And didn't some of us wonder why Canon hadn't put a little more effort into sharpness and reducing CA in the 85mm 1.4L IS? Then, of course, was the real head-scratcher version II of the 24-105mm f/4. (I tried three different copies, all softer than my wide-open, beaten up old 50mm f/1.4 which had been left in the car one summer...)
Might it be that the engineering A-team for EF L-lenses produced the 35mm f/1.4L II and was then moved to RF development? Some might say the tilt-shifts which followed reach an even higher mark, but they are in a slightly different class. (And I wonder how the tilt-shifts will be affected by the RF adapter, if at all?)
Or might it be that Canon decided to make the new EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS more usable by not making a mayonnaise jar size/weight lens like the Sigma 85mm ART? Perhaps they made it an EF lens, rather than an RF lens, because the shorter registration distance would have been of no benefit for an 85mm f/1.4 lens? As an EF lens, it can be used by owners of APS-C and FF DSLRs, owners of APS-C mirrorless EF-M bodies, and owners of the new EOS R FF ML bodie(s).
Might it be that Canon's update of the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS was more for manufacturing considerations - and to give the lens the ability to be more compatible with the EOS RF (the original was released in 2005, well before the 2011 cutoff you quoted earlier in this discussion) - than for IQ improvement? The 24-105 has never been a high IQ lens, it has always been a workhorse. It's a Clydesdale, not a Thoroughbred. If you want the ultimate in IQ, you don't hang a 4X zoom on your 5Ds R, or even on your Rebel.
Might it be that several other recent L lens updates that everyone is complaining are 'underwhelming' are for similar reasons? Because most, if not all, of them replaced lenses released prior to 2011.
Is it really
that hard to connect all of the dots?
On one hand you and A.H. Sanford say you want a small, compact update of the EF 50mm f/1.4. Then on the other hand you complain because the new EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS is relatively small and compact instead of large and heavy in exchange for incrementally better IQ that 95% of photographers will never see in their work that they don't print and only upload to social media at limited resolutions.
So you're predicting the end of new higher-end lenses for EF? Or are you being facetious?
The new R mount is only fully compatible with supertelephoto lenses made in 2011 and after.
No, he's predicting no more new higher end EF lenses in the ranges that benefit from the shorter registration distance of the new RF mount. Apparently, that is somewhere between 50mm and 85mm for very wide aperture prime lenses. There will still be more new EF lenses for a time with focal lengths longer than 85mm, and maybe even shorter focal length lenses with narrower maximum apertures that don't gain much or any benefit of the shorter FFD like wide aperture, wide angle lenses do.
This would be not much different than the way Canon has handled the EF-S and EF-M lens lineups.
Where EF-S benefitted from the the shorter back focus distance allowed by the EF-S mount, or from cheaper costs allowed by the smaller image circle needed for EF-S lenses, Canon offered EF-S lenses. For lenses that would not have benefitted from those two advantages, Canon did not offer EF-S lenses, but made EF-S compatible with EF so that APS-C DSLR owners could use EF lenses if they needed a 300/2.8 or a 70-200/2.8.
EF-M is similar. Canon is releasing EF-M lenses that benefit from the shorter FFD, narrower maximum aperture, and smaller image circle. They aren't releasing any EF-M lenses that would be just as large, heavy, and expensive as their EF counterparts.