Here's what you're going to see:Mikael, are you again? Do not give ideas to greedy executives Canon, they already have many. Let's contemplate what interests us, not what we hate.
1. Another EF-S 18-135/3.5-5.6 IS consumer-grade zoom.
2. And another EF-S 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS zoom.
3. Some sort of insanely expensive, slow aperture EF wide- to normal non-L prime with added IS, priced around $700-900, like an EF 50/2 IS STM for $800.
4. An incremental update to some already well-regarded L lens that nobody really needs to have updated and even fewer people can actually afford, like the EF 200/2L IS...at 150% of the price.
5. Maybe we'll get a new EF 135/2L II, no IS, for $1800.
6. EF 24-70/2.8L IS, weighing in around 3.5 pounds and costing $3500, just to p*ss off all the people who bought the 24-70/2.8L II.
7. A completely new but also completely redundant design, like a 35-135/4L IS zoom.
8. A 400/5.6L IS...for $3000.
Or any one of those could be replaced by a new 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS II that is priced at absurd levels, say $4200.
Yeah, I'm definitely exaggerating, and sort of joking...but to be honest, I do NOT see Canon moving toward meeting the demands of fast aperture prime users. They are ALL about the zooms, and they are all about slow aperture designs that have looser tolerances that they can slap IS units on, and mark up at 1.5-2x the cost. Their thinking is that photographers don't need fast apertures anymore--after all, aren't the sensors good enough? (And no, they aren't.) When was the last time you saw ANY f/1.8 or faster design announced for production?
You know what I want to see them do? I want to see them bring back the 50/1.0L. Remind the world why the EF mount was made to be what it is. I want to see them push the envelope and see what could be done with today's manufacturing techniques and materials. You know your stuff is outdated when even a company like Sigma can beat your 35/1.4L for bokeh quality, corner sharpness, and secondary spectrum control. Then design an affordable series of lenses with emphasis on durability, like a 50/1.4 II, or a simple 50/1.8 that isn't plastic.
Canon used to be the undisputed leader of designing novel AF lenses. This is the company that gave us the TS-E 17/4L, 50/1.0L, 85/1.2L, MP-E 65/2.8, 135/2L, 200/1.8L, and 400/4L DO IS, among other amazing technologies. But all we see these days are uninspiring, conservative, incremental designs. Nothing that pushes the envelope, nothing that makes us feel like we just *have* to try this lens because it will let us get the shot that no other lens can.
No too eloquent and the grammar and punctuation are well above the Swede's levels.
Anybody that wants to bring back the 50 f1.0 never used one, it was a technological tour de force and a photographic POS, the TS-E 17 is the modern 50 f1.0, but it actually takes good images too.
But most of his listed lenses are anything like new and the only one that shows interesting technology is the 400 with its DO and IS, but again, after having used DO lenses and seen their out of focus rendering issues I don't see that technology going more mainstream until they sort that major issue out. The TS-E 17 is an optical masterpiece, whatever design team and R&D manager pushed that should be promoted to a director level to enthuse the lens range.
The 85 1.2 is a very old design, as is the 135 f2, both comfortably pre date the EF mount, the 200 f1.8 was made in FD mount too and is nothing more than a tricked 300 f2.8 design. As for the MP-E 65, well Canon have long pushed their macro efforts, I'd like to know the true differences between the MP-E 65 and the old Macrophoto 35mm f2.8 you use on a bellows, obviously there is the electronic component but from an optics point of view I would guess they are pretty similar. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdmacro/2035macro.htm
I actually own one too but it is in the UK in storage. EDIT: Having looked up the diagrams for both the 35mm is a very simple design the MP-E 65 is much more complex.
But make no mistake, Canon are still a leader in 135 format lens design, and they have many designs that will never make it to market for various reasons. It's just on top of designing them, they have to make and sell them for a profit to continue.
Look at the 8-15 zoom, the 17 and the IQ popping 24 TS-E's, the constantly improving IS, Hybrid IS, the new generation coatings that have genuine IQ advantages, the 200 f2 was a good step up from the 200 f1.8 and it included an optical redesign along with the IS, the 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8's are widely regarded as prime beaters (at the very least prime equalizers) and it wasn't that long ago that zooms were considered convenient jokes that would never be prime time, they are so good now you can use TC's with them and still get great images. All the MkII IS teles are class leaders as is the 200-400.
There are glaring failings in the Canon EF lineup though. A class matching ultrawide zoom must have huge pent up demand for it, the 45 and 90 TS-E's are crying out for the modern designs but are comparatively low volume sellers, the 400 f5.6 should have been given IS years ago, all the non sealed L's would get a sales boost from just a comparatively simple sealing update etc.