Most requested lenses for replacement?

[Razor2012]

IS with anything slower such as the 400 5.6.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Non-L primes: add ring USM, faster aperture, better IQ, more apreture blades, and IS where applicable - 20mm f/2 USM, 24mm f/2 USM, 35mm f/2 USM, 50mm f/1.4 [IS would be nice for APS-C cameras], 85mm f/1.8 IS USM, 135mm f/1.8 IS USM.

A new lens to compete with the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8

A big, healthy, resounding upgrade to my wallet, so I could buy all of the above, as well as the 8-15mm f/4 L, TS-E 17mm f/4 L, and 200mm f/2 L IS USM.

[Marsu42]

Non-L primes: add ring USM, faster aperture, better IQ, more apreture blades, and IS where applicable

Since there are the L primes, why don't you just ask Canon to write you a paycheck? However, I agree with you that the micro usm like on the 50/1.4 really needs to phased out, there are enough other things to distinguish lenses.

[tron]

#3 - 35mm 1.4 L - sharpness, CA (very badly needs updating, 14 year old design, Nikon's is much much better)

It is rummored to be very sharp appart from the edges/corners at f/1.4 - f/2.0 . However when someone uses such an open aperture they use it to photo people who are not at the extremes. Since I haven't this lens (but I'd love to) and I would use it for astrophotography I would like an improved 35mm f/1.4. It would cost almost the double though...

#4 - 135mm f/2.0 L - aperture, image stabilization (16 year old design, there are plenty of 135mm f/1.8 lenses around, would love to see f/1.8 + IS, like a mini 200mm f/2.0 IS)

I have that lens and I believe it's close to being perfect. True, IS would help but:
There is always the danger that IS could subtract a little sharpness unless the price doubles (see 70-200 f/2.8L IS II vs. 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS)

#5 - 16-35mm f/2.8 II L - sharpness, CA - (it's a good lens but Nikon's 14-24mm gives it a run for it's money)

I agree. I do have the version I with the known problems around 16mm but the version II has problems in the longer part. So I am stuck with version I until (possibly) a very good version III...

[RLPhoto]

For me These lenses would be nice to see an update.

1. 50mm 1.4, seriously needs a revamp.

2. 135mm f/2, Fabulous lens but F1.8 and IS would just make it an utter stunner. i'd pay 2000$+ for that, as long as they keep it black also.

3. The canon 35mm primes both need a revamp. The F/2 isnt great and the 35mm 1.4L isn't as good as the 24mm L II update and shows thats its overdue for a revamp.

4. An 200mm DO F/2 under 5000$ would be nice also but a pipe dream at best.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Non-L primes: add ring USM, faster aperture, better IQ, more apreture blades, and IS where applicable

Since there are the L primes, why don't you just ask Canon to write you a paycheck? However, I agree with you that the micro usm like on the 50/1.4 really needs to phased out, there are enough other things to distinguish lenses.

I'll settle for non-L primes and half a check

And on a serious note - I'm griping about the prices Canon charge for upgraded lenses. If those lenses were released with a reasonable price tag, I'd be happy to buy and/or upgrade them one by one over time. If I made a living off my equipment (I wish I did, I wish I did, I wish I did), maybe I could afford all L lenses, but as I don't, I have to opt for the non-L & used lenses.

[tron]

How about a new version of the 400/5.6L adding IS.  Also, now that Canon has boosted the price of the big white lenses to beyond reason, maybe a 500/5.6L with IS also...

+2
Two excellent ideas !!

[briansquibb]

70-300L ===> f/4 throughout the range

[Marsu42]

70-300L ===> f/4 throughout the range

But if this would add 500g (not to speak of the price tag), I'd rather stay with the current design or carry around a 70-200L + tc :-o

[unfocused]

70-300L ===> f/4 throughout the range

I never understood why they didn't do this in the first place. They could have priced it in the range of the 70-200 2.8II and still done well. I'm afraid that the current 70-300 L probably precludes this from happening.

How about a new version of the 400/5.6L adding IS.  Also, now that Canon has boosted the price of the big white lenses to beyond reason, maybe a 500/5.6L with IS also...

+2
Two excellent ideas !!

Agreed.

How about a 200 f2.8 with IS?

Some wide EF-S primes (15mm, 22mm) would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.

I used to want a new 100-400mm but upon hearing the rumored price, not so much anymore. I'll make do with the current version.

[briansquibb]

How about a 200 f2.8 with IS?

The 200 II is f/2.0 and has IS

[unfocused]

How about a 200 f2.8 with IS?

The 200 II is f/2.0 and has IS

It's also $6,000.

[briansquibb]

How about a 200 f2.8 with IS?

The 200 II is f/2.0 and has IS

It's also $6,000.

Well we all know that Canon has a price hike for the Mk2

I have both - and the f/2.0 version is so much better!!

[RC]

35L II with WS, and please keep the price increase reasonable.   

That sounds like the next offer for extended flame wars after the 5d3 :-p ... what would you consider "reasonable" for added sealing & the same iq (which can get hardly any better)?

20 - 25% seems reasonable to me. 

#3 - 35mm 1.4 L - sharpness, CA (very badly needs updating, 14 year old design, Nikon's is much much better)

It is rummored to be very sharp appart from the edges/corners at f/1.4 - f/2.0 . However when someone uses such an open aperture they use it to photo people who are not at the extremes. Since I haven't this lens (but I'd love to) and I would use it for astrophotography I would like an improved 35mm f/1.4. It would cost almost the double though...

100% price increase is unreasonable. 

[pwp]

Personally I'd like to see the 135mm f/2 L get upgraded AFTER I buy this current version. A new one will undoubtedly be out of my price range.

There would definitely be a price hike, but if/when there is a new 135 f/2 I'd expect large numbers of mint condition pre-owned copies hitting the market as upgraditis kicks in.

PW