# Next L Lens From Canon Will be a Prime [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 3, 2015)

```
We’re told that the next L lens from Canon will be a prime and it will be coming in late summer/early fall of this year. While the source wasn’t sure what lens was coming for sure, they did let us know that prototypes for a replacement of the 35L were out there. This has been a long rumoured lens for replacement, with multiple patents for the optical formula throughout the years.</p>
<p>For the moment, lens production capacity is what will dictate when new lenses are announced. The brand new EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II has been out of stock around the globe at major retailers for a long while now, so I’m sure that has priority for Canon. As well as the brand new and highly touted EF 11-24mm f/4L.</p>
<p>The only other primes I’ve had multiple discussions about are replacements for the EF 200 f/2L IS and EF 800 f/5.6L IS. Just like the 35L however, those mentions have been around for years. Interestingly, there hasn’t been talk of new TS-E lenses in a long time.</p>
<p>Outside of that, we’re still waiting on a new non L 50mm lens as well as a non L/non DO 70-300 replacement.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<div id="adkengage_ssp_div"></div>
<script
    type="text/javascript"
    src="http://adkengage.com/pshandler.js?aid=11563&v=Rzv9QQ%2BeQKSVnAaEOwTXfA%3D%3D&dpid=6638&ru=http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-admin/post.php"
>
</script>
```


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 3, 2015)

If you look at the pricing of the EF 50mm f1.8 MKII and the EF 50mm f1.4 its a big spread. A better mechanical EF 50mm f1.8 along the lines of the EF 28mm F2.8 IS would definately sell although the EF 50mm f1.4 is crying out for a replacement and could equally benefit for IS.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 3, 2015)

Whatever happened with replacing that pre-historic 50mm macro lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 3, 2015)

With the general drop in lens sales over the past two years, production capacity should be fine. I think that they are timid because they forecast further drops in lens sales.

Camera Canada has the 100-400mm L in stock, and in US $$, its a bargain.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 3, 2015)

35L II picture captured while in field testing:


----------



## bellorusso (Mar 3, 2015)

35 please. I am so fixed on that new lens that I missed on buyng recent one or Sigma's.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 3, 2015)

Dear Canon, please please please an improved 50mm 1.2 with no more focus shift than, say, the 85mm 1.2. I'm begging you...
Y


----------



## fragilesi (Mar 3, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> With the general drop in lens sales over the past two years, production capacity should be fine. I think that they are timid because they forecast further drops in lens sales.



Or could it be that some of the newer lenses take more of the capacity per unit?


----------



## LukasS (Mar 3, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> For the moment, lens production capacity is what will dictate when new lenses are announced. The brand new EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II has been out of stock around the globe at major retailers for a long while now, so I’m sure that has priority for Canon. As well as the brand new and highly touted EF 11-24mm f/4L.


Actually new batch can be seen in Poland since yesterday. I've had some notifications set up at few major shops and got news from all of them that they have in stock that lens. I just got back with one brand new lens .


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 3, 2015)

As this is not a 50mm IS refresh rumor (which will undoubtedly _not_ be an L lens), if there was a new L lens on offer, I'd guess the one most in need of a refresh would be:

35mm f/1.4L - 17 years old
135mm f/2L - 19 years old

Those aren't the oldest L primes, but they are a strong combination of old and in high demand. My money would be on one of those.

- A


----------



## candyman (Mar 3, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> For the moment, lens production capacity is what will dictate when new lenses are announced. The brand new EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II has been out of stock around the globe at major retailers for a long while now, so I’m sure that has priority for Canon. As well as the brand new and highly touted EF 11-24mm f/4L.




Stock available at some major retailers here in the Netherlands
Just bought mine 2 weeks ago. Will give it a birdingtest next week


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 3, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> 35L II picture captured while in field testing:


Looks like I'll need a white SL1 body to go with that one


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 3, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> As this is not a 50mm IS refresh rumor (which will undoubtedly _not_ be an L lens), if there was a new L lens on offer, I'd guess the one most in need of a refresh would be:
> 
> 35mm f/1.4L - 17 years old
> 135mm f/2L - 19 years old
> ...



Is the 135mm in need of an update? I haven't heard anything put praise for that lens.


----------



## Finn M (Mar 3, 2015)

My wishes for new primes:

- No.1 on my wish list is a new high quality 50mm. It could be a EF 50/1,2L II or a EF 50/1,4L, the important think is much better sharpness on f1,4 - f2 than Canons current 50mm lenses. I would even be satisfied with a EF 50/1,8 IS as long as it is sharp also wide open. *What I really dream about is a lens with near the same quality as the Zeiss Otus 50/1,4 but with autofocus and a bit lower price. But I could pay more than the price of the current 50/1,2L as long as the IQ is good. *

- EF 200/2 DO IS. By using the improved DO technology the weight can be reduced from 2,5kg to 1,5kg compared to the current 200/2L IS.

- EF 300/4L DO IS (an answer to Nikons new compact 300/4 VR).

- EF 20/1,8 (to replace the 23 years old 20/2,8).


----------



## brianleighty (Mar 3, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > As this is not a 50mm IS refresh rumor (which will undoubtedly _not_ be an L lens), if there was a new L lens on offer, I'd guess the one most in need of a refresh would be:
> ...



Indeed I rented it once and it's a really nice lens. Just a little too specialized for me. Maybe for once they want to try and announce it before Sigma does? Given the quality of the Canon 70-200 IS ii, the main purposes for that lens is super low light or sports. 35 or 50 is more standard and I would think more in need (especially the 50)


----------



## Respinder (Mar 3, 2015)

If they are attempting to replace the 50mm f/1.2, why not go all the way and introduce a new f/1.0 or f/0.95 (with optimal sharpness and focusing capabilities, of course)? It's time for Canon to introduce another revolution, not just an evolution. They've certainly proven that they can do this on the wide end (ie 11-24), but it would be great to see this innovation in the form of a new extreme-aperture lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 3, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > As this is not a 50mm IS refresh rumor (which will undoubtedly _not_ be an L lens), if there was a new L lens on offer, I'd guess the one most in need of a refresh would be:
> ...



Crudely, there are three camps with the 135L:


The lens is stellar and does not need modifying.
The glass is fine but IS would be a great add.
Sony has a 135 f/1.8 and we don't. Also: _Waaaaaah._ (My rebuttal? Our autofocus works.)

And deep down, as legendary as lenses like the 135L and 200 F/2L IS have been, _old is old_: there's always room to improve resolution for higher resolving sensors, reduce flare, reduce distortion, reduce chromatic aberration, reduce weight, improve weathersealing, offer or improve the IS, etc.

The bigger question is whether those improvements are worth putting off my future non-L 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM. And the answer is no. Gimme my 50, dammit.

- A


----------



## dolina (Mar 3, 2015)

I wonder if Canon sells enough 800s and 200s to justify updating them earlier than say 2020?


----------



## Berowne (Mar 3, 2015)

It would be nice to have primes with medium focal legth, fast autofocus and good IS. 
* 2.8/24 IS USM (done)
* 2.8/28 IS USM (done)
* 2.0/35 IS USM (done)

* 2.0/50 IS USM
* 2.0/85 IS USM 
* 2.8/100 Macro IS USM (done)
* 2.0/135 IS USM 
* 3.5/180 Macro IS USM
* 2.8/200 IS USM 

Canon clearly worked through this, but wich of the remaining will be next? The fast primes are made by Zeiss.


----------



## Ruined (Mar 3, 2015)

Respinder said:


> If they are attempting to replace the 50mm f/1.2, why not go all the way and introduce a new f/1.0 or f/0.95 (with optimal sharpness and focusing capabilities, of course)? It's time for Canon to introduce another revolution, not just an evolution. They've certainly proven that they can do this on the wide end (ie 11-24), but it would be great to see this innovation in the form of a new extreme-aperture lens.



The reason the 50mm f/1.2L is f/1.2 is because by making it f/1.2 Canon was able to significantly increase sharpness and focusing capabilities and reduces artifacts over the 50mm f/1.0. 50mm f/1.0 requires a massive amount of glass to move around and there is not much way to get around that as it is physics. There is no free lunch with lenses where you can have the widest aperture, fastest focusing speed, best sharpness, and least artifacts - everything is a tradeoff.

Personally I would like to see an 85mm f/1.4L, basically redo the 85mm f/1.2L II with the improvements they made in the 50mm f/1.2. It would be nice to have an 85L that focuses as fast as the 50L f/1.2.


----------



## Berowne (Mar 3, 2015)

Ruined said:


> Respinder said:
> 
> 
> > If they are attempting to replace the 50mm f/1.2, why not go all the way and introduce a new f/1.0 or f/0.95 (with optimal sharpness and focusing capabilities, of course)? It's time for Canon to introduce another revolution, not just an evolution. They've certainly proven that they can do this on the wide end (ie 11-24), but it would be great to see this innovation in the form of a new extreme-aperture lens.
> ...



The 50/1.0 has quite the same Dimension as the 85/1.2.


----------



## Ruined (Mar 3, 2015)

Berowne said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Respinder said:
> ...



Exactly, it is a near identical design to the 85L. Meaning the 85L could be similarly improved if it were adapted to the new 50mm f/1.2L design and say dropped down to f/1.4 - greater sharpness, faster focusing, less artifacts. Reverting to the old design would be a step back, the 50mm f/1.0 was obviously inferior to the 50mm f/1.2 in every category except aperture.


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 3, 2015)

Berowne said:


> It would be nice to have primes with medium focal legth, fast autofocus and good IS.
> * 2.8/24 IS USM (done)
> * 2.8/28 IS USM (done)
> * 2.0/35 IS USM (done)
> ...



Has Canon ever announced a lens at NAB? I really hope for a new compact fifty!


----------



## epsiloneri (Mar 3, 2015)

*EF 400/5.6L IS* would also be an L prime. Somehow it seems to have fallen out of rumour favour lately, after the new 100-400 I guess.


----------



## Berowne (Mar 3, 2015)

Crosswind said:


> Berowne said:
> 
> 
> > It would be nice to have primes with medium focal legth, fast autofocus and good IS.
> ...



It seems Logical, that a 50/2.0 IS USM will come. But who will buy a niftyfifty for 500€?


----------



## dolina (Mar 3, 2015)

Film-era L lenses. Year cut off is 2004

Primes
1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM 
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM 
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM 
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM 
1998 EF 35mm f/1.4L USM 

Zooms
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM 
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

We are entering an era where in old lenses will show their design flaws on high pixel density cameras like the 5DS & 5DS R

I am keen on the 135 replacement and largely given up the 35 for the 40 pancake.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 3, 2015)

Comments in-line below:



Berowne said:


> It would be nice to have primes with medium focal legth, fast autofocus and good IS.
> * 2.8/24 IS USM (done)
> * 2.8/28 IS USM (done)
> * 2.0/35 IS USM (done)
> ...



Also on the EF non-L midrange prime front are the 100mm f/2 that no one ever talks about and the very well liked 100 F/2.8 non-L macro. I could see the second one being refreshed -- it's a tremendous value today that has it's admirers. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 3, 2015)

Ruined said:


> Respinder said:
> 
> 
> > If they are attempting to replace the 50mm f/1.2, why not go all the way and introduce a new f/1.0 or f/0.95 (with optimal sharpness and focusing capabilities, of course)? It's time for Canon to introduce another revolution, not just an evolution. They've certainly proven that they can do this on the wide end (ie 11-24), but it would be great to see this innovation in the form of a new extreme-aperture lens.
> ...



Agree. I'm not a pro, but I'm going to assume that pros want reliable workhorses more than they want finnicky racehorses. f/1.2 lenses have nontrivial tradeoffs and are not 100% money-in-the-bank sort of tools.

- A


----------



## dolina (Mar 3, 2015)

I wonder when these non-L lenses will be updated? Just like earlier lenses I expect new optical formulas and IS added or STM versions.

Arranged by popularity from BH Photo.

EF 50mm f/1.8 II
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
EF 28 f/1.8 USM
MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo
EF 100mm f/2 USM
EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
TS-E 45mm f/2.8
TS-E 90mm f/2.8
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

EF 135mm f/2.8 with Softfocus is not listed on BH Photo.

I wonder when the TS-E will be updated to Ls seeming Nikon came out with their counterparts a few years ago.

I know Nikon updated some of these focal lengths. Just arent sure which ones.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 3, 2015)

Berowne said:


> It seems Logical, that a 50/2.0 IS USM will come. But who will buy a niftyfifty for 500€?



It will not be the new nifty fifty -- it will be a replacement for the 50 f/1.4 USM. And again, we don't know it's f/2. But a 50 prime with...


IS
Sharper than the 50L, esp. in the corners (a very simple feat if you've seen tests of that lens)
Fast + modern + reliable USM AF
Internal focusing
Solid build quality on par with a 100L
Smaller size and weight than the Sigma Art pickle jars

...will sell for a lot more than 500€ (I'd guess $799 or so) _and it will still sell like hotcakes_. There is no all-around 9 out of 10 sort of autofocusing 50 prime out there, so people from all corners will come for such a lens.

The fact that this very L prime thread was hijacked to talk about it is a testament to how desirous this lens is.

- A


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 3, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I like the idea of a 135mm F/1.8L IS. Then I'd have no want for a 70-200II. Even a 50mm 1.4 update with Ring USM will cause money to part from my wallet and no F/2 lens will do for me. A f/2 50mm will only confirm a purchase for the Sigma A 50mm.


----------



## dolina (Mar 3, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> I like the idea of a 135mm F/1.8L IS. Then I'd have no want for a 70-200II. Even a 50mm 1.4 update with Ring USM will cause money to part from my wallet and no F/2 lens will do for me. A f/2 50mm will only confirm a purchase for the Sigma A 50mm.


Why not make it faster to say... 135/1.4 with IS?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 3, 2015)

Ruined said:


> Respinder said:
> 
> 
> > If they are attempting to replace the 50mm f/1.2, why not go all the way and introduce a new f/1.0 or f/0.95 (with optimal sharpness and focusing capabilities, of course)? It's time for Canon to introduce another revolution, not just an evolution. They've certainly proven that they can do this on the wide end (ie 11-24), but it would be great to see this innovation in the form of a new extreme-aperture lens.
> ...



The 50 f1.2 was not a replacement for the 50 f1.0, they were very different. Canon has a long history of both the 50/55 f1.2 and the 50 f0.95.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 3, 2015)

dolina said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I like the idea of a 135mm F/1.8L IS. Then I'd have no want for a 70-200II. Even a 50mm 1.4 update with Ring USM will cause money to part from my wallet and no F/2 lens will do for me. A f/2 50mm will only confirm a purchase for the Sigma A 50mm.
> ...


It'd be like the Piggly 200mm F/2, smoshed even tighter, heavy and have a massive price tag. It would be a dream item but a f/1.8 135mm is reasonable.


----------



## dolina (Mar 3, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> The 50 f1.2 was not a replacement for the 50 f1.0, they were very different. Canon has a long history of both the 50/55 f1.2 and the 50 f0.95.



Spiritual successor then. 

It would be nice to see a 50/1.2 with better optics. But I doubt it'll happen too soon as it sells too well.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 3, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...



A 135 f/1.8 with IS would be one heck of a "I want" lens as well (Isn't this a rumored Sigma Art?). My worry would/will be the price if/when they refresh this lens.

As for the 50 I agree. It would be tough if the new one is only f/2, kind of a step back. And I agree that I would probably pass on it (despite how bad Canon needs a decent, consumer level 50) if it was that slow. With how good optics/designs are getting, one of last big advantages primes have over zooms is their (more often then not) faster speeds. That is why I have not understood the new 24mm and 28mm, them only being f/2.8.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 3, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> As for the 50 I agree. It would be tough if the new one is only f/2, kind of a step back. And I agree that I would probably pass on it (despite how bad Canon needs a decent, consumer level 50) if it was that slow. With how good optics/designs are getting, one of last big advantages primes have over zooms is their (more often then not) faster speeds. That is why I have not understood the new 24mm and 28mm, them only being f/2.8.



But the prior non-L 24 and 28 primes were f/2.8 as well -- Canon simply modernized those prior designs. 

I have the 28 f/2.8 IS and I am truly fond of it. It's such a sweet spot of IQ, features and size/weight. It's a perfect walkaround on my 5D3, IMHO. Unless you are shooting a lot of astro or environmental portraiture, I'm hard pressed to think of a need for f/2 or faster in those focal lengths. 

- A


----------



## lc235 (Mar 3, 2015)

I literally just purchased the Sigma 35mm Art today -_-. Do you guys think the rumored 35mm L II will make me regret my purchase? :'(


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 3, 2015)

dolina said:


> I am ... largely given up the 35 for the 40 pancake.



Considered the 35/2 IS?


----------



## hang your cross (Mar 4, 2015)

I'm hoping and wishing for a new 50L. I loved my old one so much. It was my favorite lens. I only sold it for the 24-70 II's versatility. I've been saving up to re-purchase another 50 and waiting for a II to pop up.


----------



## geekpower (Mar 4, 2015)

135L could use weather sealing, but then again, they brand it for "indoor sports", so maybe they wouldn't want it to cut into 70-200 sales by making it more outdoor friendly. :-\

200/2.8 is also pretty old and has been made redundant by the 70-200. would something between the 200/2.8 and 200/2.0 make sense? 200/2.2L maybe?


----------



## Machaon (Mar 4, 2015)

lc235 said:


> I literally just purchased the Sigma 35mm Art today -_-. Do you guys think the rumored 35mm L II will make me regret my purchase? :'(



It will be interesting to see if and how Canon steps up to some stiff competition from the Sigma Art lenses.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Mar 4, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> As for the 50 I agree. It would be tough if the new one is only f/2, kind of a step back. And I agree that I would probably pass on it (despite how bad Canon needs a decent, consumer level 50) if it was that slow. With how good optics/designs are getting, one of last big advantages primes have over zooms is their (more often then not) faster speeds. That is why I have not understood the new 24mm and 28mm, them only being f/2.8.


If the new 50mm comes with f/1.8, IS and IQ similar to the 35mm f/2 IS you'll see money departing from my pocket but price shall be reasonable. Otherwise, it'll go for the Sigma 50A.
I agree that the new 24mm and 28mm IS lenses should have been f/2 rather than f/2.8. I had them both and sold them after I saw no need when I bought the 24-70mm f/2.8L II lens.


----------



## Ripley (Mar 4, 2015)

lc235 said:


> I literally just purchased the Sigma 35mm Art today -_-. Do you guys think the rumored 35mm L II will make me regret my purchase? :'(



No existing lens can compete with the 35A, let alone a rumored one. We'll see where the chips fall if/when the 35L II materializes.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 4, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> But the prior non-L 24 and 28 primes were f/2.8 as well -- Canon simply modernized those prior designs.
> 
> I have the 28 f/2.8 IS and I am truly fond of it. It's such a sweet spot of IQ, features and size/weight. It's a perfect walkaround on my 5D3, IMHO. Unless you are shooting a lot of astro or environmental portraiture, I'm hard pressed to think of a need for f/2 or faster in those focal lengths.
> 
> - A



Fair enough points. f/2.8 is pretty fast for full frame and should let in enough light for below average, indoor lighting, etc. the things beyond stopped down landscapes, etc. And while I mentioned lens speed as one of the big advantages, obviously size/weight is another huge selling point. I own the 28mm f/1.8 which I picked up years ago as a "normal" prime on crop. Even though this lens gets ripped apart a lot in technical, brick wall shooting, reviews, I've enjoyed it alot. While it would never have been high on my full frame list, I'm looking forward to trying it out shortly when my 6D arrives.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 4, 2015)

Ripley said:


> lc235 said:
> 
> 
> > I literally just purchased the Sigma 35mm Art today -_-. Do you guys think the rumored 35mm L II will make me regret my purchase? :'(
> ...



35mm is one of my favorite focal lengths. I'm very seriously considering picking up the 35 Art. I at first thought, just get the new Canon 35 f/2 IS. But then I got to thinking, I already have the 40mm f/2.8 pancake. It's kind of like, if you can only get one, the 35 f/2 IS is a good compromise of aperture, image quality, and size/weight. But, I think I like the route of the shorty forty for when I want small and light, and the 35A for the ultimate pure IQ and fast f/1.4 aperture. Anyone disagree with that thinking?


----------



## drob (Mar 4, 2015)

Unfortunately, Canon's recent releases are either blah optics (ex...24mm, 28mm or 40mm 2.8) or OVER PRICED excellent optics but slow (11-24mm f4, 16-35 f4).

Why can't Canon innovate and produce quality optics for decent prices (Sigma, Tamron, heck even Rokinon with their manual focus lenses at cheap prices). 

Either way, Canon is spitting out products but it seems like it is all lack luster stuff (with exception of the 7DMkII). 

I get more excited to see what Sony and Nikon are doing with their full frames, and wondering when Canon will catch up.


----------



## Perio (Mar 4, 2015)

I doubt Canon will update 200 2.0 now. How many customers are going to buy it, especially at ~$6k price? Canon's strategy is to maximize its profit and not necessarily to make photographers more happy. I'm sure Canon will update some of the older lenses from 1990s, most likely 135 f2, to prepare them for high-megapixel 5ds/5dsr cameras.


----------



## chromophore (Mar 4, 2015)

First of all a little history about the 50/1.2, 50/1.0, and 85/1.2 designs from Canon.

The EF 50/1.2L is descended from the FD 50/1.2 manual focus lenses, and from a optical design standpoint, it has more in common with the even older FL 55/1.2L and its contemporaries (like the well-known Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2 and the much more obscure Yashica ML 55/1.2) than it has with the EF 50/1.0L. But the EF 50/1.2L is also different: it gives up some center sharpness in exchange for smoother background bokeh compared to the old manual focus lenses.

I speculate that this design choice was motivated by a perceived need to fill the void left by the discontinuation of the EF 50/1.0L, but this is not something anyone not working in lens development at Canon at the time can substantiate.

As for the EF 50/1.0L, optically, this lens was quite novel in design. The use of high refractive index glass to correct sagittal flare and aspherical elements to reduce spherical aberration wide open was not a new idea in itself, but the particular implementation was distinctive. The design is not without its flaws: it wasn't especially sharp; contrast suffered, especially in the image periphery. It behaves a bit like the 85L shot wide open in that there's sharpness at some wavelengths and not at others; and sharpness at certain spatial frequencies and not at others. But in a sense, that's what gave the images a distinctive look (apart from being f/1.0), and a character that lends itself to things like low-contrast, low-light portraiture. And of course, like the 85L, it was hard to nail focus and unwieldy. But for a design in a time when film was the photographic medium of choice, you can't really argue that the EF 50/1.0L didn't fulfill any specific purpose. It's just that the drawbacks and the cost (both to produce as well as buy), not to mention its niche nature, made for poor marketability.

As for the EF 85/1.2L design (both I and II, as the optical formula is identical), this is very obviously the EF descendant of the earlier FD 85/1.2L. The formula was tweaked, but the overall imaging performance is remarkably similar. The EF 85/1.2L and 50/1.0L are the only lenses designed to take full advantage of the diameter of the EF mount--they remain the only lenses ever made by Canon for which the rear element glass goes right up to the end of the lens, and goes across the full diameter. No other autofocusing SLR system is capable of such designs.

What is the future? Since the design of the EF 50/1.0L, a number of advances have been made in computational optics, materials engineering, and production engineering. The potential absolutely does exist to create a lens that is optically superior in terms of aberration correction. But Canon is headed in the opposite direction: they have consistently shown more interest in sacrificing fast apertures in favor of IS and using sensor ISO to compensate, because the latter is more cost-effective and leads to lighter lenses with larger design tolerances. The demand for ever-higher resolution sensors (the meapixel race) has further shifted lens design philosophy toward high MTFs.

So, the ostensible obsolescence of the 50/1.0L is mourned by a small but devoted group of photographers for whom sharpness is decidedly not the end-all and be-all of image-making. And with the increasing popularity of DSLR video, one might have a faint glimmer of hope that fast apertures will once again find a purpose. But I don't believe Canon has put any priority on fast primes. I could be wrong. I *hope* I'm wrong. It would be wonderful to see Canon release a worthy successor to the 50/1.2L or 50/1.0L. But the historical trend doesn't furnish any evidence for that. If anything, we might see some weird 50/1.4L priced around $900, the disappearance of the 50/1.4, and an upgrade to the 50/1.8 II at the old 50/1.4 price point--"and let the $100 bargain hunters buy the Yongnuo," they might think.

Or if this rumored lens is an EF 35/1.4L II, I imagine it'll be upwards of $1600, easily. It isn't that my pessimism is a criticism of Canon--if anything, they are simply responding to the market, which has been asking for nothing but "Sharp! Sharp! Sharp!!!" It's just what I see from the historical trend in the past 3-4 years. A 5Ds-R might even expose flaws in the beloved EF 135/2L.


----------



## TheJock (Mar 4, 2015)

dolina said:


> Film-era L lenses. Year cut off is 2004
> 
> Primes
> 1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
> ...


Personally speaking, I would like to see a 400 or 500mmL with f4, if this could be offered between $2,500 to $3,200 (non IS version?) I think it will outsell the 100-400 (once that dies down a little) and become a firm favourite with all the wildlife photog’s, it’s about time Canon gave a little something to us guys, but that’s probably a pipe dream!!!


----------



## Finn M (Mar 4, 2015)

epsiloneri said:


> *EF 400/5.6L IS* would also be an L prime. Somehow it seems to have fallen out of rumour favour lately, after the new 100-400 I guess.



Yes, and that's why a EF 500/5,6L IS is more likely. That would be a perfect lens for bird shooters.
Or maybe a EF 600/5,6L DO IS? More expensive of course, but would be half the price and weight of the current EF 600/4L IS II.


----------



## Finn M (Mar 4, 2015)

drob said:


> Unfortunately, Canon's recent releases are either blah optics (ex...24mm, 28mm or 40mm 2.8) or OVER PRICED excellent optics but slow (11-24mm f4, 16-35 f4).
> 
> Why can't Canon innovate and produce quality optics for decent prices (Sigma, Tamron, heck even Rokinon with their manual focus lenses at cheap prices).
> 
> ...



You mention the EF 16-35/4L IS. This super sharp lens is one of my favourites and is not over priced at all! Slow? Not at all! It is very sharp even wide open and can therefore be used at f4. This is not the case with the old EF 17-40/4L and 16-35/2,8L which both has to be stepped down to f8 to give decent results with a full format sensor. 
The new 16-35/4L IS is even sharp enough for the new 50Mpix sensor of the 5Ds which I have per ordered. And with a 50Mpix sensor IS becomes important, especially if you want sharp landscapes photos without using a tripod.

I just sold a Nikon D810 and a Nikkor AF-S 14-24/2,8 lens. Why? The Nikkor lens was very heavy, expensive and most important: it was not possible to use filters. The EF 16-35/4L IS is as sharp, cheaper and a much better choice.

Even you can afford it if you do like me: just reduce the number of lenses from 6 cheap ones to 2 good ones....


----------



## dash2k8 (Mar 4, 2015)

Didn't bother reading the previous items so it's probably already said, but: Canon will have a hard time taking over the Sigma 35 Art.


----------



## epsiloneri (Mar 4, 2015)

Finn M said:


> Or maybe a EF 600/5,6L DO IS?


Except *DO* lenses are not *L*


----------



## kirbyzhou (Mar 4, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>Outside of that, we’re still waiting on a new non L 50mm lens as well as a non L/non DO 70-300 replacement.</p>
> <p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
> <div id="adkengage_ssp_div"></div>
> <script
> ...



I need a non-L 28-300mm IS (or 24-240mm), which is the competitor of Nikon 28-300mm and Sony 24-240mm.


----------



## Ruined (Mar 4, 2015)

chromophore said:


> First of all a little history about the 50/1.2, 50/1.0, and 85/1.2 designs from Canon.
> 
> The EF 50/1.2L is descended from the FD 50/1.2 manual focus lenses, and from a optical design standpoint, it has more in common with the even older FL 55/1.2L and its contemporaries (like the well-known Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2 and the much more obscure Yashica ML 55/1.2) than it has with the EF 50/1.0L. But the EF 50/1.2L is also different: it gives up some center sharpness in exchange for smoother background bokeh compared to the old manual focus lenses.
> 
> ...



I see what you are saying, and believe me I am no sharpness freak - the 50mm f/1.2L is my favorite lens despite having the much sharper 24-70 f/2.8L II.

But, personally I think Canon nailed it with the 50mm f/1.2L and it was the correct choice over the 50mm f/1.0L. Even if new advances in optics were able to overcome the flaring, reduced sharpness, and other artifacts of the 50mm f/1.0L, it would still have that mountain of glass to move which would result in taking a step backwards to slow, more easily broken autofocus of the 85L. And then the little things like the easily scratched rear element, no weather sealing likely due to autofocus mechanic, etc. The 50mm f/1.2L offers much of the same look of the 50mm f/1.0L while being a whole lot more practical and less unwieldy. In fact, I hope they make an 85mm f/1.4L with similar changes.


----------



## Pixel (Mar 4, 2015)

Having just bought the 11-24 f4 I really need a wide, SHARP f2.8 sometimes, I'm putting my vote in for a new 20mm 2.8.


----------



## drob (Mar 4, 2015)

Finn M said:


> drob said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, Canon's recent releases are either blah optics (ex...24mm, 28mm or 40mm 2.8) or OVER PRICED excellent optics but slow (11-24mm f4, 16-35 f4).
> ...



Yeah, I'm a father of 2 with a stay at home wife...anything over 1K is overpriced to me. If Sigma is producing excellent lenses, most of which are <1K, I would suspect Canon can compete. *IF* I was going to shell out the cash for the EF 16-35, I would expect a f/2.8. Who needs IS on a tripod shooting landscape??


----------



## bholliman (Mar 4, 2015)

drob said:


> Yeah, I'm a father of 2 with a stay at home wife...anything over 1K is overpriced to me. If Sigma is producing excellent lenses, most of which are <1K, I would suspect Canon can compete. *IF* I was going to shell out the cash for the EF 16-35, I would expect a f/2.8. Who needs IS on a tripod shooting landscape??



I shoot a lot of landscape, both on and off a tripod. For the non-tripod stuff, the 16-35/4's IS is fantastic! Since I don't use this lens for astro photography, f/4 is fine. I think Canon did a fantastic job with this lens and I'm happy with the price point. It's not the prefect UWA zoom for everybody, but it is for many of us.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 4, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> Ripley said:
> 
> 
> > lc235 said:
> ...



It's not about if any of us disagrees with your thinking; it's about what you want to do. Personally, I barely use my 40/2.8 after getting my 35/2IS, which just takes better pictures for me. It won't match the 35A though, of course, so for you your course of logic may work. Does the 35A hit a price/image quality point you want? If you had it, would you never pick up the 35/2IS? If so, it makes sense.


----------



## photogaz (Mar 4, 2015)

I would buy a 35L Mark II to replace my Mark I. Not really sure the 135L needs IS, but if it was sharper (which is gonna be hard) I would replace mine.


----------



## Finn M (Mar 4, 2015)

drob said:


> Finn M said:
> 
> 
> > drob said:
> ...



Maybe I sometime want to shoot WITHOUT a tripod...? 

I think Canon knows what they are doing. Remember: with a 50Mpix sensor you need fast shutter speeds to get sharp pictures. Minimum 1/250 - 1/500 sec even with a wideangle lens. But with IS I gain about 4 stops! That means that I can use 1/30 sec without tripod. 
Then the choice for is: IS or tripod, also in sunlight. For me the choice is easy. 
And F2,8 is anyway useless for landscapes because of shallow DOF. 
As I said, Canon knows what they are doing!

Since I bought the 1Ds camera in 2003 I have been complaining about the IQ of Canons wideangle lenses. The 17-35/2,8L 17-40/4L 16-35/2,8L and 16-35/2,8L II zooms and also the 20/2,8 prime (I have owned all of them) just weren't good enough, even with the low resolution 12Mpix sensor of the 1Ds. The zooms suffered from vignetting, lack of sharpness outside the centre of the image (especially on 16/17mm) and lack of contrast wide open. After some years getting more and more frustrated I switched to Nikon.....
But after 4 years with Nikon I tried the new EF 16-35/4L IS. And my response is: This lens is the best news from Canon in many years! Canon can produce high quality widangle zooms after all!


----------



## dshipley (Mar 4, 2015)

photogaz said:


> I would buy a 35L Mark II to replace my Mark I. Not really sure the 135L needs IS, but if it was sharper (which is gonna be hard) I would replace mine.



I agree 100%. Of all the prime lenses I own the 35L seems like the most likely candidate for an update (based on age and the potential for improvements). If a new 35L was announced I'd preorder one immediately without question (I can't say the same for any other primes I own). 

*50L:*
I'd love to see the focus shift in the current 50L fixed (I doubt that will happen anytime soon due to the age of the lens) along with a slight bump in sharpness wide open. I'd hate to see any updates to this lens drop to f/1.4.

*85LII:*
The only improvement I'd like to see with this is autofocus speed (while retaining its current level of focus accuracy), however, it isn't a tremendous issue. I'd also hate to see any updates to this lens drop to f/1.4.

*135L:*
For me to replace my 135L would depend on how improved the new version would be along with the price. I don't think the 135L _needs_ IS. IS might be nice to have (depending on the added price and weight), but I'd be more inclined to upgrade if the new version was even faster (f/1.8 or f/1.4).


----------



## Finn M (Mar 4, 2015)

dshipley said:


> photogaz said:
> 
> 
> > I would buy a 35L Mark II to replace my Mark I. Not really sure the 135L needs IS, but if it was sharper (which is gonna be hard) I would replace mine.
> ...



Because of the introduction of the EOS 5Ds(R) cameras I think Canon will upgrade both the 35L and the 50L in the near future. I think at least one of them will be introduced in 2015.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 4, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> Ripley said:
> 
> 
> > lc235 said:
> ...


The shorty forty is a tough tradeoff. It is exceptionally sharp, exceptionally small, and exceptionally inexpensive.

But it lacks fairly important things:

No IS
No internal focusing
No USM (massive if you're principally a stills shooter)
The manual focus override on the pancakes is by wire and it feels less responsive
No standard filter size (that's a minor quibble)

As a result, my ancient 50 f/1.4 or newer 28 f/2.8 IS gets the call far more often when I need a walkaround prime.

- A


----------



## brianleighty (Mar 4, 2015)

Ripley said:


> lc235 said:
> 
> 
> > I literally just purchased the Sigma 35mm Art today -_-. Do you guys think the rumored 35mm L II will make me regret my purchase? :'(
> ...



Look at it this way, the current Canon 35L is around $1400. I can tell you right now the new one won't be cheaper and likely at least a few hundred more. Will it be better than the Sigma? I would hope so. But at more than 2x the price it better be. Doesn't mean the 35A is any less an awesome value though.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 4, 2015)

drob said:


> Unfortunately, Canon's recent releases are either blah optics (ex...24mm, 28mm or 40mm 2.8) or OVER PRICED excellent optics but slow (11-24mm f4, 16-35 f4).
> 
> Why can't Canon innovate and produce quality optics for decent prices (Sigma, Tamron, heck even Rokinon with their manual focus lenses at cheap prices).
> 
> Either way, Canon is spitting out products but it seems like it is all lack luster stuff (with exception of the 7DMkII).



I hear you, but respectfully disagree. Canon has been pumping out a lot of good things recently. The 16-35 F/4L IS is a stellar optic they could have charged $1500+ for. $1,199 is a very fair price for such an instrument. (As for it being 'slow', remember that this was principally aimed at _FF landscapers_ -- it's not an event lens, and it was not developed as a backdoor standard zoom for crop shooters.)

Tack on the mini-1DX (7D2), a 50 MP body or two, release the white unicorn 100-400L II and drop in that absurd 11-24L and I'd say Canon's had a heck of a 12 month window.

I get a lot of "Canon isn't making anything good" when I really think it's a case of "Canon isn't making anything innovative / exclusive / exotic / droolworthy", and that might be fair. But Canon will make a boatload more money making a larger number of sensible people happy with an EF 35mm f/2 IS USM than it will by offering a 2+ pound f/1.0 standard prime design for $2-3k for a few hundred well-heeled enthusiasts.

- A


----------



## gary (Mar 4, 2015)

There seems little point in continuing to release any other new lens when there is an inability to fulfill orders to customers of already released lens. In the meantime I will sit patiently and perhaps the 100-400 mk2 will be available before the mk3 is announced or I have died of old age.


----------



## dstppy (Mar 4, 2015)

Please Canon, make it something really really sharp with an MSRP under $1400.

Just sharp and accurate, doesn't have to have IS.


----------



## Finn M (Mar 4, 2015)

dstppy said:


> Please Canon, make it something really really sharp with an MSRP under $1400.
> 
> Just sharp and accurate, doesn't have to have IS.



Like the EF 16-35/4L IS? 
That's a new and very sharp lens that also have IS....


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 4, 2015)

Finn M said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > Please Canon, make it something really really sharp with an MSRP under $1400.
> ...



Just curious to see how a 50 MP sensor changes our perspective on what "really really really sharp" is. I hate DXO's lens rating system, but you know they will wash all their current L lenses through that testing again on the 5Ds models. Lenses previously hailed as legendarily sharp (the 135L or the wider T/S L lenses) will all but certainly come back to earth on such a highly resolving sensor.

I'm interested to see how our own internal pecking order of 'L lenses that need a refresh' will change once that data is available.

- A


----------



## BXL (Mar 4, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> * 2.0/50 IS USM remember that no 'non-L IS refresh' lens was released at a slower max aperture than the lens it was replacing.


Well...

2.8/24mm replaced with the 2.8/24mm IS USM
2.8/28mm replaced with the 2.8/28mm IS USM
2.0/35mm replaced with the 2.0/35mm IS USM

Don't see that Canon released lenses with a slower max aperture. In fact, on the contrary, they added IS and USM to their old designs.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 4, 2015)

BXL said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > * 2.0/50 IS USM remember that no 'non-L IS refresh' lens was released at a slower max aperture than the lens it was replacing.
> ...



Agree with you. That is exactly what I just said. Maybe you missed something above?

- A


----------



## martti (Mar 4, 2015)

Steven Spielberg took out the Unicorn that was on the first page of this thread:


----------



## Finn M (Mar 4, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Finn M said:
> 
> 
> > dstppy said:
> ...




I'm not that worried. Ten years ago I owned a 1Ds with 12Mpix sensor. I was then dissatisfied both with the 17-40/4L and 16-35/2,8L. Both lenses showed clear weaknesses especially on 16/17mm where the pictures only were sharp in the center even stepped down to f11. Many people still use these lenses with their 6D and 5D mk.II and mk.III cameras with 20Mpix+ sensors without complaining.....
Now the pixel count doubles once again. The 16-35/4L IS which is very sharp with a 22Mpix sensor, will not get less resolution with a 50Mpix sensor. Maybe we only get 35Mpix or 40Mpix effective and not 50Mpix, but I don't worry about that. It is still more than with my current camera.... And that's what important to me.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 4, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > Ripley said:
> ...



What one considers "fairly important" can be quite subjective. 

While I don't like focus-by-wire, I do find it almost completely useless, that was never a purpose with this lens. I rarely manual focus, typically for video, where IS would be useful as well. And I love internally focused primes, completely sealed, but not deal breaker on this lens. And filter size? This lens is so cheap I'm not sure it warrants a protect filter or anything.

So (besides only being f/2.8) my only real complaint with this lens is the slooow focus (especially if you rack all the way in/out). It provides a few more challenges shooting a toddler running around then say the 85mm f/1.8. But hey the engineer in me knows there is no "free lunch" and accept some short comings/compromise in exchange for the incredible small, inconspicuous package.

I agree with you that it is incredibly sharp! And while it may focus a bit on the slow side, the focus accuracy is rock solid with this lens (I expect the greater DOF at f/2.8 helps here).


----------



## Ripley (Mar 4, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> Ripley said:
> 
> 
> > lc235 said:
> ...



All three lenses are good at what they do, which I think you've effectively articulated here. I completely agree with your reasoning.


----------



## LukasS (Mar 5, 2015)

gary said:


> There seems little point in continuing to release any other new lens when there is an inability to fulfill orders to customers of already released lens. In the meantime I will sit patiently and perhaps the 100-400 mk2 will be available before the mk3 is announced or I have died of old age.



 I hear you. Had ordered early in January, and on Monday I got the message that new shipment came to Polish stores. Got mine on Tuesday. Hope you get your lens soon!


----------



## TommyLee (Mar 5, 2015)

dolina said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I like the idea of a 135mm F/1.8L IS. Then I'd have no want for a 70-200II. Even a 50mm 1.4 update with Ring USM will cause money to part from my wallet and no F/2 lens will do for me. A f/2 50mm will only confirm a purchase for the Sigma A 50mm.
> ...



man that would tear my jeans....

I want a 135 f2 I.S. wow...or the new 200 f2 II ,

I have been circling the new 11-24....but I dont really NEED it....love wide... but soooo wide..
I need (read want) the 135 f2 I.S.... and will stretch for 200 f2 II....whatever hits first...
I have waited on 200 f2 because it needs modernizing... a bit...

I sold my 135....downsizing... doh!...

still have 85L II....but the long .... 1/8" DOF ...stuff... is where it at...4 me

and sigma cant really do it ...that Canon way
35 f1.4 sig is best yet...til Canon 35L II arrives ...maybe


but the 200 f2 II , would make me a happy guy

canon is trying to be on a roll like Sigma....and they ARE....

please a 135 or 200 replacement...


----------



## TheJock (Mar 5, 2015)

I think that 50mp sensors are a long long way from being the norm, they are at best either an item that affluent enthusiasts will lap up just to have the latest offering, or a niche camera for professionals, I doubt that many pro’s will be running out to buy one unless their particular area demands the benefits of having files this size. Which brings me back on topic, Canon won’t be in any hurry to produce a whole range of lenses for this sensor size, so deliberating on the current L glass IQ and how it will look at 50mp doesn’t really transfer across to what actual L lenses are coming soon, that’s just my thoughts on it. Still hoping for a long ranger for wildlife with a maximum price tag of around $3,000.


----------



## hillelb (Mar 5, 2015)

Please, please something like a 20 mm, f1.4 (not >20 mm, not > f2)


----------



## lintoni (Mar 5, 2015)

TheJock said:


> I think that 50mp sensors are a long long way from being the norm, they are at best either an item that affluent enthusiasts will lap up just to have the latest offering, or a niche camera for professionals, I doubt that many pro’s will be running out to buy one unless their particular area demands the benefits of having files this size. Which brings me back on topic, Canon won’t be in any hurry to produce a whole range of lenses for this sensor size, so deliberating on the current L glass IQ and how it will look at 50mp doesn’t really transfer across to what actual L lenses are coming soon, that’s just my thoughts on it. Still hoping for a long ranger for wildlife with a maximum price tag of around $3,000.


Whilst I'm in no rush to get a 50mp body, they _will_ become much more the norm in the future, and given that a good lens design could easily have a production life of 10+ years, Canon _will_ be designing and producing lenses that are able to bring the best out of 50 (and higher) mp bodies.


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 5, 2015)

@lintoni: so by 10+ years you mean pretty soon I guess. Look at how much time has passed since the 50 L 1.2 or the 35 one has been announced. I don't think that Canon was creating cupcakes in the meantime. 50 mp sensor 5DS also takes a very long time to develop. They were also developing some L glass along with the body for sure... just that the production of new lenses has started much earlier. At least that's what I guess.

So I'm expecting to see either a 50 L or 35 L coming very soon. Well... I'm more for the 50 L y'know


----------



## lintoni (Mar 5, 2015)

Crosswind said:


> @lintoni: so by 10+ years you mean pretty soon I guess. Look at how much time has passed since the 50 L 1.2 or the 35 one has been announced. I don't think that Canon was creating cupcakes in the meantime. 50 mp sensor 5DS also takes a very long time to develop. They were also developing some L glass along with the body for sure...* just that the production of new lenses has started much earlier. At least that's what I guess.*
> 
> So I'm expecting to see either a 50 L or 35 L coming very soon. Well... I'm more for the 50 L y'know


That strikes me as the sensible way to do things - get some great lenses out before the high mp bodies.  They showed off a 120mp sensor 5 years ago, so they knew top notch lenses were essential for the future.

As to what the new prime will be, who knows? I guess we could all tell Canon that a x mm lens is _the_ absolute priority!


----------



## gaziola (Mar 5, 2015)

Am i the only guy in the world who wants to see canon release a 28mm f1.4???????


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Mar 5, 2015)

drob said:


> Finn M said:
> 
> 
> > drob said:
> ...


IS is a add-on, it doesn't take away from a lens where as your not suppose to use a tripod, it adds more to your shooting needs. I never liked IS on a lens that i will be using a tripod but had to change that view as I own lenses that has IS and it gives you to freedom to shoot when light falls. and with today high ISO's IS is a very welcome thing. I look at IS stops the same I would with a bright lens, this is how i read it in my own way, f4 IS 3 stops will give me the same as a lens f2 or 1.8 since i can get away with slower shutter speeds it balances out to the missing stops in the focal lenght. this works very well for me. in the night dark on my 100mm hybird 4 stops I can shoot at 30s without any blur at all i would say that's pretty dam good with a 100mm focal length at ISO 800-1000 I do not have to cross that far with almost no grain at all. try doing that with without IS, good luck with that.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 5, 2015)

gaziola said:


> Am i the only guy in the world who wants to see canon release a 28mm f1.4???????



Most likely. Canon has nailed down that the non-T/S L primes will be 14 / 24 / 35 / 50 and so on. Canon does offer one EF 20mm and two 28mm primes (f/1.8 and f/2.8 IS), but they are much less popular. 

I love my 28 f/2.8 IS but I understand why Canon has no 1.4 or L option in that length: there's little the 28mm can uniquely do that the 24L or 35L could not.

28mm at f/1.4 is a weird combo that I've never heard requested before. What would you use that for? Street? Environmental portraiture? Surely not astro, right? You'd use the 24 f/1.4 for that, right? Just curious.

- A


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 5, 2015)

lintoni said:


> That strikes me as the sensible way to do things - get some great lenses out before the high mp bodies.  They showed off a 120mp sensor 5 years ago, so they knew top notch lenses were essential for the future.



*lol* true that... so the 5DSr is just the beginning of the cumming pixelgasm I guess 



ahsanford said:


> 28mm at f/1.4 is a weird combo that I've never heard requested before. What would you use that for? Street? Environmental portraiture? Surely not astro, right? You'd use the 24 f/1.4 for that, right? Just curious.



Even if I'm not the person you've asked - I can tell you that _28mm f/1.4_ is pretty good for landscape astrophotography. One example would be to shoot multi-row astro panoramas. I use 35mm for that matter to further emphasise the milky way. 50mm f/1.8 or faster would also be very great, generally, not just for astro. The wider ones, like a fast 14 or 24mm... are also great options but they are sometimes too dramatic in effect. You have to decide which focal lenght is best to realize your idea.

It's even possible to make astonishing astro-landscape pictures with a 100mm lens (f/2.8 or faster)... all without tracking... and not more than ISO 6400. We can select the sky in post and then align the stars with photoshop. After that you'd apply a median filter to get a nearly noise-free image, without blurring the landscape while having tack sharp stars... and the milky way  Didn't Canon register some trademark for such a technique? I think, some day, we can do this process in-camera... to some extent.

Well... back to topic; it's not a question of focal lenght i.m.o. There are no rules. I'd also be happy about a fast 28 with low coma in the corners (which would be important at night). Though I don't think that this'll happen anytime soon ??? 

For this year, my bet is on either a 35 or 50 L.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 6, 2015)

AshtonNekolah said:


> IS is a add-on, it doesn't take away from a lens where as your not suppose to use a tripod, it adds more to your shooting needs. I never liked IS on a lens that i will be using a tripod but had to change that view as I own lenses that has IS and it gives you to freedom to shoot when light falls. and with today high ISO's IS is a very welcome thing. I look at IS stops the same I would with a bright lens, this is how i read it in my own way, f4 IS 3 stops will give me the same as a lens f2 or 1.8 since i can get away with slower shutter speeds it balances out to the missing stops in the focal lenght. this works very well for me. in the night dark on my 100mm hybird 4 stops I can shoot at 30s without any blur at all i would say that's pretty dam good with a 100mm focal length at ISO 800-1000 I do not have to cross that far with almost no grain at all. try doing that with without IS, good luck with that.



Yep. More practically for what I shoot -- handheld available light, even when that light isn't great -- IS lets me hold a longer shutter and keep the ISO from skyrocketing. That's why IS helps and I will use it on every focal length that I can. For that very reason, I often prefer f/2.8 with IS over f/1.4 without it. It's 'virtually' quicker, provided your subject isn't moving.

But if you have a moving subject in poor light, you use some combination of faster glass and higher ISO, or you break down and use one of those speedlite thingies I've heard so much about. 

- A


----------



## gaziola (Mar 6, 2015)

On the subject of the 28mm f1.4. Certainly for me (press/street photography) 28mm is my favoured focal length (along with 135mm). I'd love to see canon produce a 28mm f1.4 L lens. The f2.8 is usm is a great little lens but just doesn't quite cut it for image quality compared to the equivalent 24mm and 35mm f1.4 Ls. Nikkon used to make a 28mm f1.4. (Check out Pep Bonnet) I find 24mm a tad wide and 35mm a tad tight for what i do..........blah blah


----------



## martti (Mar 8, 2015)

I haven't seen anybody suggest a 55mm f/1.2 so that would be my proposition. There used to be a FD lense of those specifications long time ago. It seems to have gotten a new life in the mirrorless community.

Slightly longer than the 50mm to give...a different number because in actual use you would probably not see any difference.

In the meantime, I will probably get the 50mm L...I already found one second hand, now only to find the right price. Not that I'd _need_ it, the old f/1.4 is doing just fine despite its age. But it looks old.


----------



## Conquistador (Mar 11, 2015)

Maybe it's going to be a 200MM Macro lens with an image stabiliser?


----------

