Lenses in 2011 [CR2]

[c.d.embrey]

It's been 4 years since I've used a lens longer than 85mm, so I couldn't care less about Big Whites.

The only zoom I use is the EF-S 10-22. Don't use any zoom on full frame.

Where are the Canon equivalents to the 10.5 DX and 35 1.8 DX? The Nikon FX 24 1.4 , 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 are really excellent, Canon has some catching-up to do. Canon has never had anything like the 105 2.0DC and 135 2.0 DC lenses, why not?

i won't be selling my Canon stuff, but everything new will be Nikon. Nikon seems to be listening to me, and Canon isn't, simple as that.

[Justin]

Nothing has been taken care of as far as I am concerned. Until the 24-70 is in my hands it doesn't exist for me.

A 35L 1.4 IS upgrade would be superb. I'd like to see the holy trinity upgrades with IS and improved performance. although the 135 holds the least appeal for me, maybe upgraded to f 1.4 and given the super tele treatment?

35L is a great lens and I like using it, but it leaves something to be desired until stopped down to 2.8 or narrower. IS would help hugely at f/2.8-f/4 handheld in dark conditions.

85L 1.4 IS. This is a dream lens for me. I don't need 1.2 if it is slow to focus and doesn't deliver very good wide open performance. I've played around with the 85 1.2L II and while I see the appeal and think it should remain in the lens lineup, I think I would be better served by a faster, sharper, IS enabled 1.4 version.

135 1.4L IS. Sure, what the hell. Let's imagine it's a big honking white lens a la 200 f2L IS. But it's shorter at 135 and faster at 1.4.

Canon doesn't like to flat out replace lenses if they can help it. By adding IS and or reducing the widest aperture setting Canon can diversify its lens lineup without sacrificing the existing models.

Forget 10 (2 are super teles anyway), if I could pick 5 in 2011 here is my dream list in order of lust:

24-70 2.8L IS
12-24 2.8L
35 1.4L IS
85 1.4L IS
24-120 4L IS

I don't know if any of these are realistic but
35mm f2.0 needs an update... (with USM or less noisy motor)
Also 35mm f1.4L with IS will be awesome.

And also it's good to know that
24-70mm f2.8L IS is coming 

[Justin]

Feel your frustration. 2010 was supposed to be the year of lenses. It started great with the 70-200 2.8 IS II, but from there is got weird. I want a tele but I'm not buying one anytime soon at those prices. The 70-300 seems really redundant and looks heavy, fat, is too short at 300mm (70-400mm would have been a more noble pursuit Canon) and it has a variable aperture, blah. The zoom fisheye? For circular shots I guess--fringe.

But where are the mainstream lenses, L or otherwise?

It's been 4 years since I've used a lens longer than 85mm, so I couldn't care less about Big Whites.

The only zoom I use is the EF-S 10-22. Don't use any zoom on full frame.

Where are the Canon equivalents to the 10.5 DX and 35 1.8 DX? The Nikon FX 24 1.4 , 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 are really excellent, Canon has some catching-up to do. Canon has never had anything like the 105 2.0DC and 135 2.0 DC lenses, why not?

i won't be selling my Canon stuff, but everything new will be Nikon. Nikon seems to be listening to me, and Canon isn't, simple as that.

[epsiloneri]

The Nikon FX 24 1.4 , 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 are really excellent, Canon has some catching-up to do. Canon has never had anything like the 105 2.0DC and 135 2.0 DC lenses, why not?

I agree that many Canon primes are in dire need for update and that Nikon seem to have more attractive versions, though I would have thought  the EF 24/1.4L II to be a good match to the Nikon FX 24/1.4. I'm not too familiar with the Nikon lineup, but in what way are the Canon EF 100/2.0 USM and EF 135/2.0L USM nothing like the Nikon 105/2.0 DC and 135/2.0 DC lenses? Do the Nikons have significantly better IQ? Or do they have some other desirable property (IS? Low weight? Certainly not price?)?

[Edwin Herdman]

I don't know what's going on, but surprisingly The Digital Picture has the TS-E 24mm just trouncing the EF 24mm f/1.4.  At all shown apertures.  Even wide open, at f/3.5, the TS-E is showing about as much - if not more - detail than the EF does at f/8.  CA is better wide open on the TS-E than it is in any of the EF images.  Looking at the reflection of the window - well, not only do you perhaps see a hint of there being a screen door in the TS-E shots, but in all the TS-E shots you can clearly see the moulding on the windows has a gentle inward curve, whereas in most of the EF 24mm shots it looks flat as a plank; the details are completely blotted out.

I've personally had great experiences with my 50mm, in most situations (especially around f/8 on sunny days of course) but some recent researches has led me to be skeptical of faster lenses.

[epsiloneri]

I don't know what's going on, but surprisingly The Digital Picture has the TS-E 24mm just trouncing the EF 24mm f/1.4. 

I think it's because the the EF 24/1.4L II is strongly optimised for wide open 1.4 performance, which is very different from 3.5. It is reasonable that photographers would use the 24/1.4 wide open a lot of the time, since it's the defining feature of the lens. You may also note that the EF 24/1.4L II @ 2.8 is sharper than the EF 16-35/2.8 II @ 2.8, but the latter is sharper when both are @ 5.6.

I think it's the same optimisation that's been done for the EF 50mm/1.2L, where its much cheaper brethren beats it in terms of sharpness for smaller apertures.

So, in conclusion, if you don't care too much after low-light performance (or very shallow DOF) but are more interested in having the ultimate sharp lens (as commonly the case in landscape photography), the slower lenses might be better for you. They're also often cheaper (though not the TS-E 24/3.5L II, obviously). The only caveat is that almost all of the non-L primes are of old design, and as we know from the recent L-updates (during the last couple of years) that performance tends to improve a lot with an update.

[neuroanatomist]

I don't know what's going on, but surprisingly The Digital Picture has the TS-E 24mm just trouncing the EF 24mm f/1.4. 

I think it's because the the EF 24/1.4L II is strongly optimised for wide open 1.4 performance...

Bingo.  Fast is 'easy'.  Wide is 'easy'.  Fast and wide is a much bigger optical challenge.  I think the optimizations for the 24/1.4 and the 50/1.2 are not quite the same - the 50L is sacrificing sharpness wide open in favor of bokeh, whereas the 24/1.4 is optimized for sharpness wide open, but it's just too darn hard to achieve at that wide an angle and that wide an aperture.  You can see the effect of wider angle in the pair of wide TS-E lenses - the 17mm f/4 is slower (a little, anyway) than the 24mm f/3.5, but the 24mm is much sharper especially in corners.

[Edwin Herdman]

Sure, that seems to be a fair general statement.  I suppose I could've said I didn't know exactly what's going on; knowledge what sort of tradeoffs are being made is the stuff of trade secrets.

It does present an interesting quandary that I imagine was less apparent to many photographers before the current time:  In the days of the first consumer zooms (I have an old generic green manual for FD zoom lenses on the table next to me) your choices were either for a zoom lens - convenience at the cost of quality, which is still true, though not as much as then - or for a fast prime, as the fast aperture was so often needed to give a good exposure even with fast films.  Like Barry Lyndon - today Stanley Kubrick wouldn't need to use f/0.7 lenses, and probably wouldn't bother tracking them down for empty bragging rights.  (I wonder what he would think of camera movements, though.)  Now that sensitivity is less of an issue than it once was, some optics are being designed that (sheer speculation ahead) pack more resolution into an area at a given f-ratio than a higher f-ratio would allow.  (Why this is I am still trying to research, but it makes sense that it would be the case.)

[L-Fletcher]

I can see the 100-400mm being updated. Possibly would have some reduction of the dust problems.

I don't think there will be any update of the EF-S line, at least in the first part of next year, anyway. I don't see the 17-55mm being updated, and as Canon has updated their 100mm macro within the past 1+1/2 years, I don't think the 60mm being updated is entirely feasible. But it's possible.

What I do see is a new kit lens being released with a new line of xxxD's (Rebel bodies), in the next few years (first quarter 2012). Whether it'll be a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II or something else entirely, I'm not sure. But Canon will most likely upgrade their kit lenses to match the rising sensor resolutions.

[L-Fletcher]

Oh, by the way - a tangent here... should this not be posted in the lenses section?