# Old lenses Canon will phase out



## dolina (Nov 9, 2014)

Back 4 years ago I made a list of old lenses Canon will phase out and since then a lot of things have changed making an update needed.

End of Life
1987 EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
1987 EF 28mm f/2.8
1987 EF 135mm f/2.8 with Softfocus
1988 EF 24mm f/2.8
1990 EF 35mm f/2
1990 EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
1998 EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
1999 EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
1999 EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
2001 EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM

Series II, L upgrades & IS version
2010 EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
2011 EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM
2012 EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
2012 EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM
2012 EF 35mm f/2 IS USM
2014 EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM
2014 EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM

Nearing end of life. Expect any of these lenses to be superseded in 2015

Zoom
1998 EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
2004 EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

Prime
1987 EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
1990 EF 50mm f/1.8 II
1991 EF 100mm f/2 USM
1991 TS-E 45mm f/2.8
1991 TS-E 90mm f/2.8
1992 EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
1992 EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
1993 EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
1995 EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
1999 MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo

L lenses. Year cut off is 2002.
1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1998 EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

Personally I'd like to see a EF 135mm f/2L USM replacement come out with IS and a faster f-number like say 1.8 or 1.4.

As to pricing hopefully Sigma, Tamron and Tokina continuous to help in reining in Canon's MSRP.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 9, 2014)

dolina said:


> Back 4 years ago I made a list of old lenses Canon will phase out and since then a lot of things have changed making an update needed.



You forgot the 17-40L/4, I doubt Canon will keep this lens around as their strength is their IS system (any 3rd party can build a good uwa), but it might keep people from buying the more expensive 16-35L/4


----------



## dolina (Nov 9, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Back 4 years ago I made a list of old lenses Canon will phase out and since then a lot of things have changed making an update needed.
> ...


Great point. I missed it as it it is newer than 2002. But still a good point.


----------



## wtlloyd (Nov 9, 2014)

It won't surprise me if they never replace the EF 400 f/5.6

Between the new 100-400 at $2200 and the new 400 f/4.0 DO IS at about $7K, where would the pricing fall? It's currently an inexpensive supertele, performs nicely but with some shortcomings. I don't see room for it in the lineup if the new 100-400 exceeds it at 400mm, which I expect it will. We never got a 500 f/5.6, so I don't think Canon want to diversify at the upper end all that much...better to force a choice between the zoom or the DO.


----------



## dolina (Nov 9, 2014)

Other than the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM I think these other lenses may not get updates that soon for the reason you pointed out.

1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

In case a EF 400mm f/5.6L IS USM comes out perhaps Canon will offer it at a $500 premium making it $1,739?


----------



## Frodo (Nov 9, 2014)

I own/owned 5 of those lenses, plus the 20mm f/2.8, which I didn't see there. The 20mm is a dog and I was glad to get rid of it. I replaced the 70-200mm f/4 with a 200 f/2.8 as the shorter end overlapped with my 24-105 f/4 when hiking and, although it was very sharp, it flared when shooting into the sun. The 50mm f1.8 was sharp, but cheaply made.

My other three that I own are fine, although the 50mm macro could do with a better AF motor and go to 1:1. The others are great. The 85mm f/1.8 has some CA but I knew that when I bought it. And the 400 f/5.6 is great wide open, plus nice and light and cheap - my watersports and birding lens. Would be nice to have IS and to focus closer, not critical at this price point.

There are some oldies and goodies in there!


----------



## e17paul (Nov 9, 2014)

The 28-135 USM has already disappeared from Canon's listings. 
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom/

It's logical replacement is the 24-105 STM, as a junior to the 24-105L


----------



## dolina (Nov 9, 2014)

e17paul said:


> The 28-135 USM has already disappeared from Canon's listings.
> http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom/
> 
> It's logical replacement is the 24-105 STM, as a junior to the 24-105L


Still being sold on Adorama & BHPhoto.

Some surprise upgrades

2012 EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
2012 EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM
2014 EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

The lens they were supposed to replace are still being sold. Excess stock, perhaps?

2002 EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
2003 EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
2005 EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 9, 2014)

dolina said:


> [...]
> 
> Personally I'd like to see a EF 135mm f/2L USM replacement come out with IS and a faster f-number like say 1.8 or 1.4.
> 
> [...]



EF 135mm *f/1.4* L IS USM would be a funny lens with roughly 100mm diameter and the price tag would be 5000 EUR/$ - don't know if it will ever be released or build as a small series ...
But it would be great with shallow DOF etc.


----------



## e17paul (Nov 9, 2014)

What about the non L non IS 100mm macro, currently selling for about half the price of the L version?


----------



## SwampYankee (Nov 9, 2014)

Still rocking a 50mm 1.8 I from the 1980's. I have always been looking for a good reason to replace it but.....the 1.4 breaks alot, the 1.2 is nice but really, really expensive for that extra speed, the Sigma 1.4 Art is really tempting but might wait until it comes down a bit. I would love to see a 1.8 IS for about $400, $500???? Doesn't have to be an L, just sharp and fast and IS like the 35mm f2. On the other hand, I have a 27 year old lens, that is as sharp as anything in my bag and cost less the $100. Canon made those old 1.8's pretty tough


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 10, 2014)

I doubt the following will be phased out:

1) MP-E 65mm f/2.8 - it has no competition, and is a niche lens, so other lenses would have a higher ROI on their investment. Only reason I can see for it to be phased out is too low sales.

2) 85mm f/1.8 USM - it's better than Sigma's 85mm, and not in the same price bracket as the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Otus. I don't see much reason for Canon to upgrade it, except maybe to add IS.

3) 135mm f/2L - has even less competition than the 85mm f/1.8. I don't see much reason for Canon to upgrade it, except maybe to add IS.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 10, 2014)

dilbert said:


> e17paul said:
> 
> 
> > The 28-135 USM has already disappeared from Canon's listings.
> ...



It's not clear to me that a 24–105 is an adequate replacement for a 28–135, either. I've been shooting with a 24–105 ever since I moved to full-frame a couple of years back, and I *really* miss the extra reach of my 17–85. I'd *kill* for a *usable* 28–135 (or, better, a usable 24–135)...

...just as long as it is not that poorly built piece of crap that Canon calls a 28–135. A single lens filter and a lens cap should not be enough weight to cause a lens to slam into its maximum zoom setting while carrying the camera on a neck strap. That's not a lens so much as an aperture ribbon failure waiting to happen.

Or, to put it another way, 28–135 would be a great range for a lens. Too bad Canon never made one. 



dolina said:


> End of Life
> ...
> 1999 EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
> 1999 EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III



I don't see that happening. A $1450 big white lens is just not a realistic replacement for a $200 ultralight lens (the non-IS version). I love my 70–300L. I got lots of decent (but soft) photos with the 75–300 III that I used prior to getting that lens, so I'm very familiar with both lenses. There's no comparison in terms of IQ.

On the other hand, the L version is more than twice as heavy, and costs more than seven times as much.

Most folks just getting into photography don't have that kind of money to drop on a telephoto lens. As long as there are price-conscious consumers without absurd amounts of money to burn, IMO, there's room in the lineup for a low-end EF zoom with a long reach. And if Amazon sales are any indication, in spite of its relatively poor IQ, the III remains one of the most popular Canon lenses by sales volume.

So no, I really can't see Canon phasing them out... not without an actual, non-L replacement ready to ship, anyway.


----------



## dolina (Nov 10, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> EF 135mm *f/1.4* L IS USM would be a funny lens with roughly 100mm diameter and the price tag would be 5000 EUR/$ - don't know if it will ever be released or build as a small series ...
> But it would be great with shallow DOF etc.


Out of this world DoF. ^_^


----------



## dolina (Nov 10, 2014)

You are correct, these lenses are still being sold at BHPhoto/Adorama



dgatwood said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > End of Life
> ...


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 10, 2014)

e17paul said:


> What about the non L non IS 100mm macro, currently selling for about half the price of the L version?



As they keep selling both lenses, I think they will continue to do so - the L is too expensive for crop users, and the 60mm macro has too little reach (the 100mm is the 180mm of crop). Like with the infamous 50/1.8 production costs would be low and profit still decent.

If they stopped selling it, people wouldn't upgrade to the L but simply buy a 3rd party macro as IS isn't that important on a macro - unlike the 17-40L vs. 16-35L-IS where it can be useful in handheld low light.


----------



## Angmar (Nov 10, 2014)

dolina said:


> You are correct, these lenses are still being sold at BHPhoto/Adorama
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is a replacement lens, Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_is_usm

It has been out on the market since 2005...

And for crop cameras we also got the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_s_55_250mm_f_4_5_6_is_stm


----------



## Jimmy_Surf (Nov 10, 2014)

Your list is very detailed!!
I would like to add a lens that's been missing though...
The EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6l USM
best regards, Jimmy


----------



## tayassu (Nov 10, 2014)

Thanks for putting together that list! 

Could the new 24-105 non-L be a replacement to the old 28-135?


----------



## tron (Nov 10, 2014)

dolina said:


> e17paul said:
> 
> 
> > The 28-135 USM has already disappeared from Canon's listings.
> ...


EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM ? Where exactly Canon mentioned that 24-105 has been or is about to be replaced? I would not mind a version II of that lens but 24-70 f/4L IS is not a replacement for 24-105.


----------



## dolina (Nov 10, 2014)

tron said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > e17paul said:
> ...


As you quoted me it appears it is excess stocks.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 11, 2014)

Angmar said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > You are correct, these lenses are still being sold at BHPhoto/Adorama
> ...



Sorry, I should have said a replacement lens at a comparable price point. Calling a $700 lens a replacement for a $200 lens isn't really that different from calling a $1400 lens is. Even back in 2002, I think the 75–300 III was only about a $250 lens. There's a reason they kept selling the non-IS versions; they felt it was important to maintain a 300mm lens at a $250 price point, even if it wasn't nearly up to the same standards optically.




Angmar said:


> And for crop cameras we also got the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM.
> 
> http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_s_55_250mm_f_4_5_6_is_stm



I agree that the 55–250 is a better choice for most crop body users (because even after cropping, it is still likely to be sharper), and at only half again more expensive, it is at least plausible as an alternative.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 11, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> There's a reason they kept selling the non-IS versions; they felt it was important to maintain a 300mm lens at a $250 price point, even if it wasn't nearly up to the same standards optically.



This has probably changed because with so many lens reviews online and people getting more into the spirit of high mp digital (cropping), more people realize that cropping from a good 200mm is better than a blurry 300mm. With even affordable higher mp cameras becoming available in the next years, we might see even more mediocre tele lenses being phased out as they cannot cope with the resolution.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 11, 2014)

I have owned or *currently *  own the following lenses:
*1987 EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye*
*2012 EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM*
2012 EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM
*2012 EF 35mm f/2 IS USM*
1990 EF 50mm f/1.8 II
1991 EF 100mm f/2 USM
1993 EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

Personally I'd like to see a EF 135mm f/2L USM replacement come out with IS, a EF 400mm f/5.6L (II) with IS and a good and sharp wide open EF 50mm f/1.8 with IS too.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 11, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Personally I'd like to see a EF 135mm f/2L USM replacement come out with IS



Question is if you'd be still wishing for it if calculating the bulk and weight of such a contraption. IS increases the lens diameter (probably one of the reasons why the 24-70L/2.8 doesn't have it) and of course the price. If you don't want heavy vignetting like on the Tamron 24-70/2.8 the result would be either slower than f2 or damn large.

In combination with the fact that IS is little good for movement and IS isn't really necessary for frame stabilization @136mm (unlike tele lenses), I doubt Canon will ever "update" this lens in such a way.


----------



## NancyP (Nov 11, 2014)

Two of my most-used lenses are oldies - the 400 f/5.6L and the 180 f/3.5L. No doubt they could be improved, but the image quality is already excellent. And, they are younger than some other lenses I am using, old manual AIS Nikkors on an adapter (50 mm f/1.2, 55mm f/3.5, 105mm f/2.5).


----------

