# why there are no new L primes



## steliosk (Oct 24, 2014)

Hi
i'm considering to buy some new fast prime lenses for my 5D III

However Canon has left behind their L primes update, since there is no new 35L 50L 85L 135L replacements, and the 24L II isn't quite the sharpest lens wide open.

It seems Canon drop the weight on 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 IS II where these two are far the best zoom lenses i've ever used. I trust them completely at 2.8 and i get nailed focus pictures without selling me, where as a professional that means everything.

However the need for faster glass is imminent 

These sigmas ART 35 and 50 seems promising.
After testing the 35A the only thing that stops me is the focus accuracy. (actually it was good in this 35A but i had bad experiences with sigma before)

However Sigma glass is perfect. no CA (damn these EF 50 1.4 and EF 85 1.8 are killing me) , sharp wide open, what else to ask for?

I haven't tested the 50A yet but i know it will be top notch like the 35A i've tested

Meanwhile after seeing this

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I was wondering why should somebody buy the 50L today.
Not a wise choice in terms of quality and price.

Anyway, is there any word out about new L primes?
maybe next year? or should i move along buying the 35A and 50A since the current 35L and 50L is out of the question since they are quite expensive and old.


----------



## gigabellone (Oct 24, 2014)

In the EOS system there's no competition for the Canon primes, except for the Sigma 35/1.4, that makes a lens with the same specs, but with better performance and price than the Canon counterpart. If you want the 1.2 aperture, you must get the Canon lenses; if you want a 24/1.4, you either get the Canon, get a completely manual lens from Samyang, or switch to Nikon. And i also think that the pro zooms, the big whites, and the cheap ef-s lenses are those who get the most sales (and revenues).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 24, 2014)

The 50L and 85L II are from 2006, so they're pretty 'young' as far as lens designs go. The 35L is due for an update, IMO. 

Sharpness is not the 50/1.2L's forte. Canon intentionally traded some sharpness for superior bokeh in the design of the lens. 

As for 'no new L primes', there were four launched just 2-3 years ago. Rather big and expensive ones with white paint, but they still qualify as pretty new L primes.


----------



## Good24 (Oct 24, 2014)

I would ask the same question about non-L prime lens, esp. at 50mm and 85mm (and even the 100mm). Supposedly IS versions (akin to the 24/28/35) have been due any minute now but that's been said for two years. The "year of the lens" is running out of time and yet the standard/medium telephoto range seems to be ignored for primes.

All that said, I'm not worried about what eye charts show for the 50/1.2, if you look at real pictures it's an amazing lens and can still be very sharp at certain distances anyway. And I've used the 24L (on a 7D) and thought it was perfectly good, liked the results. 

But the wait goes on for new primes in the standard/medium range....


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Oct 24, 2014)

One of the main drivers for F1.2 or f1.4 prime lenses was available light photography. This is less important these days with increased sensitivity of sensors. There is a price to pay for F1.2 - massive amount of glass creating issues with sharpness at the borders and heavy light fall off. Also susceptible to flare and showing heavy vignetting. Heavy glass means slow focus - it is difficult to move this amount of glass. Impossible to do IS. 

Personaly, I feel more comfortable with EF 35mm F/2 IS USM than with EF 35mm F/1.4 USM L.

Note that Canon released 3 of the new style primes in the past 2-3 years. They all have the same characteristics - moderate aperture, very sharp, moderate cost, but with excellent IS. These primes are very useful and the sell well.

Also note that the excellence of the EF 70-200 F2.8 USM IS L II means that there is not much incentive to use the 85mm or 135 primes that have no IS.


----------



## tron (Oct 24, 2014)

Well there are no new L primes this year BUT there will be a new DO prime. Which looks very tempting even though I already have the 500II ... :


----------



## steliosk (Oct 24, 2014)

So canon sacrifice the sharpness over the creamy bokeh of 1.2 glasses.

However i would compromise with newer 1.4 glasses stabilized or not doesn't make any difference to a wedding photographer as i am.

All i need is to suck the available amount of natural light without any use of flash. The new 2.8 zoom lenses are great at 2.8, sharp, creamy, with fast focusing. However a couple of ISO stops less would be nice, plus the great DOF that 1.4 gives compared with 2.8

However i think there is a great dilema for Canon if new 1.4 glasses are out, who is gonna buy the 1.2? except those who doesn't compromise with the bokeh of 1.2 glass?

However the EF 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 are horrible wide open in cameras with high megapixels. They just can't handle it, plus the CA in the bokeh which is terrible and unfixable in post process


----------



## gigabellone (Oct 24, 2014)

Good24 said:


> I would ask the same question about non-L prime lens, esp. at 50mm and 85mm (and even the 100mm). Supposedly IS versions (akin to the 24/28/35) have been due any minute now but that's been said for two years. The "year of the lens" is running out of time and yet the standard/medium telephoto range seems to be ignored for primes.
> 
> All that said, I'm not worried about what eye charts show for the 50/1.2, if you look at real pictures it's an amazing lens and can still be very sharp at certain distances anyway. And I've used the 24L (on a 7D) and thought it was perfectly good, liked the results.
> 
> But the wait goes on for new primes in the standard/medium range....



The 85/1.8 is indeed a very old design, but i think it's good enough and doesn't need a replacement. The 50/1.4 could use a rework. My two cents.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Oct 24, 2014)

*The 50 prime problem*

From what I've been able to gather from a couple of years of net research and renting and borrowing lenses. Nobody makes an EF mount 50mm prime that works very well, at least for my needs. 

I eliminate the Zeiss due to lack of autofocus.

The 50 L has focus issues at different distances

The EF 50 1.4 has poor optics and is fragile

The EF 50 1.8 is good for the price (hmmm maybe I should test that one again)

The Sigma classic 50 has autofocus problems

The Sigma 50 Art has autofocus problems

A fast 50 prime needs a very accurate and consistent autofocus system to take advantage of the shallow DOF. It is frustrating that none of the manufacturers have risen to the challenge. I don't know why it has to be so difficult. I have money to spend, but nothing to buy.


----------



## tron (Oct 24, 2014)

*Re: The 50 prime problem*



drmikeinpdx said:


> From what I've been able to gather from a couple of years of net research and renting and borrowing lenses. Nobody makes an EF mount 50mm prime that works very well, at least for my needs.
> 
> I eliminate the Zeiss due to lack of autofocus.
> 
> ...


Out of all options the 50 1.8 seems the best !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 24, 2014)

You forgot the 50mm compact macro on your list, brilliant in the f8 - f11 range , but the crappiest lens ever wide open. It is one of the very few (if not the only) left over from the original 1987 EF releases. The old Nikkor AI-S 55mm was much better compared to the LOMO/Canon 50 Compact Macro f2.5. Come on Canon, your standard Macro is a shame, this one as well needs an urgent upgrade. What happened to the year of the lens ???


----------



## Coldhands (Oct 24, 2014)

symmar22 said:


> Come on Canon, your standard Macro is a shame, this one as well needs an urgent upgrade.



I really can't see much of a case for renewing that lens. With the 100mm twins offering either great value (non IS) or superb IQ (IS L) as well as the 60 mm for EF-S, that leaves a very small niche for a ~50mm macro lens to fill. The short working distance that focal length requires would make it a hard sell even at a lower price than those lenses currently available.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 24, 2014)

symmar22 said:


> You forgot the 50mm compact macro on your list, brilliant in the f8 - f11 range , but the crappiest lens ever wide open. It is one of the very few (if not the only) left over from the original 1987 EF releases. The old Nikkor AI-S 55mm was much better compared to the LOMO/Canon 50 Compact Macro f2.5. Come on Canon, your standard Macro is a shame, this one as well needs an urgent upgrade. What happened to the year of the lens ???



EF-S 10-18, EF 16-35 f/4 IS, EF-S 24, 400 F/4 DO II, 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF-M 55-200... just not the lenses you want.


----------



## monopodman (Oct 24, 2014)

*Re: The 50 prime problem*



drmikeinpdx said:


> From what I've been able to gather from a couple of years of net research and renting and borrowing lenses. Nobody makes an EF mount 50mm prime that works very well, at least for my needs.
> 
> I eliminate the Zeiss due to lack of autofocus.
> 
> ...



In addition to that, there's the same problem in Nikon F mount. If you don't want AF problems (Sigma ART) or MF (very hard on modern DSLRs), the only way to obtain a world-class 50mm is to buy a Sony A7/A7r and FE 55mm f1.8. That prime is so good, it can justify a dedicated camera body. You can also use many of your Canon EF lenses with slow-but-working autofocus through Metabones IV adapter.


----------



## zlatko (Oct 24, 2014)

steliosk said:


> However Canon has left behind their L primes update, since there is no new 35L 50L 85L 135L replacements, and the 24L II isn't quite the sharpest lens wide open.



IMO, none of those lenses need replacements. They are all plenty sharp and draw beautifully. The 50L is one of my favorite lenses --- love the way it draws. The only update I'd love to see is the 135L with IS. 

Absolute sharpness is nice, but it's not the only thing that matters about a lens. A bunch of other things matter too.


----------



## gjones5252 (Oct 24, 2014)

I would suggest you take another look at the Sigma 50 art. I have it and am enjoying it. It is sharp as anything and as far as focus it seems to hit great on my 5d3. To be honest i dont think i have ever used it nor would i on my 5d2 just because i feel it focus excellent on my other. 
I have been wanting a 50mm for a long time and to be honest when canon updates the L i will most likely sell this sigma and have the canon on the way(as long as image quality is there). Not because i am hating this lens but just because i love that red ring.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 25, 2014)

steliosk said:


> However the EF 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 are horrible wide open in cameras with high megapixels. They just can't handle it, plus the CA in the bokeh which is terrible and unfixable in post process



The EF 85 1.8 does have its flaws (esp purple fringing - but that's true of the 85L too), and if Canon were to replace it with something along the lines of the 24/28/35mm IS I would likely buy one if it fixed the purple fringing. But "horrible" wide open on high MP sensors? Perhaps my standards are low, or I don't photograph the right sort of thing in the right sort of conditions (or both), but that's not the adjective I would use. Shortly after I bought my a7r - which, of course, has a much higher MP sensor than anything Canon currently offers - I spent a few hours on a couple of days wandering around taking casual photos last Spring (all hand held, manual focus). Few of them were wide open, but I uploaded some of those that are, with crops, here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157648538042789/

I think the lens holds up rather well technically (whether the photos are otherwise worth looking at is another matter). It may not be an Otus, or even the 85L, but given its size and price I'm not inclined to complain too much. And if you stop it down a bit on an a7r....


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 25, 2014)

steliosk said:


> However Canon has left behind their L primes update, since there is no new 35L 50L 85L 135L replacements, and the 24L II isn't quite the sharpest lens wide open.



Since you're willing to go ~5 years back:

In 2006 Canon has updated the 85mm f/1.2, and the 50mm f/1.2 was released the same year.
In 2007 Canon has updated the 14mm f/1.4
In 2008 Canon has released the 200mm f/2 and 800mm f/5.6
In 2009 Canon has updated the TS-E 24mm f/3.5, and released an all new TS-E 17mm f/4 and 100mm f/2.8 macro IS
In 2010 Canon has updated the 300mm & 400mm f/2.8 IS
In 2011 Canon has updated the 500mm & 600mm f/2.8 IS
In 2012 Canon updated it's non-L 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm lenses, and released a new 40mm STM lens.

So, in the time frame you refer to, the 85mm L has been updated, the 50mm L is a new release, and the 24mm f/1.4 has been updated (though you find the not up to your expectations).

I agree the 35mm f/1.4 L is old, but unless you need that extra stop, the 35mm f/2 IS is a great lens.

As for the 135mm f/2, I'm not sure what you would expect from a mkII, beyond the letters "II" in the name. An IS?


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 25, 2014)

Coldhands said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > Come on Canon, your standard Macro is a shame, this one as well needs an urgent upgrade.
> ...



I do not fully agree here, the 100mm L is a superb lens, but I have both the 50 Compact macro and the 100mm L and they do not serve the same purpose. I won't comment the 60mm EF-S since I don't have a crop camera. A 100mm is not a 50mm (though the perfect focal for a standard macro should IMO more be a 55-60mm).

I use the 50mm macro not for real macro (a 100mm or even the 180mm are more practical), but for the specifications of any 50-60 macro lens : ultra sharp , zero distortion, perfectly flat field and the ability to focus close. It has a use in (art) reproduction, studio photography, landscape and architecture. I used Nikon for 20 years before switching to Canon and the 55mm AI-S, then 60mm AF-D were the best lenses I had. They both could easily replace the 50mm of their time for general use, if you did not need 1.x aperture. I just cannot say the same with the 50mm Compact Macro (a 27 year old lens).


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 25, 2014)

symmar22 said:


> Coldhands said:
> 
> 
> > symmar22 said:
> ...



Absolutely agree.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 25, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> steliosk said:
> 
> 
> > However Canon has left behind their L primes update, since there is no new 35L 50L 85L 135L replacements, and the 24L II isn't quite the sharpest lens wide open.
> ...



The 14mm is an f2.8, not an f1.4.


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 25, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> EF-S 10-18, EF 16-35 f/4 IS, EF-S 24, 400 F/4 DO II, 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF-M 55-200... just not the lenses you want.



You are right it is a few lenses, but it is all relative for me since I do not have a crop camera (or an M one).

I am thinking about buying the 16-35mm f4 (finally a good wide angle zoom). The 10-18 and and 24 are likely good news for the crop sensor users. The 400 DO is obviously not a lens for everyone and the previous one was not very successful. I do not have much to say about the 24-105, but I won't trade my f4 L for this one. Finally the 55-200 is released when they do not make the (relatively unsuccessful) Canon M any more, with no successor announced.

In the same time, I would love to see replacements for :

20mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8, 35mm f1.4, 45mm f2.8 TS-E, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f2.5 Macro, 85mm f1.8, 90mm f2.8 TS-E, 100mm f2.

These are outdated designs, and IMO in need for a refresh. How many of these would sell compared to the 400mm DO ?

Hopefully, the new 100-400mm is coming soon.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 25, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > steliosk said:
> ...



You're right, my typo.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Oct 25, 2014)

I agree that the 24 to 100 L prime space is getting long in the tooth. I do have the Sigma 50 Art and don't have a focusing problem - perhaps I am just lucky.

Haven't gotten the 35... yet 

I do have the 16-35 f4 and the 70-200 II with the 50 in the middle. I don't have a big need for low light action shots so really fast glass isn't my issue. The other thing I am confronting is that I don't do massive prints, and 99.9% of my work is posted to the web in some sort or another and shared for computer viewing. This brings in all the questions about resolution - which brings about the observation that resolution may be "good enough" for some vast majority of the images now being taken. If that is the case, Canon has been pretty smart to improve the imaging of their zooms over primes.

I am an "M" and am interested in the meta bones speed booster. One could ponder a smaller mirrorless body such as a 7d-M (otherwise known as an Oly) w/ the speed booster. If Canon could do something "native" like that, yikes what an imaging system they would have in overall space. Combinations galore with fstops to burn.

Sorry for jacking the thread :-\


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 25, 2014)

Busted Knuckles said:


> This brings in all the questions about resolution - which brings about the observation that resolution may be "good enough" for some vast majority of the images now being taken. If that is the case, Canon has been pretty smart to improve the imaging of their zooms over primes.



Couldn't possibly be good enough - the local photo shop prints so many photos A0 size, two employees work night shifts to keep up with demand.


----------



## PhotoCat (Oct 25, 2014)

symmar22 said:


> You forgot the 50mm compact macro on your list, brilliant in the f8 - f11 range , but the crappiest lens ever wide open. It is one of the very few (if not the only) left over from the original 1987 EF releases. The old Nikkor AI-S 55mm was much better compared to the LOMO/Canon 50 Compact Macro f2.5. Come on Canon, your standard Macro is a shame, this one as well needs an urgent upgrade. What happened to the year of the lens ???



What do u mean by "crappiest lens" My copy is sharp wide-open in the centre at f2.5. I often shoot at f2.8 without any problems, despite the fact that my copy has some blurry right edge, which only shows up in shooting test charts. It is vy sharp wide open on the left edge and centre too on a full frame camera. It is a vy sharp lens good for food photography. 

The only issue is QA like the defect I have and the loud focus motor noise LOL!

BTW, distortion wise, the compact macro tops 50/f1.8 & 50/1.4.

Changing topic... I don't care about "L" for now. Just give me an 85 f2.0 IS!! 
There is currently no IS prime for a portrait lens. 100L is just too long.


----------



## Arty (Oct 25, 2014)

The Canon 50 F2.5 macro tests out as excellent, but only goes to half life-sized, without their converter. I have the Sigma 50 F2.8 macro lens, but that lens does not seem to be listed on the Sigma website in a Canon mount. The Sigma 70 is also missing in the Canon mount, the last time I looked. Tokina also discontinued their 35f2.8 macro, a crop lens.
There must not be much of a market for shorter macro lenses.


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 25, 2014)

PhotoCat said:


> What do u mean by "crappiest lens" My copy is sharp wide-open in the centre at f2.5. I often shoot at f2.8 without any problems, despite the fact that my copy has some blurry right edge, which only shows up in shooting test charts. It is vy sharp wide open on the left edge and centre too on a full frame camera. It is a vy sharp lens good for food photography.
> 
> The only issue is QA like the defect I have and the loud focus motor noise LOL!
> 
> BTW, distortion wise, the compact macro tops 50/f1.8 & 50/1.4.



To begin with, I had to test 3 copies, before I could find one that was not badly centred (obviously yours is as well). Honestly, the edges are indecent at 2.5, and the complete coverage until the corners is not happening before f8. That's acceptable on the 50mm f1.8, not on a Macro lens. The vignetting is is also extreme until 5.6, and strangely it's the only lens I have that Reikan FoCal refuses to AFMA (seems the AF motor can not repeat focus properly enough). I have a 15mm fisheye that doesn't show the same issue.

The plus is the distortion is absolute 0, the field is perfectly flat (good for art repro), and it's a killer lens at f8, f11 and much better than most at f16. So I use it as kind of fixed aperture lens for architecture. Considering the price, it's not that bad, but again it compares very poorly with the Nikkor AI-S 55mm and AF-D 60mm I had before. 

For a macro lens it is the absolute minimum requirement, and clearly shows it's age. I believe it's the only 1980's micro motor left in Canon's range (not sure if they still make the 135mm soft focus). I would buy immediately an improved IQ version with IS and USM.


----------



## Larry (Oct 25, 2014)

Chris Jankowski said:


> Heavy glass means slow focus - it is difficult to move this amount of glass. Impossible to do IS.



Not 1.2 or 1.4, but -

Can you explain how the 400/2.8 escapes the "heavy glass" impossibility, ...and has I.S.? It seems to focus fast enough for many pro sports shooters.

Thanks


----------



## sdsr (Oct 25, 2014)

symmar22 said:


> I use the 50mm macro not for real macro (a 100mm or even the 180mm are more practical), but for the specifications of any 50-60 macro lens : ultra sharp , zero distortion, perfectly flat field and the ability to focus close. It has a use in (art) reproduction, studio photography, landscape and architecture. I used Nikon for 20 years before switching to Canon and the 55mm AI-S, then 60mm AF-D were the best lenses I had. They both could easily replace the 50mm of their time for general use, if you did not need 1.x aperture. I just cannot say the same with the 50mm Compact Macro (a 27 year old lens).



That's why I like c. 50mm macro lenses too, and that 55mm AI-S Nikkor is one of my favorite lenses - the best $125 I've ever spent and one of the reasons I'm glad to have a FF mirrorless camera (my lens is second hand, but I understand you can still buy new copies from Adorama or some such).


----------



## kaihp (Oct 25, 2014)

gjones5252 said:


> I would suggest you take another look at the Sigma 50 art. I have it and am enjoying it.


OP just reviewed and blogged about the 50A the day before you wrote, so I doubt he needs to go back and take another look. His blog entry is here (semi-NSWF):
http://www.beyondboudoirphoto.com/blog/2014/10/outdoor-photoshoot-for-a-portland-couple


----------

