Rumored 10 new lenses, 5 of which (CR) mentioned...

[photogaz]

135/2 is old, but is there anything wrong with it?

Exactly, Canon aren't going to replace a lens that can't be improved because its so great.  The only thing would be f1.8 or IS.  It's fairly lightweight and I just can't see them doing it.

[jwong]

135/2 is old, but is there anything wrong with it?

Exactly, Canon aren't going to replace a lens that can't be improved because its so great.  The only thing would be f1.8 or IS.  It's fairly lightweight and I just can't see them doing it.

Agreed.  Will people still think it's great if Canon doubles the price for marginal increase in IQ?

[jwong]

I own a Canon EOS 60D.
All I have is EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS.

I would like to have an EF-S 45-135 F2.0 IS (Make it F2.8 if bigger than the 17-55 F2.8 IS).

If Canon do not provide high end lenses for cropped bodies, we have to use EF lenses.
Then, EF 85 F1.8 and EF 135 F2.0 primes must have an IS version.

There isn't much of an advantage in size for EF-S when focal lengths get longer; the max focal length over max f/stop is much larger than the FF sensor already.  If Canon were to make an EF-S 45-135 f/2, and would be more expensive than the existing 135L.  How big of a market is there for a 2k lens that would only work on crop bodies?

[neuroanatomist]

135/2 is old, but is there anything wrong with it?

Exactly, Canon aren't going to replace a lens that can't be improved because its so great.  The only thing would be f1.8 or IS.  It's fairly lightweight and I just can't see them doing it.

What was 'wrong' with the 300mm f/2.8L IS or the 500mm f/4L IS?  Not a helluva lot.  But Canon would rather sell you the MkII versions costing 50% more.  If nothing else, the 135L lacks weather sealing.  But consider...Canon developed a zoom lens (70-200 II) that pretty much equals that excellent prime for IQ.  A prime should be better, and with modern design the 135L could be better.  A 135L II would not surprise me at all. 

[frisk]

What was 'wrong' with the 300mm f/2.8L IS or the 500mm f/4L IS?  Not a helluva lot.  But Canon would rather sell you the MkII versions costing 50% more.  If nothing else, the 135L lacks weather sealing.  But consider...Canon developed a zoom lens (70-200 II) that pretty much equals that excellent prime for IQ.  A prime should be better, and with modern design the 135L could be better.  A 135L II would not surprise me at all.

True, but....

I have a fair collection of lenses (including 9 "L" lenses), and while I am very happy with some of them, there are a few where I wouldn't mind getting an improved version.  Now, in my case, the 135mm lens is one of those I am very happy with - I do not consider the lens to be limiting me in any way, and even if there was an upgrade, I probably would not switch...and I don't think I'm alone in having that opinion.

Sure, some people might be tempted, if Canon introduced a 135mm II version with IS, but otherwise...well, I just don't see this making any sense.  Old or not, it is just a top-notch lens.

[dr croubie]

Old or not, it is just a top-notch lens.

I was thinking about the 135L again, and look at it another way. They made a lens, that great, 20-30 years ago.
Just imagine what they could do now, with better materials, better glass, most importantly better coatings, they already had fluorite back then but didn't use it, maybe they would in a II. Such a lens would have to improve on the current 135L, and if it did, it would be stunning...

[neuroanatomist]

Old or not, it is just a top-notch lens.

I was thinking about the 135L again, and look at it another way. They made a lens, that great, 20-30 years ago.
Just imagine what they could do now, with better materials, better glass, most importantly better coatings, they already had fluorite back then but didn't use it, maybe they would in a II. Such a lens would have to improve on the current 135L, and if it did, it would be stunning...

I've got a 135L among my collection of L lenses, too, and it's an amazing lens.  But the above is exactly my point. - consider the change from the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MkI to MkII, and extrapolate that to the 135L. 

[bchernicoff]

L-series versions of the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses.

+1 for the 90mm. That would make life complete.

In what way do find the 90mm lacking? Or do you just want the red ring?

[Deeohuu]

L-series versions of the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses.

+1 for the 90mm. That would make life complete.

In what way do find the 90mm lacking? Or do you just want the red ring?

I want the flexibility of the newer 17mm and 24mm design that offers independent tilt and shift mechanisms. I am indifferent to marketing decorations.

[jwong]

L-series versions of the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses.

+1 for the 90mm. That would make life complete.

In what way do find the 90mm lacking? Or do you just want the red ring?

TS rotation would be nice!

[neuroanatomist]

L-series versions of the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses.

+1 for the 90mm. That would make life complete.

In what way do find the 90mm lacking? Or do you just want the red ring?

To clarify, the original TS-E lenses have tilt and shift fixed at a 90 degree orientation to each other. It can be changed, but to do so requires disassembling the lens.  The new L versions (17mm and 24mm II) allow altering the orientations of tilt and shift on-the-fly - and it's a great feature.

[bchernicoff]

To clarify, the original TS-E lenses have tilt and shift fixed at a 90 degree orientation to each other. It can be changed, but to do so requires disassembling the lens.  The new L versions (17mm and 24mm II) allow altering the orientations of tilt and shift on-the-fly - and it's a great feature.

Ah, I only own the 90mm and wasn't aware of this feature.

[neuroanatomist]

To clarify, the original TS-E lenses have tilt and shift fixed at a 90 degree orientation to each other. It can be changed, but to do so requires disassembling the lens.  The new L versions (17mm and 24mm II) allow altering the orientations of tilt and shift on-the-fly - and it's a great feature.

Ah, I only own the 90mm and wasn't aware of this feature.

I only own the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, but I use the rotation so frequently that I wouldn't even consider the 45mm or 90mm versions without it (90mm would be my preference - I can use the 2x Extender on the 24mm if I need ~45mm, and the optical performance is decent because the 24 II is so damn sharp to start with).

[Edwin Herdman]

Shooting the 135mm f/2L recently on the 7D, I got the impression that it was very nearly being limited by the sensor and its AA filter.

I would definitely like an update to the 50mm f/1.4.

Though the TS-E 90mm could use an update for rotation, it hasn't proven to be a make-or-break issue for me.  I think it might be more useful for the EF lineup on balance to get a longer TS-E with the new movements.

[dvdbrm]

How old is the 50mm 1.2 ? Isnt that due for an update?