An evolving prime lineup.
Received a very cryptic email this AM about some upcoming lens upgrades. The following 3 lenses were mentioned.
50 f/1.2L II
Improved AF performance and new coatings. Optical elements to remain the same.
85 f/1.2L III
Improved AF speed and new coatings. Optical elements to remain the same.
135 f/2L IS
Image stabilization added, as well as the new coatings. Optical elements to remain the same.
Probability?
I’m not sure, I’ve received snippets of info about the 85 and 135 getting upgraded.
If all they’re doing with the 50 and 85 is adding new electronics and coatings to the lenses, it’s quite possible they’ll get an upgrade. Adding IS to the 135L makes some sense.
I’m still surprised I haven’t heard anything about a 35L upgrade.
CR1 this one with a smaller grain of salt than you’d think.
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
50mm upgrade would be welcome!
yes, but also a 50 1.4 upgrade…
I love the 135f2…An IS enabled version that retains the fast focus and excellent image quality would be great.
So much for the “Cheap Primes” rumor from yesterday. Lots of confusing things going on right now…
What spoils this rumor for me is that for an upgraded 135L with IS, the optical elements would “remain the same”. I doubt they can just take the existing optical design and use one of the lens elements there as the moving element within an IS unit.
Probably a wishlist. But then why didn’t they make that a 85L IS as well? ;-)
85 L III ? Stupid!
The 35L, 50L and 135L are overdue… but thats nothing new, and no reason to start a CR1 rumor.
I’d believe the 135L IS. It’s 14 years old. The 50 and 85 are only 4 years old. The 85 II is only 4 years old but it wasn’t redesigned from it’s 80’s version. So I wouldn’t be surprised if it got updated. It might make more sense to update it to a super version of 85 1.2L IS. (for wedding work, not studio)
It’s becoming apparent that Canon’s standard primes are becoming dated. Sigma has made serious strides in the 30-85mm range and is kind of embarrassing canon right now. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some refresh across this range over the next 3 years.
Yeah… Also, looking at history, Canon doesn’t upgrade lenses so frequently. The 50 f/1.2 and 85 f/1.2 are relatively new. So none of this really makes much sense.
Judging from the lack of substantial and realistic rumors, it seems like Canon’s being very good about keeping things secret.
At the same time, 135f2 could use some aspherical glass…it will drasically improve image quality in the corners when you stop it a little.
Adding Is could be great really, this lense is for prortraiture in low light environments, dampening the handshaking could help photographer get sharper shots.
I most disapointed with the non-IF design of the 85L and 50L, and for the latter, the lack of floating elements like the 85L (great lense really…lot of CA though). This is when you compare the L and non-L lenses performances side by side (ie 100mm macro f2.8 and 100mm macro f2.8 IS, 85 f1.2L and 85 f1.8, or 50 f1.2 and a 50 f1.4) that you realize that if you take care your lenses, and avoid having the sun in your field of vision, you have real workhorses, for only a fraction of the price…
The 135 f2 is unmatched though…I would like an updated glass formula to withstand the upcoming 32Mp+ 1ds4
The 50mm f/1.2L & the 85mm f/1.2L II are both four years old, it usually takes Canon a longer time to upgrade lenses.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but the 85mm f/1.2L is a portrait lens, I don’t see why improving the AF speed being a high priority.
IMHO, Canon would be better off upgrading the wider, older, and cheaper lenses.
+1 to this!
Don’t forget the majority of the consumer base that won’t shell out $1200+ for a lens!
I totally agree on this point. all the 20 f2.8 (I own one, great but outdated), 24, 28, 35 non-L lenses…Are all from the early 90s…The problem is that Canon is having a lot of trouble improving WA lenses…The thing is : If they just update the formula for 20mm f2.8, 24 or 28, adding an UD lense…and / or aspherical lenses without L construction, they would be selling them very fast. Look at the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM…The construction sucks, it is a very fragile lense, but on the 70-200 range, it is on par with L 70-200 (not the latest f2.8 II obviously), and it features a single UD lense.
The same for my 50mm f1.4…it is so fragile, and a lot of gaps could occur in the mechanics, making focusing inconsistent…
Not all of us use our lenses as weapons for fighting tigers in india or fundamental muslim in Afghanistan, but we do appreciate decent construction. It’s high time Canon update theirWA and standard non L primes (I have been saying that for a long time).
But considering the performances of WA L lenses…Any update would be, for sure, better than what’s existing today. If I was not lacking the money, I would be working with an adapter and the Nikon 14-24 for my landscape work. I tried with a pro friend of mine, It’s stunning…and the difference scale is so huge you don’t see any difference between 16-35 f2.8 II, 17-40 f4, 20mm f2.8, 24 f1.4L…
for myself I wait for an updated 17-40 with IS…in fact, any WA update would be good to take.
+2
I’d like a good 50mm, but could not justify the 1.2
I agree with Kaz. In order to add IS, they have to interrupt the optical path. You can’t do that without changing the optical design.
I actually don’t think IS is needed on this lens. I can hold this lens more steady than I can the 50mm f/1.8 lens, and I’m talking about the motion visible at the image level.
This is because I always shoot with the hood on, and I hold the camera with my right hand while holding the lens/hood with my left. The extra length of the lens with its hood makes it quite stable. The hood attaches to the lens quite firmly.
If I really need to hold stably and I don’t need to manually focus, I’ll move my left hand out to the end of the hood.
This trick doesn’t work so well with lenses longer than the 135 because for longer lenses you have to move your elbow away from your body — well, I do, anyway.
And if their current price increases on other newly released lenses holds true, they will charge and extra 300-400 dollars for these upgrades.
Where the hell is the 35 L MK II ?
135L IS would be a killer, but I kind of doubt this as it would be too good.
Canon hates giving people exactly what they want.
So they would do something to kill it, like make it f2.8 or give it some sort of focus problem or something.
67% BS. 2 of those 3 lenses are recent releases. Only the 135L is aging, but its IQ is still unmatched, adding IS would just complicate the optical power distribution and introduce chronic lens element decentering.
Better candidates for new releases would be an updated 35L, EF-S 30/1.4, 50/1.4 ring USM w/ FTM, 14-24/2.8 and the long-rumored 24-70 IS.
CR0 on this one, nice try though.
I say no way on the 50L and 85L. Those will not get updated for next 4-5 years.
Honestly, I don’t think rumors like this should be even posted.
I don’t consider this even a rumor. Adding IS with the same optics is stupid.
4 years is kind of a short period for lens update. It is a surprising news, and it is still a surprise even by rumor standard. After, that is nothing else in the market quite like it and the results it can produce is superb, it is my favorite lens. Even people who are not into photography can tell the difference this lens makes.
On the other hand, it is quite common to cut cost in manufacturing, maybe Canon found a new way to reduce cost. So at the end of the day, a cost-reduced 85LIII and at the same time increase the price of the lens by a few hundred bucks to 1k. Most important of all, people will be paying for it. Why not?
I’m not happy that my beautiful 85mm f1.2 is really ONLY good for stationary subjects, better AF would definitely be appreciated.
To that end I created my own rumor. It’s obviously not real but you can’t blame a guy for dreaming
http://www.velodramatic.com/archives/5293
+3
I want the Canon 50 f/1.4 to be MUCH more rugged and, wide open, optically as good as the Sigma, for a lot less money than the 1.2.
Apparently, indoor sports photographers would like to use the 85 f/1.2 but it’s too slow to focus.
You’re kidding, right? He looks a lot less ridiculous right now than you do.
I own the 135 f/2. My bet is that it’ll do just fine at 32MP FF. Remember that the 7D sensor would be 46MP expanded to FF.
Actually, I’m impressed that he leaves your posts here. I’ve been known to lambast as well, but primarily in jest.
When a thread such as this is running, your only making yourself look rediculous. How about redirecting you rage inward.
That would be interesting.
+4
I am looking at upgrading my 20 year old 50 f/1.8 to the 1.4, but I hear the lens may be a hit or miss, so I am hopeful that this will be upgraded.
I have seen the 50 f/1.2, and it is a great lens, but I am with others on shelling out $1200 for a 50mm lens…
I think that they are upgrading the 50 f/1.4 and not the 1.2. This would make a lot more sense, and I think it is a move that would bring in way more profit.
More people are apt to buying a lens in the ~$500 range, than a $1200+
Plus, I can’t see the design of the 1.4 changing so dramatically that they would lose money…
I can understand the 135L having IS added….yes I’d buy one in an instant. But the 85L really doesn’t need any attention. It’s already a stunning performer.
The real odd ball here is the 50L, what’s the point of updating it but leaving the current optics alone? It’s probably Canon’s worst performing L lens when shot wide open. It really needs a proper floating design to put it in the 50L and 85L league.
If Canon actually fixes the 50 1.2 focus shift problem, then that is good. But from the above reports that is not what Canon will be fixing, so a waste of time.
The 85 1.2 is slow to focus, which is why I have stayed away form it for my photography. If Canon speeds-up the AF Speed I would revisit this lens.
On IS on the 135 2.0 is why I have stayed with my 70-200 2.8 IS. I would revisit the 135 if it has IS, and even more so if it goes to f/1.8…..lots of photographers are selling their 135’s to get the new 70-200 2.8 IS II
we all can be really SURE that Canon will UPGRADE ALL !!! L Lenses in the very near Future. Becourse the Lens New Factory is working well. And it is nessecary to compete and stay in the Marked. Wait for the Photokina this Year in Colone/Germany. The Photokina is **the one and only Pro.Fair**. cheers Andre
My 85IIL is slightly sharper across the aperture range than my 135L on both my 5DII’s and 7D. BUT, both are increadilbly sharp and contrasty. Optically, there is little to be improved with either lenses. The 135L could easily be stretched to an f1.8 design and still retain a 77mm filter thread….that would be sweet…as would an IS unit.
The 50L needs a ground up redesign….it pales next to the other L giants.
I bought the Sigma 50 1.4….just couldn’t wait any more for Canon to fix their 50 1.4 and could justify the price of the 50 1.2 and the focus shift problem.
In fact every 50mm prime I looked at had/has some issue. You would think this would be the one lens with no problems, the more time tested, the more evolved.
Ya, how many lenses can Canon make in a year?
4 is normal I think. Is 6 max?
What are they going to fix with a Mk II 35L? Make it out of solid unobtainium? Put in a 5 stop IS system to please the noobs?
The single thing that I’d like to see in a MkII is weather sealing, other than that it’s virtually perfect.
I actually prefer the bokeh on the 135 vs the 85 and it’s 40% cheaper adn lighter….
I wouldn’t mind seeing IS if they can do it without drastically increasing the size but I doubt it…
As for 1.8 vs. 2 – i just don’t think it’s worth making the lens bigger for 1/3 stop…down to 1.4 then maybe but that would be a big front element…
Somehow the only thing coming out of Canon’s RD is CR1,
while nikon has brought new lenses to the market.
I have been saving my money for a new lens but I want to buy it at the right time. My choice is the 135 f2.0L and its incredible as it is but IS would be nice. I would hate to buy it and the Is version comes out later in the year.
we need CR3 for at least 1 lens .. what ever it is
You would think that, wouldn’t you.
Baloney!
Although I think the prbability of the 135L IS is much greater than a 50L II or an 85L III. But I am surprised there’s no mention of the 35L. Sounds like someone’s wishlist sent to you as a fake rumor. I think the 35L will be updated sooner than any of them.
it’s not only about pixel density, but also the image circle, and the consistency of the resolution across the frame. APS-C just get the sweet spot of the image circle.
A FF sensor will inevitably face resolution degradation in the corner of the frame. As you said I am sure the 135 f2 performs just fine with the High density pixel sensors of the 7d. Resolution power is the highest in the center of the frame (Never tried though). I have face resolution degradation in the corners with 5d2 and 1ds3, wide open. The performance are truly excellent comparing to other lenses, but I am sure a 1996 design could be improved nowadays, especially with the huge progresses of Canon in Aspheric glass production.
Where I live, sales of L primes are so low, stores will only order them if a client asks for them. Ordering the 85 f/1.2L II would require a none refundable down payment of ~20%.
The EF 50mm f/1.8 mkII, on the other hand, sells very well. People’s descriptions border on the ‘we get something for nothing’.
My impression is that upgraded cheap WA primes (= from 20mm to 50mm) would have significant sales, while upgraded L primes would hardly reach the stores.
[I bought a 5D mk II. I bought a TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. I can buy an 85mm f/1.2L II, but I didn’t buy it even when a used copy was offered at 35% discount. If Canon upgrades the WA cheap primes, I will probably buy one or two. If Canon upgrades the L primes, I’ll definitely buy a Sigma circular fisheye.]
adding IS to the already-superb optics is the only that could ever possibly persuade me to part with my copy of the 135L. I’ll be following with interest.
Has the rumor about a possible 24-70is died a death now?
I would pay an extra $500 for a 135l IS. And probably will have to, too.
They could wrk on CA, sharpness wide-open, vignetting, better bokeh, etc.
Lenses always have room for improvement. Is it a priority considering the other lenses that could use updating??
Probably not.
Not me. I’d rather get the Mark I. It has better bokeh. But I’m keeping my 135.
This sums up my thoughts pretty well.
And I’m no optical engineer, but my understanding is that IS is effectively an additional lens element, so I agree with Grummbearbauer and Kaz that other optical elements in the 135mm could not just remain the same. IS would be attractive on that lens, though. I’d like to buy the current model, but continue to rent it periodically just because I think it’s so due for an update.
Except for the IS on the 135 (with optical changes), I’d have given this rumor CR0.
Upgrading the 1.2 lenses is if zero interest to me. I don’t own them now and won’t own them in the future, though I *might* consider 85mm 1.2 *if* it could be made smaller and lighter, and actually focus faster than molasses in January.
It would also be nice to make it a little less expensive, though I won’t hold my breath for that one.
I’d prefer they just drop the 85mm down to 1.4, as Nikon and Sigma seem to be able to make a MUCH smaller and lighter lens just by doing that. Presumably Canon could do the same. To me, f/1.2 is much more of an “impressive number” than a usable aperture, so I’m very disinclined to pay the extra money for it, L glass notwithstanding.
I’d probably never actually take a photo at f/1.4. To me the utility of 1.4 is more in the realm of easier/faster manual focusing than in actually using it to take pictures.
> Maybe I’m missing something here, but the 85mm f/1.2L is a
> portrait lens, I don’t see why improving the AF speed being
> a high priority.
No lens is *just* a portrait lens or *just* and landscape lens.
For photographers like me who work many more events than portraits, a no-brainer application for 85mm 1.2 would be basketball, gymnastics or diving, but the AF on this lens simply cannot reliably keep up. Even the manual focus is unbearably slow.
now this is simply insane
focus shift, mocus shift the 50 is perfect, so is the 85
now the 135 is aging a bit, a IS would be very good addition including weather sealing and some new coatings
how about the second two for 35 1.2 ?
It does say CR1, and the definition of CR1 is new source or far fetched rumor. This is far fetched. Therefore, CR1 seems appropriate.
Utter nonsense! Canon’s L series lenses are competing very well indeed.
Sadly, I think they will add IS to the 135mm, but I will stay with my current model. It is a superb design, and has served me well.
The 85mm f/1.2 works well – it focuses faster on a 1 series body…
I agree with the suggestions that this is someone’s wish list, unconnected to reality.
guys pls dont forget canon is gettin big time reports from hollywood and cinematographers worldwide (seems they kicked nikons ass bigtime by accident) – we need solid primes, and guess canon hates to see all of us buying zeiss primes atm. my bet is they will bring at some point new EF USM (non L) primes with better and longer manual focus.
besides – IS works amazing on video with these cams, and i would love any of the primes gettin an IS from canon. would reconsider using them for handheld footage.
just my 2 cents.
The 135/2 becomes a FAR more useful lens with IS. Right now I use the 70-200/2.8L IS II all the time, while the 135 sits at home. Most of my low-light event work doesn’t permit handholding a non-stabilized 135mm. You can be a hair-shirt about it and brag about your ability to handhold the current lens, or we can have a lens that’s easy to use when you have to be on the move and can’t brace yourself carefully all the time.
Put IS on that 135/2, and you’d have a killer lens. On the !D and xD cameras it would be even better.
Any AF issues with the sigma at distant subjects?
“SADLY, I think they will add IS to the 135mm”???
Why are you sad? If you don’t need IS, and you’re happy with the excellent optics on the current design, you have nothing to be sad about. You already have the current model. If you don’t, you can buy them all over the place now. Heck, if an updated model comes out with IS, I’ll sell you mine!
CR0
gimme a 14-24!
This rumor is from a no brainer. Canon just updated 85 and released the 50 few years back. Probability is just nil. What canon need to catch up is the zooms eg 16-35 and 24-70. And also the 35L is overdue. 135 may get updated but its their best seller and I dont think its their priority to get it updated.
i don’t think so
the only lens with issue is the 50 1.2
the 85 1.2 & 135 are perfect
the weak is the 50 1.4 ,the af is really delicate and easy to die quickly
OK, learned something new.
Given 70-200 2.8L mk2 sharper focus but worse bokeh than mk1, I’m worried that 135 f/2L IS will be sharper but worse bokeh than original 135 f/2L.
I _REALIZE_ that 135L has severe shortcomings when the light is dim, however when the light shine through BOY what a sharp and wonderful bokeh it produces.
What I dream is that Canon release 135 f/2L _NON-IS_ with new SWC coatings and fluorite glass. Until then, you must take my original 135L from my cold dead hands.
and my point is I’d like to a big piece of glass at 85mm that was.
presumably it would need to be rear focussing
The slow AF on the 85 is off-putting in terms of buying the thing. Speedier focus would make it almost a no-brainer. But presumably they’d have to completely re-work the focus so that the front element remains stationary.
Why would Canon make a 85 MIII lens when there are other ones that needs to be upgraded big time?
+1
i want a 50m 1.4 with a good usm
my 50 1.4 usm died both
I would really like a 85 mm 1.4 with killer bokeh and fast AF from Canon tho!
How is Nikon’s?
NOT speaking from personal experience, but I doubt the AF on the Nikon 85mm 1.4 is terribly impressive in terms of AF speed. Since it’s the old “screwdriver” type of focusing driven by a motor inside the camera body, I’d expect it to be relatively slow and noisy and more prone to “overshoot” the focus point and have to correct back. But the last Nikon I had my hands on was an N90, so my experience may be too out-of-date to be valid.
However, I am so unimpressed with the handling and focus speed of Canon’s 85mm f/1.2 that I would actually bet the Nikon performs better on AF and manual focusing, even though the Nikon lacks full-time manual. I only owned the old MF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4, and it was quite good optically, as is the Canon f/1.2 and, I presume, the current AF Nikon lens.
absurd
for one it is utterly impossible to add IS and leave all the optical elements the same. heck even the IS itself adds optical elements so even if the rest was left the same, which it can not be, it still would not have the same optical formula.
plus where do you even fit IS into the 135 optical formulation as is
this is wrong on so many levels that is deserves CR -3 !
This is a general question. Does Canon *ever* release an improved version of a lens (e.g., 50/1.4) for the *same* price? (Let alone a reduced price?)
After all, they rregularly elease improved versions of bodies for the same (or lower) price. Doesn’t lens performance/price improve at all?