Most requested lenses for replacement?

[vlim]

I want a new version with an IS II and weather sealing of the 300 f/4 L IS !!!

[dilbert]

17-40L - corners are woeful and the distortion is barely tolerable at less than 20mm. Great on a crop camera but terrible on FF. And the 16-35 isn't that much better.

[crasher8]

When I go FF it will be difficult to not keep a crop body around because besides weather sealing I just can't see too many reasons why the 16-35 and 17-40 are better than the 10-22. Love that lens. So I'd say something in between the 16-35 and 17-40 pricepoints ~ 1000-1200, and better wide open and corner sharpness. Perhaps a 2.8 17-40.

[dilbert]

What would be really nice would be a wide angle prime (17mm, 19mm or 21mm) from either Canon or Sigma or Tamron at 4.0 or faster with autofocus. Then I could ditch the 17-40 completely if they got the IQ right. Unfortunately the only wide angle primes in this space are all Zeis...

[whatta]

50 1.4 usm
28 1.8 usm II or ef-s 30 1.4 (a standard fast prime for crop)

[whatta]

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

if there had been an affordable efs 15/2.8 maybe I would not have bought the 15-85..

[awinphoto]

I wouldn't say the 17-40 is woeful by any means, I also wouldn't be upset if they refreshed it provided A) they keep it 77mm, and B) keep it under the 1K mark... 

[KitsVancouver]

I wouldn't say the 17-40 is woeful by any means, I also wouldn't be upset if they refreshed it provided A) they keep it 77mm, and B) keep it under the 1K mark...

It depends on your definition of "woeful", but I would say it is.  I believe the other poster was referencing FF performance and in that respect, the 17-40 is very weak in the corners with respect to sharpness.  The 16-35 Mk II may cost way more but it's definitely better.  The sad thing is that the 16-35 Mk II isn't that great either. 

I agree with all the posters that 50mm nees a good solid entry from Canon.  In the film days, it was what I shot with more than anything.  Now I own 7 L lenses but not one 50mm. 

[dilbert]

I wouldn't say the 17-40 is woeful by any means, I also wouldn't be upset if they refreshed it provided A) they keep it 77mm, and B) keep it under the 1K mark...

It depends on your definition of "woeful", but I would say it is.  I believe the other poster was referencing FF performance and in that respect, the 17-40 is very weak in the corners with respect to sharpness.  The 16-35 Mk II may cost way more but it's definitely better.  The sad thing is that the 16-35 Mk II isn't that great either. 

Precisely.

Whilst an ultra-wide angle lens such as a 14-24 (http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-14-24-f2-8l-cr2/) may solve some problems, below about 17 or 19 is just too wide. And then there are the issues with filters because of the curvature of the front lens element (i.e. I wouldn't buy the Nikon 14-24 either.)

I agree with all the posters that 50mm nees a good solid entry from Canon.  In the film days, it was what I shot with more than anything.  Now I own 7 L lenses but not one 50mm.

Interesting!

At least the Sigma 50/1.4 offers some salvation in terms of IQ.

For Canon wide angle (less than 24mm), there is nothing.

[Razor2012]

I wouldn't say the 17-40 is woeful by any means, I also wouldn't be upset if they refreshed it provided A) they keep it 77mm, and B) keep it under the 1K mark...

It depends on your definition of "woeful", but I would say it is.  I believe the other poster was referencing FF performance and in that respect, the 17-40 is very weak in the corners with respect to sharpness.  The 16-35 Mk II may cost way more but it's definitely better.  The sad thing is that the 16-35 Mk II isn't that great either. 

Precisely.

Whilst an ultra-wide angle lens such as a 14-24 (http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-14-24-f2-8l-cr2/) may solve some problems, below about 17 or 19 is just too wide. And then there are the issues with filters because of the curvature of the front lens element (i.e. I wouldn't buy the Nikon 14-24 either.)

I agree with all the posters that 50mm nees a good solid entry from Canon.  In the film days, it was what I shot with more than anything.  Now I own 7 L lenses but not one 50mm.

Interesting!

At least the Sigma 50/1.4 offers some salvation in terms of IQ.

For Canon wide angle (less than 24mm), there is nothing.

17mm f4L TS, 14mm 2.8L II and the 8-15 f4L.   

[awinphoto]

I wouldn't say the 17-40 is woeful by any means, I also wouldn't be upset if they refreshed it provided A) they keep it 77mm, and B) keep it under the 1K mark...

It depends on your definition of "woeful", but I would say it is.  I believe the other poster was referencing FF performance and in that respect, the 17-40 is very weak in the corners with respect to sharpness.  The 16-35 Mk II may cost way more but it's definitely better.  The sad thing is that the 16-35 Mk II isn't that great either. 

I agree with all the posters that 50mm nees a good solid entry from Canon.  In the film days, it was what I shot with more than anything.  Now I own 7 L lenses but not one 50mm.

While I do not wish to start another debate about the 17-40, I do have to say that i'm in agreement that the lens does have room for improvement.  That being said, the copy I got has been used on crop and full frame... pictures from it has been published to magazines, catalogs, etc..  AT LEAST FOR MY COPY, i would say it's not bad.  At the 24-40 range, I will grab my 24-105 over the 17-40 in almost any situation, but for me, when shooting in raw, how I do my edits and such, the 17-40 gives me just enough to keep me using it and keep it's place in my bag.  Now if canon were to come out with a new version with even sharper pictures and keep the price reasonable, then by all means my 17-40 will end up on craigslist pretty quickly... but until then, it will be my UWA lens in my bag. 

[KitsVancouver]

If you don't pixel peep, you're not likely to notice the imperfections of any lens.  Since I've never worked in print publication, I can't comment, but as a pixel peeper (self admittedly), I feel the 17-40 is quite weak (sharpness wise). 

I have the 17mm TS-E and from my pixel peeping, it is about on par if not a teeny weeny bit less sharp in the center as the 16-35.  However, in the corners, the 17 mm TS-E blows the 16-35 out of the water.  Not even close.  The challenge with the 17 mm TS-E is that it is manual only focus.  I bought that lens this year for a trip to Italy and noticed for myself, I was paying a lot more attention and time on shots because of the manual focus and the protruding element. 

[awinphoto]

If you don't pixel peep, you're not likely to notice the imperfections of any lens.  Since I've never worked in print publication, I can't comment, but as a pixel peeper (self admittedly), I feel the 17-40 is quite weak (sharpness wise). 

I have the 17mm TS-E and from my pixel peeping, it is about on par if not a teeny weeny bit less sharp in the center as the 16-35.  However, in the corners, the 17 mm TS-E blows the 16-35 out of the water.  Not even close.  The challenge with the 17 mm TS-E is that it is manual only focus.  I bought that lens this year for a trip to Italy and noticed for myself, I was paying a lot more attention and time on shots because of the manual focus and the protruding element.

That's a great lens... If i had a need where I could justify that purchase, I definitely would...  As far as pixel peeping...  from what i have played with, I shot with that lens and had it outputted on A3 and 16x20 paper...  I had plenty of detail for my tastes in the corners...  Although the center subject of my shot admittedly, was in the center (architectural) and it worked great for me...  I have no doubt if I took the same shot and composed it so the main focal point of the shot was in the extremities of the shot, I would be less than blown away, but I suppose for what I ask of it and what it gives me, It never has let me down.  It's not perfect and i dont have my head in the sand, but from my personal experience, very few, and i mean a select few, outperform it.  (16-35 II, 17 TSE, 17-55 on crop, and the 14-24)  that's pretty good company to be in and considerably cheaper than all of those....

[wickidwombat]

I want a new version with an IS II and weather sealing of the 300 f/4 L IS !!!

for sure! also keep the integrated lens hood, love that thing

[TeenTog]

I would say that the most needed lens for replacement is the 50 1.8 Yes it is canon's cheapest lens at the moment, but it could use a serious upgrade. The manual focusing ring is tiny, which doesn't make it an ideal lens for macro. (hey, i'm on a really tiny budget). Also, the construction is really bad, it fells like i would crush it if I held it too tightly. However, I was very pleased when the 40mm came out, it sounds like a fairly decent lens.