Which L lens will be the first mark III?

[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!