# Rumored 10 new lenses, 5 of which (CR) mentioned...



## Wrathwilde (Mar 10, 2012)

The other 5 though...

_*What are the chances we'll see a new 85mm f/1.2L, and a new 135mm f/2L? *_

I realize that the _*85mm f/1.2L II*_ is only 6 years old, but looking at the MTF chart - I think Canon could do astoundingly better today if it wanted to... not only with the image quality (chromatic aberrations/fringing), but also with the auto-focus, which a fair number of people complain is fairly slow compared to other L lenses.

The _*135 f/2L*_, though, is 16 years old and could definitely use an update on all fronts.

These are two lenses I'm hoping to see updated in the near future, what lenses would you like to see updated?

(Note - we all know lots of you wanted a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS, so let's just take that off the table for now.)

_*The 5 lenses (CR) mentioned were...*_

- EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS II 
- EF/EF-S 40 f/2.8 Pancake 
- EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4X TC
- EF 35 f/1.4L II
- EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS II


----------



## shtfmeister (Mar 10, 2012)

a 50 1.4 mkII with USM


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2012)

L-series versions of the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses.


----------



## Deeohuu (Mar 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> L-series versions of the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses.



+1 for the 90mm. That would make life complete.


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 10, 2012)

How about the EF 500mm f/4 L IS II? Or the 600mm? Are they real products or just one step above 'rumour'?

50mm f/1.4 (II or real USM) should come (eventually), as should EF-s 30-35 f/1.4-1.8 (anywhere in that range would be nice).

Why don't we have an EF 12-24 or 14-24 yet?

135/2 is old, but is there anything wrong with it? 100mm f/1.8? 150mm f/2.2?

17-40 f/2.8-4 is a nice concept, i doubt we'll see it though.

A new something to replace the EF-s 10-22? The market is saturated with other-brand alternatives, canon could trump the lot if they tried.


----------



## Pyrenees (Mar 10, 2012)

Wrathwilde said:


> The _*135 f/2L*_, though, is 16 years old and could definitely use an update on all fronts.



A bit surprised at that comment. I know that it is has some LoCa issues at the wide end, for instance, but, based on the feedback/reviews I have read and the samples I have seen, this is one hell of a lens - both objectively and subjectively. Great bokeh, very sharp across the whole plane from f/2.8 (check out samples and the mtf graph/figures), and of course, fantastic color rendition. Then again, if it needs to work on a 45MP monster.....


----------



## squarebox (Mar 10, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> A new something to replace the EF-s 10-22? The market is saturated with other-brand alternatives, canon could trump the lot if they tried.



the 10-22mm is a relatively new EF-S lens at the top tier of EF-S. I:d be surprised if they released a new version of that. And the other 2 lens on the market all have their own trade-offs. 

What i see is a new set of cheap primes being released with the new rebel, like the 50mm 1.8.

I:d expect a mk2 of the 35L or the 24L as both lens are near the bottom of the L barrel in image issues or mechanics.


----------



## photophreek (Mar 10, 2012)

squarebox wrote:


> I:d expect a mk2 of the 35L or the 24L as both lens are near the bottom of the L barrel in image issues or mechanics.



There is a 24L II already. It was released in 2008. The 135L was released in 1996.


----------



## t.linn (Mar 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> L-series versions of the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses.



+1


----------



## marekjoz (Mar 10, 2012)

No matter how good they are right now. They must be refreshed because of inflation/exchange rates/profit margin just like 24-70. They will be better but more expensive.


----------



## ehud.eshet (Mar 10, 2012)

I own a Canon EOS 60D.
All I have is EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS.

I would like to have an EF-S 45-135 F2.0 IS (Make it F2.8 if bigger than the 17-55 F2.8 IS).

If Canon do not provide high end lenses for cropped bodies, we have to use EF lenses.
Then, EF 85 F1.8 and EF 135 F2.0 primes must have an IS version.


----------



## marekjoz (Mar 10, 2012)

ehud.eshet said:


> I would like to have an EF-S 45-135 F2.0 IS (Make it F2.8 if bigger than the 17-55 F2.8 IS).



Such a 3x zoom @f2.0 would be bigger than 400f2.8...


----------



## funkboy (Mar 10, 2012)

The 85L's AF is slow because it's an f/1.2 telephoto with a huge hunk of glass to move around. Not much getting around that; I don't think it'd be updated any time soon.

I'd love IS on my 135L, but otherwise it's hands down the best performing optic of Canon's older lineup. Likely not a big seller for them though, so don't expect an update any time soon.

IS and an optical revision of the 85 f/1.8 would be brilliant. Probably also the same price as the new 24 & 28...

But what's still sorely missing from the lineup is an under-$500 fast "normal" EF-s prime from this century, à la Nikon, Pentax, Sigma, Sony, 4/3, etc...


----------



## Tijn (Mar 10, 2012)

I'd love an EF 24-105mm f/4L *II*. (Corner sharpness boost, IS update, coatings)
It's not in dire need of replacement, but as it is the most-used full-frame lens (and it would be by me also once I go fullframe), the upgrade would be worthwhile.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 10, 2012)

ehud.eshet said:


> I would like to have an EF-S 45-135 F2.0 IS (Make it F2.8 if bigger than the 17-55 F2.8 IS).


Hehehe. I'd also love an EF 8-800mm f/0.7L (don't forget the red ring) IS USM with the latest in helium technology causing it to weigh only 600g, now that you mention it.


----------



## photogaz (Mar 10, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> 135/2 is old, but is there anything wrong with it?



Exactly, Canon aren't going to replace a lens that can't be improved because its so great. The only thing would be f1.8 or IS. It's fairly lightweight and I just can't see them doing it.


----------



## jwong (Mar 10, 2012)

photogaz said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > 135/2 is old, but is there anything wrong with it?
> ...



Agreed. Will people still think it's great if Canon doubles the price for marginal increase in IQ?


----------



## jwong (Mar 10, 2012)

ehud.eshet said:


> I own a Canon EOS 60D.
> All I have is EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS.
> 
> I would like to have an EF-S 45-135 F2.0 IS (Make it F2.8 if bigger than the 17-55 F2.8 IS).
> ...



There isn't much of an advantage in size for EF-S when focal lengths get longer; the max focal length over max f/stop is much larger than the FF sensor already. If Canon were to make an EF-S 45-135 f/2, and would be more expensive than the existing 135L. How big of a market is there for a 2k lens that would only work on crop bodies?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2012)

photogaz said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > 135/2 is old, but is there anything wrong with it?
> ...



What was 'wrong' with the 300mm f/2.8L IS or the 500mm f/4L IS? Not a helluva lot. But Canon would rather sell you the MkII versions costing 50% more. If nothing else, the 135L lacks weather sealing. But consider...Canon developed a zoom lens (70-200 II) that pretty much equals that excellent prime for IQ. A prime _should_ be better, and with modern design the 135L could be better. A 135L II would not surprise me at all.


----------



## frisk (Mar 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> What was 'wrong' with the 300mm f/2.8L IS or the 500mm f/4L IS? Not a helluva lot. But Canon would rather sell you the MkII versions costing 50% more. If nothing else, the 135L lacks weather sealing. But consider...Canon developed a zoom lens (70-200 II) that pretty much equals that excellent prime for IQ. A prime _should_ be better, and with modern design the 135L could be better. A 135L II would not surprise me at all.



True, but....

I have a fair collection of lenses (including 9 "L" lenses), and while I am very happy with some of them, there are a few where I wouldn't mind getting an improved version. Now, in my case, the 135mm lens is one of those I am very happy with - I do not consider the lens to be limiting me in any way, and even if there was an upgrade, I probably would not switch...and I don't think I'm alone in having that opinion.

Sure, some people might be tempted, if Canon introduced a 135mm II version with IS, but otherwise...well, I just don't see this making any sense. Old or not, it is just a top-notch lens.


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 10, 2012)

frisk said:


> Old or not, it is just a top-notch lens.



I was thinking about the 135L again, and look at it another way. They made a lens, that great, 20-30 years ago.
Just imagine what they could do now, with better materials, better glass, most importantly better coatings, they already had fluorite back then but didn't use it, maybe they would in a II. Such a lens would have to improve on the current 135L, and if it did, it would be stunning...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> frisk said:
> 
> 
> > Old or not, it is just a top-notch lens.
> ...



I've got a 135L among my collection of L lenses, too, and it's an amazing lens. But the above is exactly my point. - consider the change from the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MkI to MkII, and extrapolate that to the 135L.


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 10, 2012)

Deeohuu said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > L-series versions of the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses.
> ...



In what way do find the 90mm lacking? Or do you just want the red ring?


----------



## Deeohuu (Mar 10, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> Deeohuu said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I want the flexibility of the newer 17mm and 24mm design that offers independent tilt and shift mechanisms. I am indifferent to marketing decorations.


----------



## jwong (Mar 10, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> Deeohuu said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



TS rotation would be nice!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> Deeohuu said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



To clarify, the original TS-E lenses have tilt and shift fixed at a 90 degree orientation to each other. It can be changed, but to do so requires disassembling the lens. The new L versions (17mm and 24mm II) allow altering the orientations of tilt and shift on-the-fly - and it's a great feature.


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> To clarify, the original TS-E lenses have tilt and shift fixed at a 90 degree orientation to each other. It can be changed, but to do so requires disassembling the lens. The new L versions (17mm and 24mm II) allow altering the orientations of tilt and shift on-the-fly - and it's a great feature.



Ah, I only own the 90mm and wasn't aware of this feature.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > To clarify, the original TS-E lenses have tilt and shift fixed at a 90 degree orientation to each other. It can be changed, but to do so requires disassembling the lens. The new L versions (17mm and 24mm II) allow altering the orientations of tilt and shift on-the-fly - and it's a great feature.
> ...



I only own the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, but I use the rotation so frequently that I wouldn't even consider the 45mm or 90mm versions without it (90mm would be my preference - I can use the 2x Extender on the 24mm if I need ~45mm, and the optical performance is decent because the 24 II is so damn sharp to start with).


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Mar 10, 2012)

Shooting the 135mm f/2L recently on the 7D, I got the impression that it was very nearly being limited by the sensor and its AA filter.

I would definitely like an update to the 50mm f/1.4.

Though the TS-E 90mm could use an update for rotation, it hasn't proven to be a make-or-break issue for me. I think it might be more useful for the EF lineup on balance to get a longer TS-E with the new movements.


----------



## dvdbrm (Mar 10, 2012)

How old is the 50mm 1.2 ? Isnt that due for an update?


----------



## mmmoore (Mar 10, 2012)

Being an APS-C camera user and with no plans to upgrade to full-frame in the future, I would LOVE to see the following:

- An upgrade to the 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens with a slightly better build; something between the current 17-55 and L build quality. Could take the form of a 15-50mm f2.8 IS, in order to get true 24mm equivalent.
- A crop version of the 70-200L series lenses. Could take the form of a 50-150mm f2.8 IS, with the same build quality as mentioned above.

These two lenses would better resemble the 24-70 and 70-200mm ranges that are so useful and popular in the full-frame world.

If they can make those with great optical quality (such as the current 17-55mm lens), I would buy them in a heartbeat! (providing they are less expensive than their L counterparts).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2012)

dvdbrm said:


> How old is the 50mm 1.2 ? Isnt that due for an update?



2006, so not old by lens standards. I don't expect an update any time soon...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 10, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> How about the EF 500mm f/4 L IS II? Or the 600mm? Are they real products or just one step above 'rumour'?



They are coming. Those huge CaFL lens crystals for the big whites take up to a year to grow, and the production took a big hit when the earthquake hit. Expect to see them soon, as its been about a year since the earthquake.


----------



## michi (Mar 10, 2012)

Also hoping for a new 50mm 1.4 USM. Heck, I'd take a new 50mm 1.8 USM if it had spectacular optics. Just praying that Canon doesn't decide to double the price on ALL newly announced lenses...


----------



## Jim K (Mar 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > Deeohuu said:
> ...



This might be the final thing to push me into starting a FF landscape kit :-\


----------



## Wrathwilde (Mar 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > frisk said:
> ...



This shows where the 135mm f/2L MTF chart stands against the MTF chart of Canon's top performing prime the 400mm f/2.8L IS II. Two completely different lenses, of course, but it shows just how remarkable Canon's current lens technology is, and how much the 135 could be improved. In simplified terms... the higher the lines and the closer they track each other the better the quality of the lens.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 10, 2012)

michi said:


> Also hoping for a new 50mm 1.4 USM. Heck, I'd take a new 50mm 1.8 USM if it had spectacular optics. Just praying that Canon doesn't decide to double the price on ALL newly announced lenses...



The 50mm 1.4 design is from 1987, and it's a hugely popular lens so I would guess that we could see an update in the next few years. 

From what I've seen it appears that Zeiss will be releasing some new lenses at NAB, I think that CP.2 zoom and an EF mount 15mm f/2.8.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 11, 2012)

mmmoore said:


> Being an APS-C camera user and with no plans to upgrade to full-frame in the future, I would LOVE to see the following:
> - An upgrade to the 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens with a slightly better build; something between the current 17-55 and L build quality. Could take the form of a 15-50mm f2.8 IS, in order to get true 24mm equivalent.
> - A crop version of the 70-200L series lenses. Could take the form of a 50-150mm f2.8 IS, with the same build quality as mentioned above.


There won't be any 'better built' or even 'ef-s L' lenses for aps-c or Canon would turn their marketing strategy upside down and cannibalize their full frame sales. And the 70-300L is the tele optimized for crop bodies, Canon techs say so themselves - if you really need a sharp f2.8 tele, you're in the price range where you own a ff body anyway.


----------



## mmmoore (Mar 11, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> mmmoore said:
> 
> 
> > Being an APS-C camera user and with no plans to upgrade to full-frame in the future, I would LOVE to see the following:
> ...



Hi Marsu42, thanks for your answer. Could you please tell me a little more about the 70-300L being optimized for crop bodies? That's a lens I find interesting and I might even consider it... Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 11, 2012)

mmmoore said:


> Could you please tell me a little more about the 70-300L being optimized for crop bodies? That's a lens I find interesting and I might even consider it... Thanks!



I'm not sure that Canon _technicians_ said the 70-300L was optimized for crop bodies. Nor is it in any way 'optimized' for APS-C in a technical sense - it's an L-series EF lens designed for FF sensors. I think this stems from a Canon DLC article about the lens (basically a marketing piece), which points out that with the 1.6x crop factor the lens is like a 500mm lens on FF, thus it 'comes into its own' on APS-C. In one way, I guess you could say it's a practical lens for 7D users - many of them have a 17-55mm, and the focus and zoom ring positions on the 70-300L match the 17-55mm (which is reversed from most L-series lenses). Not sure if that was the reason for doing it, or (more likely) it was dictated by the optical design. 

Still - it's an excellent lens on both formats, optically excellent, great build, weather sealed, and compact.


----------



## TW (Mar 11, 2012)

I'm looking for:

35 f2 IS USM
50 f1.4 IS USM
TS-E 45 f2.8L
TS-E 90 f2.8L
185 f3.2L IS Macro

We'll see...


----------



## Radiating (Mar 11, 2012)

photophreek said:


> squarebox wrote:
> 
> 
> > I:d expect a mk2 of the 35L or the 24L as both lens are near the bottom of the L barrel in image issues or mechanics.
> ...



They tend to update lenses if there is something wrong with them or that could use a massive improvement.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> mmmoore said:
> 
> 
> > Could you please tell me a little more about the 70-300L being optimized for crop bodies? That's a lens I find interesting and I might even consider it... Thanks!
> ...



Sorry, I am not able to dig up the link just now - but it wasn't the one neuroanatomist mentioned. And I don't remember if it was a Canon *tech*, might have been a marketing guy or something. But the gist of the article was:

Canon designed the 70-300L because of user requests for a quality but affordable, up to 300mmm, physically shorter, less heavy traveling lens than the older 70-200s or fixed primes. And people with these requirements often use crop bodies.

Most important: On full frame, the 70-300L is said to become a little less sharp wide open. If Canon had really wanted it, they could have put in a little more or better glass for a higher price - but they didn't, because you won't notice this on aps-c due to the crop factor. And this at least somewhat fixes the main craziness of using a ef L lens on aps-c: You are buying top quality glass, carry the weight and don't even use part of it!

You can find a lot more information about the 70-300L in the recent 70-200 and 70-300 threads. For me, the size-weight-iq-af-zoomfactor-buildquality-price combination and tradeoff is just right. So I'm really "canon rumors-infected" now: I recommend my own gear


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 11, 2012)

Radiating said:


> They tend to update lenses if there is something wrong with them or that could use a massive improvement.


Due to popular user request, I think they should switch to a yearly cycle just like in software: 50mm/1.4/2011, 50mm/1.4/2012, ... so people will have plenty to rumor and discuss about. Or they could do it like car manufacturers: change the color, tweak the design of the af-mf button and so on


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 11, 2012)

Wrathwilde said:


> (Note - we all know lots of you wanted a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS, so let's just take that off the table for now.)


can we put a 24-105 f2.8L IS on the table


----------



## funkboy (Mar 11, 2012)

Wrathwilde said:


> This shows where the 135mm f/2L MTF chart stands against the MTF chart of Canon's top performing prime the 400mm f/2.8L IS II. Two completely different lenses, of course, but it shows just how remarkable Canon's current lens technology is, and how much the 135 could be improved. In simplified terms... the higher the lines and the closer they track each other the better the quality of the lens.



Unfortunately, that's a bit of an oversimplification.

Here's the MTF chart for the 14mm f/2.8L II:







Does it mean that the 14L II is a hunk of junk compared to the 400L II? Of course not. It's one of the best 14mm SLR lenses available today. Basically, MTF charts are very useful for comparing lenses _of the same focal length_, but comparing the 135L's MTF to the 400L II's is apples & oranges.

Luminous Landscape has a very good tutorial on reading MTF charts.

To quote Michael's article:



> Keep in mind that the black lines show the lens wide open while the blue lines show the lens stopped down to f/8, so the closer these sets of lines are to each other the better the performance of the lens when used wide open. The very best lenses will have the black and the blue lines close together.
> 
> Generally speaking a lens whose *thick* lines (10 LP/mm) are above .8 on the chart should be regarded as having excellent image quality. Above .6 is regarded as "satisfactory". Below .6 is, well, below.
> 
> ...



It's also worth mentioning that anything after the 16mm mark on the X-axis is irrelevant on APS-C cameras...


----------



## funkboy (Mar 11, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Due to popular user request, I think they should switch to a yearly cycle just like in software: 50mm/1.4/2011, 50mm/1.4/2012, ... so people will have plenty to rumor and discuss about. Or they could do it like car manufacturers: change the color, tweak the design of the af-mf button and so on



Of course that would be nice, but how much do you think changing the design and tooling of all 60+ lenses in the lineup every year would add to the cost? My guess is at least double...


----------



## noncho (Mar 11, 2012)

I want light, cheap EF-S 12mm 2.8.

I'm also interested in expected 40mm 2.8 and 100-400 II(but this probably will be too expensive for me).


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 11, 2012)

funkboy said:


> Of course that would be nice, but how much do you think changing the design and tooling of all 60+ lenses in the lineup every year would add to the cost? My guess is at least double...


That'll come in handy for Canon, since a successor of any lens seems to be priced double anyway  ... but simple updates could be merely cosmetical, like new ring colors, like an glittery, backlit glow-in-the-dark red ring for top gear.

Ok, seriously: I don't quite understand Canon's lens updates. In the higher price range, of course they release top gear to get the most revenue (600L anyone?), but e.g. I don't understand why making an updated 50mm with ring usm takes so long - Nikon and Sigma have done it.


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, I only own the 90mm and wasn't aware of this feature.
> ...



Now I am really curious. While, I can imagine a scenario when this would be a useful feature, I can't see it being used often. In what situations are you tilting and shifting at other than right angles to each other?


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 11, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> Now I am really curious. While, I can imagine a scenario when this would be a useful feature, I can't see it being used often. In what situations are you tilting and shifting at other than right angles to each other?



Say you want to take a photo of a building, from a corner point looking along one side.
Something like this, that I just grabbed from a google search for 'building':





Now, you want to shift Up, because that will make all the vertical lines look parallel in the photo.
But you want to tilt to the left, because your plane of (where you want the) focus is near on the left side, far on the right side.
That's why you'd want to have tile and shift at 90 degrees to each other. But for other shots, you'd want them in the same direction, which is why the 'new way' of TS-E 17 and 24L is the best way (or like hartblei were making Superrotators 20 years ago, there's a reason they chose that name, you can tilt/shift in any direction you want)


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 11, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Now, you want to shift Up, because that will make all the vertical lines look parallel in the photo.
> But you want to tilt to the left, because your plane of (where you want the) focus is near on the left side, far on the right side.
> That's why you'd want to have tile and shift at 90 degrees to each other.



That's a great explanation and you've just cleared up a misconception I had about these lenses. I have used tilt to control depth of field (usually to increase it) and shift to create panoramas, but I have not used shift to correct perspective, incorrectly believing this was done with tilt though I had never tried it. That confusion also prevented me from seeing the usefulness of the independent rotation. Thanks a bunch.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 13, 2012)

A new 50/1.4 that is doubled in price, so I can sell my current 50/1.4 at a less or no loss.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 13, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> A new 50/1.4 that is doubled in price, so I can sell my current 50/1.4 at a less or no loss.



yours might be the most likely wish to be granted!


----------



## ehud.eshet (Apr 1, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> ehud.eshet said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to have an EF-S 45-135 F2.0 IS (Make it F2.8 if bigger than the 17-55 F2.8 IS).
> ...



Sigma just announced an image stabilized 50-150 F2.8 zoom for cropped bodies.
Its size is a bit smaller than EF 70-200L IS II.
I do not see why EF-S 45-135 F2.0-2.8 IS (F2.0 up to 90mm) would be bigger.
Many 60D and 7D owners will pay more than 1500$ for such lens.

Canon, please do not force us to buy Sigma lenses.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 1, 2012)

ehud.eshet said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > ehud.eshet said:
> ...



yes, 70-200 f2.8 is also almost 3x zoom. The difference makes this f2.0...


----------

