if the new 50mm 1.4 is say 77mm as well (granted that it would have IS), that would be amazing! Weight wise, again the 85mm lenses, the sigma is beefy while the canon isn't small, it's not that heavy. Canon 950g; Sigma 1.15kg.


----------



## ethanz (Jun 1, 2018)

You just had to use a 50mm picture to tease Adam, right?


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 1, 2018)

The next compact 50mm f/1.4 lens will be for the EF-M mount, I'm sure.

A 50mm f/1.4L EF lens would be a nice addition though, with or without IS


----------



## fullstop (Jun 1, 2018)

is does not necessarily make lenses (significantly) bigger. see 70-200/4 L IS vs. non-IS. and ef 24/28/35 with IS are also reasonably compact. retrofocus design and/or oversized image circle make lenses bigger. 

a 50/1.4 L IS in the same league as the 85/1.4 would be my expectation for a new 50. Ditch the 1.2L and the 1.4 non IS. for consumers i'd love a cheapo EF 50/1.8 STM with IS added.


----------



## Pixel (Jun 1, 2018)

Would a 100 or 105mm L of a reasonable size and weight (Sigma ) be out of the question?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2018)

H. Jones said:


> For a while I was of the opinion that fast non-telephoto primes didn't really need IS, but testing out the 35mm f/2 IS changed my mind on that.



Wide lens? Fast lens? Don't care: IS on everything please, and you can take my money.

As an available light guy who often goes places a tripod is not allowed, IS = virtual speed. As my subjects are rarely moving, every stop of IS is a stop I can funnel into walking the ISO down. Or in cases the ISO is not problematic I can stop the lens down for sharpness/composition needs while the non-IS lens is forced to shoot wide open. 

Now it may be less _impactful_ at different FLs (I tend to see a higher number of stops of IS on my longer glass than on my wider glass), but I'll still use it. With my 16-35 f/L IS, I can take handheld shots of a church interior or nighttime city skyline at ISO 800 instead of ISO 3200 or 6400. That's helpful!

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2018)

ethanz said:


> You just had to use a 50mm picture that wasn't the non-L to tease Adam, right?



Fixed that for you. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2018)

fullstop said:


> is does not necessarily make lenses (significantly) bigger. see 70-200/4 L IS vs. non-IS. and ef 24/28/35 with IS are also reasonably compact. retrofocus design and/or oversized image circle make lenses bigger.



Agree. IS typically adds weight, not size.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2018)

Pixel said:


> Would a 100 or 105mm L of a reasonable size and weight (Sigma ) be out of the question?



If Canon puts out some screamer of a 105 f/1.4 lens _before updating the 135L_, there will be hell to pay. Someone will pay for a plane ticket to Japan just so that they can berate/punch/moon the entire Canon marketing team.

It would be like if -- of all the lenses in the original non-L USM prime line from the 90s -- Canon chose to update the EF 20 f/2.8 USM before the 50 or 85.

- A


----------



## Cory (Jun 1, 2018)

How about a 50-100 zoom for full-frame (like the Sigma one for crop)? 
Is it too late to get this out within a few weeks?
Just make it a nice/easy 2.8.


----------



## Frodo (Jun 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> It would be like if -- of all the lenses in the original non-L USM prime line from the 90s -- Canon chose to update the EF 20 f/2.8 USM before the 50 or 85.
> - A



An updated EF 20/2.8? Now that I'd buy.
An updated 85/2 IS to match my 35/2 IS? Absolutely.

For me, 50mm is meh. But I acknowledge the gap in the EF series.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2018)

Frodo said:


> An updated EF 20/2.8? Now that I'd buy.
> An updated 85/2 IS to match my 35/2 IS? Absolutely.
> 
> For me, 50mm is meh. But I acknowledge the gap in the EF series.



We have 3 lovely 85 primes in EF right now that do not have too much wrong with them. Sure, the 85 f/1.8 is old but largely a great value with USM and decent sharpness per dollar, the f1.2L II is a unique rendering instrument and the f/1.4L IS ticks just about every box there is. Further, they are all pretty modern -- two are internally focusing and all have ring USM.

But with 50s, we have 3 of them (no, the compact macro doesn't count) and they all have non-trivial problems in performance and feature set. Canon does not sell a 50mm prime lens with reliable + fast autofocus, with a flat field of focus or anything resembling a sharp image across the frame. Canon needs _at least_ one new offering on the middle/high side, if not two.

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jun 1, 2018)

hmmmm ... in my book EF 50/1.8 STM has "no problem" whatsoever. I find it absolutely fabulous, good IQ, sharp, not much CA (less than 1.4). It is very compact, light and STM drive is superior in speed, precision and mechanical mechanical stability compared to the infamous AF drive on the 50/1.4. It is silent, works well on all EOS bodies, including EOS-M mirrorless line and also suitable for video. And it offers maximum bang for literally a few bucks. 

I prefer it a lot over the 50/1.4. Difference in light and subject isolation is negligable in my experience. 

Only improvement I'd like would be removal of manual focus ring and IS added instead.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2018)

fullstop said:


> hmmmm ... in my book EF 50/1.8 STM has "no problem" whatsoever.



Sure, it's a killer value. I just can't stand FBW and my 50 f/1.4's AF hunts but it does it quickly. I prefer it over the f/1.8 STM. 

So -- _to me_, in fairness to my prior posts -- the f/1.8 STM is lovely but not ticking the boxes I need. I continue to wait for a 35 f/2 IS USM like instrument (perhaps not in specifics on aperture) that is internally focusing, FTM mechanical focusing, modern ring USM, has reliable/consistent AF when shot on the wide open end and generates sharp photos. It doesn't need to be a Sigma Art atom-splittingly sharp instrument-- just 90% as good in half the size. 

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jun 1, 2018)

why would one ever need FTM, when the lens has "fast and accurate AF"? 

I want the latter, and hardly ever twist focus rings. Only in very rare situations when AF is absolutely not possible do I switch to MF. I have not yet encountered a use case, where I would want to use FTM and intervene / fiddle with camera's AF system. ]. Focus by wire is also no issue for me, as long as focussing happens snappy and precisely. 

I pay for AF in camera body and each and every Canon lens I purchase - so i want it to do the work. reliably, without any fuss. I am in charge of image idea, composition, timing/moment, light, post-processing/final look. Technicalities like exposure, focus and the like are my camera's job. I aspire to [some day, hopefully] be a "photographer", a "creator of images", a "vision-ary" - am not interested in being a "camera operator" and even less a "photo mechanic".


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 2, 2018)

fullstop said:


> why would one ever need FTM, when the lens has "fast and accurate AF"?
> 
> I want the latter, and hardly ever twist focus rings. Only in very rare situations when AF is absolutely not possible do I switch to MF. I have not yet encountered a use case, where I would want to use FTM and intervene / fiddle with camera's AF system. ]. Focus by wire is also no issue for me, as long as focussing happens snappy and precisely.
> 
> I pay for AF in camera body and each and every Canon lens I purchase - so i want it to do the work. reliably, without any fuss. I am in charge of image idea, composition, timing/moment, light, post-processing/final look. Technicalities like exposure, focus and the like are my camera's job. I aspire to [some day, hopefully] be a "photographer", a "creator of images", a "vision-ary" - am not interested in being a "camera operator" and even less a "photo mechanic".



And some day, when cameras can read minds, your dream might come true.


----------



## tmroper (Jun 2, 2018)

fullstop said:


> why would one ever need FTM, when the lens has "fast and accurate AF"?



Zone focusing for street photography is a huge reason why.


----------



## Talys (Jun 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > hmmmm ... in my book EF 50/1.8 STM has "no problem" whatsoever.
> ...



Same. I can't stand the FBW. But, more significantly, the 50/1.8 has inconsistent autofocus. My 50/1.4 copy has significantly more consistent autofocus, but has other issues, like terrible chromatic aberration (much worse than the 1.8), and the focus mechanism gets stuck periodically, requiring a teardown.

I've given away my 50/1.8 and don't use my 50/1.4 (which is my second, by the way; my first 1.4 had the same focus ring stuck issue). I've kind of given up on it and use either 24-70/2.8 (original), 24-70/4 IS or the 84/1.4 IS -- the last of which is, in my opinion, a perfect example of what a modern prime lens should be.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 2, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > why would one ever need FTM, when the lens has "fast and accurate AF"?
> ...



+100 

Can't really fault him. It's the mirror. The mirror is holding him back. :


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 2, 2018)

Foxdude said:


> EF 50mm F1.2 L IS USM, anyone?
> Fingers crossed.



There won't be anymore new 1.2s. Only 1.4s.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Jun 2, 2018)

Frodo said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > It would be like if -- of all the lenses in the original non-L USM prime line from the 90s -- Canon chose to update the EF 20 f/2.8 USM before the 50 or 85.
> ...



Well, looking at how all of the Cinema Lenses except for the new 20mm T 1.5 take the lens elements of their stills L series counterparts (with different coatings of course), I'd be really surprised if we don't see the reverse sometime soon with the debut of an L series 20mm 1.4 prime. If it's not these, it will be coming. Canon doesn't like to throw away a good opportunity to double dip on a formula.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > Ive never really found f1.2 to hold a real advantage over 1.4. With normal focus issues, both automatic and manual (particularly with the crappy manual focus aids on digital cameras) things could even be worse, not better. I’d rather have a seriously improved 1.4 instead.
> ...



I think any new 50mm f/1.4 will be an L. I don't believe there will be anymore 1.2s. Hope I'm wrong, but...


----------



## pwp (Jun 2, 2018)

cellomaster27 said:


> I'd love to see canon make a 50mm like their new 85mm f1.4. If the improvements are similar, I'd jump on that real quick.


You and many others...It makes a lot of sense as the R&D for both lenses would be closely linked.

-pw


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 2, 2018)

If they are to be 2 new professional lenses, they could be cine lenses. :-[


----------



## pwp (Jun 2, 2018)

H. Jones said:


> For a while I was of the opinion that fast non-telephoto primes didn't really need IS, but testing out the 35mm f/2 IS changed my mind on that.


I held the same opinion until I got the 16-35 f/4is which I ran alongside a 16-35 f/2.8II for a couple of months. The stabilized f/4 lens ended up being the keeper. My opinion of IS grew even stronger when I picked up the surprisingly good Panasonic G9, mainly as a fun exercise. When you combine IBIS with a compliant stabilized Panasonic lens, their Dual IS kicks in...incredible. 

If Canon eventually introduces IBIS on upcoming bodies, they'd do well to run with a similar Dual-IS system. Hopefully both these professional grade lenses coming from Canon with ship with IS.

-pw


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 2, 2018)

Bennymiata said:


> If they are to be 2 new professional lenses, they could be cine lenses. :-[



You're probably right


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > is does not necessarily make lenses (significantly) bigger. see 70-200/4 L IS vs. non-IS. and ef 24/28/35 with IS are also reasonably compact. retrofocus design and/or oversized image circle make lenses bigger.
> ...



I think in telephoto you have a good chance to add a lens group for IS in some space between the lens elements of the non-IS version (see construction image close to the end of page):
non-IS: http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f4l/spec.html 
IS: http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f4l-is/spec.html

The existing double-gaussian derivatives are very crowded with lenses where you might add a movable / make an existing element movable. I think you have to do some changes to create a space for the IS group which will add a considerable amount of space (mostly length) - retrofocus constru:
50 1.4: http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard/ef50-f14/spec.html
50 1.2: http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard/ef50-f12l/spec.html

But hopefully they find a way to integrate IS in a f/1.4 50mm and simultaneously keep the lens size small e.g. by using high refractive glasses (thinner) and maybe some glasses with exotic dispersion (e.g. BR material) to counteract chromatic aberrations with a small number of elements!

EDIT/ADD:
Just read the following thread:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=35104.0

At least an option (despite lacking IS) which at least will motivate Canon to push their own assortment of lenses


----------



## bitm2007 (Jun 2, 2018)

I'm looking for a standard zoom with better corner sharpness than my aging 24-105mm F4 L mk 1 for landscapes, so am hoping that one of these lenses is the rumored Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L IS.

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-is-development-continues-cr2/


----------



## Talys (Jun 2, 2018)

bitm2007 said:


> I'm looking for a standard zoom with better corner sharpness than my aging 24-105mm F4 L mk 1 for landscapes, so am hoping that one of these lenses is the rumored Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L IS.
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-is-development-continues-cr2/



You may want to consider the 24-70 f/4 IS. The size/weight is really good, it has a great MFD, and the image quality is superior in every way to the 24-105 Mk1, at every focal length that they both have and aperture setting. And it's priced well!


----------



## sanj (Jun 2, 2018)

Talys said:


> bitm2007 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking for a standard zoom with better corner sharpness than my aging 24-105mm F4 L mk 1 for landscapes, so am hoping that one of these lenses is the rumored Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L IS.
> ...



Yes and generally you will not need 2.8 for landscapes. Good advice!

I am editing this post to say: If you are serious about landscapes and it seems you are if you notice corner sharpness, then use tripod and shoot at small aperture... It will help corner sharpness..


----------



## bitm2007 (Jun 2, 2018)

sanj said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > bitm2007 said:
> ...



Thanks guy's. I took a serious look at the 24-70mm f4 back when it was released and was put off big time by comments like the one below from Brian at The Digital Picture (which is backed up by other reviews) regarding the weakness of this lens in it's middle focal lengths, which is where I would use it most as I already have the excellent 16-35m f4 IS L.

_That this lens performs its worst at a mid-focal length vs. an extremity focal length is unusual. Since most people shoot their highest percentage of images at the focal length range extremes of a lens, the 24-70 L IS weakness is perhaps well placed. Roger at LensRentals.com has confirmed the 50mm weakness in his vast stock of this lens._


----------



## captainkanji (Jun 2, 2018)

Zeiss already has some classic primes on my wishlist. Just need a few more Christmas clubs. 3 years until my next Japan trip.


----------



## ethermine (Jun 2, 2018)

I'd be fine if canon never put out another f/1.2 or faster lens ever again. To me, the novelty of the f/1.2 wears off immediately after I observe the lens struggling to do what I need it to do. What's more, anything 1.2 or faster isn't absolutely necessary these days in the professional digital world, as those fast lenses are mostly throwbacks to an age that catered to cameras with the options of the average (100-3200, etc) and grainy ISO/ASA film speeds. A necessity then under some conditions, today not so much. If one of the major prevalent vague subjective arguments these days is the bokeh looks so much dreamier at f/1.2 than f/1.4, then I'll pass. 

Give me a lens that'll do what I want it to do with little fail, and produce beautiful imagery, then my criteria have all been met. Canon wants to release a 50 f/1.4 IS with similar build, focus and sharpness qualities of the 35 f/1.4L II and the new 85 f/1.4L IS? Great! I'll take it, and I won't miss anything the f/1.2s had to offer. Sure, the f/1.2s and faster lenses are neat in some ways and all, but they just don't have a legitimate place for me any longer. I'm sure plenty of folks will argue their needs are served by them just fine.


----------



## pwp (Jun 3, 2018)

ethermine said:


> I'd be fine if canon never put out another f/1.2 or faster lens ever again. To me, the novelty of the f/1.2 wears off immediately after I observe the lens struggling to do what I need it to do. What's more, anything 1.2 or faster isn't absolutely necessary these days in the professional digital world, as those fast lenses are mostly throwbacks to an age that catered to cameras with the options of the average (100-3200, etc) and grainy ISO/ASA film speeds. A necessity then under some conditions, today not so much. If one of the major prevalent vague subjective arguments these days is the bokeh looks so much dreamier at f/1.2 than f/1.4, then I'll pass.
> 
> Give me a lens that'll do what I want it to do with little fail, and produce beautiful imagery, then my criteria have all been met. Canon wants to release a 50 f/1.4 IS with similar build, focus and sharpness qualities of the 35 f/1.4L II and the new 85 f/1.4L IS? Great! I'll take it, and I won't miss anything the f/1.2s had to offer. Sure, the f/1.2s and faster lenses are neat in some ways and all, but they just don't have a legitimate place for me any longer. I'm sure plenty of folks will argue their needs are served by them just fine.


Nicely put Ethermine, I've had both f/1.2 L offerings, the 50 and 85 and rarely used them wide open after the first few disappointing weeks of use. Neither lens is still in my kit. The loss rate was just too high with the _very _ shallow depth of field, not to mention excessive image softness at f/1.2. Photographers who shoot more considered, static subjects may have more luck wide open. I'd probably click a f/1.8 lens down to f/2 or greater to improve my hit rate. I'm perfectly happy to ramp up the iso to previously dangerous levels and confidently deliver high quality files to clients. Those clients are going to be assessing content and composition way ahead of esoteric bokeh evaluation.

Interestingly my need for bright glass glass has taken a new turn since I got a Panasonic G9. With a MFT sensor, the option to ramp up the iso isn't there in the same way it is with my FF bodies. Now bright glass has a value similar to how we valued bright primes in the film days and the early digital days. A useful lens for the G9 is the Panasonic Lumix 43.5 f/1.7. This enables me to keep the iso in the clean range in tough conditions. 

So I'm with you, Canon is welcome to skip f/1.2 forever. 

-pw


----------



## fullstop (Jun 3, 2018)

with a faster, more effective electronic lens mount protocol and AF improvement such as face-tracking and eye-tracking even f/1.2 or f/1.0 lenses should be much better usable in the future and deliver well focused images - at least in live view mode (DSLRs) and on mirrorless cameras.

i am ot convinced there will be no new canon f/1.2 lenses - there are obviously enough people willing to pay through the nose for the difference between f/1.8 vs f/1.4 vs f/1.2 lenses. their walllets should and will be emptied by Canon. plus canon themselves are always after "bragging rights". 

personally i go for FF sensor (rather than APS-C or mFT), because i get sufficiently thin DOF and subject isolation for my taste already with compact, light and relatively cheap f/1.8 or f/2.0 lenses. i'd be most interested in new, deceent, non-L successors to EF 85/1.8 and 100/2.0 with less CA (bokeh fringing), 9 iris blades, STM AF drive and with latest IS. ideally in slim EF-X mount for a Canon mirrorless FF system.


----------



## hollybush (Jun 3, 2018)

bitm2007 said:


> Thanks guy's. I took a serious look at the 24-70mm f4 back when it was released and was put off big time by comments like the one below from Brian at The Digital Picture (which is backed up by other reviews) regarding the weakness of this lens in it's middle focal lengths, which is where I would use it most as I already have the excellent 16-35m f4 IS L.



At the normal landscape distances at which I use it, there is no decreased performance at 50mm on my copy. Some others I know of who also bought it despite the reviews have reported the same. It so perfectly suits my needs as a lightweight landscape lens for hiking that I can't help thinking that was exactly what Canon made it for. It may well have decreased performance at close distances, but I've never bothered checking. The supplied macro mode might be a clue as to what you're supposed to do.

Carnathan and many others use a fixed size, fairly small, target. Testing a lens like this at or near its minimum focus distance of 38cm (I think it's even less at 50mm) tells you nothing about its performance at ∞. You're much better off just reading Canon's MTF charts. This is before we start wondering whether he made an error or had a bad copy.


----------



## Talys (Jun 3, 2018)

hollybush said:


> bitm2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks guy's. I took a serious look at the 24-70mm f4 back when it was released and was put off big time by comments like the one below from Brian at The Digital Picture (which is backed up by other reviews) regarding the weakness of this lens in it's middle focal lengths, which is where I would use it most as I already have the excellent 16-35m f4 IS L.
> ...



Same. 

Even with product photography, the 24-70/4 is very sharp at 50mm. It is (far) superior to 50/1.4, because of chromatic aberration, especially towards the edges and corners. The 24-70/4 also controls both vignetting and distortion, which are important to me.

As a general walk-around lens, I've always been very happy with shots from it.

I'm not saying that perhaps it's not technically sharp when using a test pattern or some such; just that in real-life use, it's a fantastic lens that ticks all the boxes for me. I also own the 24-105 Mk1 -- and I'll be the first to admit that the extra reach can be nice in a pinch, but I really like the 24-70 images better.


----------



## Frodo (Jun 3, 2018)

Talys said:


> bitm2007 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking for a standard zoom with better corner sharpness than my aging 24-105mm F4 L mk 1 for landscapes, so am hoping that one of these lenses is the rumored Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L IS.
> ...



Can you provide reputable reviews that support your statement?
The biggest gains of the 24-70 and new 24-105 are in light transmission. Some focal lengths work better in some of the lenses than others.
In any case, the 24-70 is not sharper at >71mm!


----------



## fullstop (Jun 3, 2018)

Frodo said:


> Can you provide reputable reviews that support your statement?



yes, we can. 



> The new 24-70 f/4 IS stays in proportion — it’s about the same as the Tamron, not as good as the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II, but better than the original Canon 24-70 and the 24-105 f/4 IS.



https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests/


----------



## melgross (Jun 4, 2018)

pwp said:


> ethermine said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be fine if canon never put out another f/1.2 or faster lens ever again. To me, the novelty of the f/1.2 wears off immediately after I observe the lens struggling to do what I need it to do. What's more, anything 1.2 or faster isn't absolutely necessary these days in the professional digital world, as those fast lenses are mostly throwbacks to an age that catered to cameras with the options of the average (100-3200, etc) and grainy ISO/ASA film speeds. A necessity then under some conditions, today not so much. If one of the major prevalent vague subjective arguments these days is the bokeh looks so much dreamier at f/1.2 than f/1.4, then I'll pass.
> ...



This agrees with what I said earlier. But major companies such as Canon, Leica and Nikon may feel that they need that lens as a marketing tool, so we may get one anyway.


----------



## bitm2007 (Jun 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Frodo said:
> 
> 
> > Can you provide reputable reviews that support your statement?
> ...



That review backs up my previous post regarding this lens being weakest in it's middle focal lengths, which is where I would use it most as I already have the excellent 16-35m f4 IS L.

_We did find that 50mm resolution was slightly lower than 70mm for every copy. The center / weighted average at 50mm for the 24-70 f/4 IS was 875 / 700, compared to 920 / 750 at 70mm. Not a huge drop, but it was consistent. This is a bit surprising, but not a total shock. Some wide angle zooms exhibit similar behavior and the dip in resolution isn’t extreme._


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Jun 4, 2018)

Every time I buy an L series lens, canon seems to upgrade it a few months later... I got the 24-70, then version II came out. I got the 35mm L, then version II came out.... I got the 50mm, now it seems like there may be a version II on the way.


----------



## bitm2007 (Jun 4, 2018)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> Every time I buy an L series lens, canon seems to upgrade it a few months later... I got the 24-70, then version II came out. I got the 35mm L, then version II came out.... I got the 50mm, now it seems like there may be a version II on the way.



What lens you planning to purchase next ?


----------



## Ladislav (Jun 4, 2018)

24-70 L IS 2.8 and 50 L IS 1.4 please. Thank you.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 4, 2018)

I own both the EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM and the EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II. The slower lens I use for landscape and the faster lens for portraits. 
The f4 lens is generally a good walk-around lens for Landscape where commonly I'm at f8 or f11. The problems at 50mm only really show when the lens is wide open which for me is rare. By contrast the f2.8 lens is good at 50mm but considering the considerable price difference it should be. This lens I am often shooting at f2.8 and whilst its not as good as it is at f4 or below its very acceptable. 

If Canon update the EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM II lens to include IS its going to be larger & heavier, its already a fairly heavy lens so I would need to be convinced that IS works and works well to upgrade.


----------



## hollybush (Jun 4, 2018)

bitm2007 said:


> That review backs up my previous post regarding this lens being weakest in it's middle focal lengths, which is where I would use it most as I already have the excellent 16-35m f4 IS L.
> 
> _We did find that 50mm resolution was slightly lower than 70mm for every copy. The center / weighted average at 50mm for the 24-70 f/4 IS was 875 / 700, compared to 920 / 750 at 70mm. Not a huge drop, but it was consistent. This is a bit surprising, but not a total shock. Some wide angle zooms exhibit similar behavior and the dip in resolution isn’t extreme._



Seriously? You are worried about a 5% reduction in performance at 50mm?

What Lens Rentals found at infinity at 50mm is consistent with a much larger reduction at 50mm at unrealistically close distances such as some others claimed. It doesn't mean it's significant in itself.


----------



## Alexlin (Jun 4, 2018)

Even iphone se 2 has just been announced!

Where’re our 70-200 lensssss?


----------



## mppix (Jun 6, 2018)

Ladislav said:


> 24-70 L IS 2.8 and 50 L IS 1.4 please. Thank you.



+1


----------



## stevelee (Jun 6, 2018)

Alexlin said:


> Even iphone se 2 has just been announced!



I missed that. Last I saw it was still just rumored.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 6, 2018)

stevelee said:


> Alexlin said:
> 
> 
> > Even iphone se 2 has just been announced!
> ...



He actually posted during the keynote that many folks expected an SE 2 to be announced, but it never happened. Still just a 'likely down the road' phone -- I'm actually thinking about downsizing to one when it is announced.

- A


----------



## ethanz (Jun 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > Alexlin said:
> ...



I think you are right Adam.

I kept looking at macrumors for the aforementioned SE 2 but couldn't find it lol.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> He actually posted during the keynote that many folks expected an SE 2 to be announced, but it never happened. Still just a 'likely down the road' phone -- I'm actually thinking about downsizing to one when it is announced.



My 6S sticks out of my pocket just a little bit, so I guess I'll hang on to it and get the $29 battery replacement before the end of the year. Maybe I can get something SE sized next time if they don't "cripple" it too much.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 8, 2018)

bitm2007 said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Frodo said:
> ...



Just because it is slightly less sharp at 50mm than it is at 24mm or 70mm does not mean it is softer at 50mm that every other 50mm lens on the planet! It is still a very good performer at 50mm that exceeds most, if not all, of the other zoom lens options. The difference between 875/700 and 920/750 is trivial unless you are printing very large display sizes and viewing at very close distances.

Those other options might be as good at 50mm as they are at 24mm or 70mm, but who cares when those other lenses are softer_ everywhere_, all the way from 24-70mm, than the 24-70/4 is at 50mm? Just because it is not at its own best at 50mm does not mean it is not still the best zoom at 50mm.


----------



## Talys (Jun 12, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Just because it is slightly less sharp at 50mm than it is at 24mm or 70mm does not mean it is softer at 50mm that every other 50mm lens on the planet! It is still a very good performer at 50mm that exceeds most, if not all, of the other zoom lens options. The difference between 875/700 and 920/750 is trivial unless you are printing very large display sizes and viewing at very close distances.
> 
> Those other options might be as good at 50mm as they are at 24mm or 70mm, but who cares when those other lenses are softer_ everywhere_, all the way from 24-70mm, than the 24-70/4 is at 50mm? Just because it is not at its own best at 50mm does not mean it is not still the best zoom at 50mm.



Yeah, what can I say. I use 24-70/4 as a product photography staple and the photographs are perfect. There is nothing lacking in the images, nor any way a client wouldn't be impressed -- even when zoomed to the pixel, which is something that is never done in practice.


----------

