Which L lens will be the first mark III?

[briansquibb]

There is one shitty EF-S kitlens currently in mark III?

Yes, there's the EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III, but there is also the EF35-80mm f/4-5.6 III, and the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 made it to MkIII in both USM and non-USM versions.  Want to go further?   The EF28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 III USM was followed by MkIV and MkV versions of the same lens.

... and then they saw the light and delivered the shorty forty ....

... such was the quest to produce cheap consumer lenses even cheaper.

[dhofmann]

I'm going to go with the 200mm f/2.8L II USM prime lens, unless it acquires image stabilization, in which case it would become the 200mm f/2.8L IS USM.

The reason is because it's soft and has very low contrast wide open. Being an L-series prime, it should have better image quality than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, but it doesn't.

[Daniel Flather]

I wonder how feasible it is to have IS on fast primes.  Seems like f/2.8 is the max aperture for IS.  Does any company have IS on 35mm SLR lenses that are faster than f/2.8?

Forgotten about the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS, have we?   

.... and it is probably Canon's best lens too ....

I just love it on ff

+100

[kpk1]

My bet would be 85/1.2L III.

Agree with you.

[pwp]

My money is on the 16-35 f/2.8  for the III treatment.

PW

[bdunbar79]

Not answering the question here, but I'd say we'll definitely see the 35 f/1.2L II lens before another Mark III.  I could very well be wrong, but this is just my guess based upon all the current lenses there are.  My perfect lens though would be a 65 or 70mm f/1.4L lens. 

[Otter]

I would love to see the 16-35mm III and a 85mm 1.2 III.

[AdamJ]

I'm going to go with the 200mm f/2.8L II USM prime lens, unless it acquires image stabilization, in which case it would become the 200mm f/2.8L IS USM.

The reason is because it's soft and has very low contrast wide open. Being an L-series prime, it should have better image quality than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, but it doesn't.

You must have a bad copy. I admit I've never used one but I can't recall anyone describing that lens as soft.

Anyway, I confidently predict there will never be a 200mm f/2.8 III, nor a 200mm f/2.8 IS.

[Bosman]

Not answering the question here, but I'd say we'll definitely see the 35 f/1.2L II lens before another Mark III.  I could very well be wrong, but this is just my guess based upon all the current lenses there are.  My perfect lens though would be a 65 or 70mm f/1.4L lens. 

Oops i cross moginated this with what lens is next topic. The 35mm will def not be getting a III.lol
I do shoot 70mm a lot on the 24-70 so i would have to agree that it is a very nice focal length and at F1.4 it would be amazing!

[bdunbar79]

Sorry, I meant the 35 f/1.4L II lens would be out before any other of the lenses had a Mark III, not 1.2.  It's hard to have a 1.2 Mark II when there isn't even a Mark I of those yet I suppose? 

And yes, I agree.  When I'm using my 24-105L lens, I find myself shooting at 65-70mm at least 80-90% of the time.  Get me a 65mm f/1.4L 

[dhofmann]

I admit I've never used one but I can't recall anyone describing that lens as soft.

See for yourself. The L zoom is sharper than the L prime.

[bdunbar79]

I admit I've never used one but I can't recall anyone describing that lens as soft.

See for yourself. The L zoom is sharper than the L prime.

Yes.  The 70-200L II IS lens at 200mm is sharper than the 200mm f/2.8L lens, but not the 200mm f/2L lens. 

[Bosman]

And yes, I agree.  When I'm using my 24-105L lens, I find myself shooting at 65-70mm at least 80-90% of the time.  Get me a 65mm f/1.4L 

That or mount the 50L on APS-H, you get 65 f1.6 equivalent, the closest you can get right now.

Yes, a great combo!

[Dylan777]

How about the 16-35?

+1

It might become 14-24 f2.8

[Bosman]

If the current rumor holds true the 35LII it is!