Canon Officially Discontinues Three Lenses

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=20563">According to TDP</a>, Canon Japan has officially discontinued three lenses in the EF lineup.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://bhpho.to/2r8S6tO">Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS</a> (Replaced by the <a href="https://bhpho.to/2omsLrx">EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II</a>)</li>
<li><a href="https://bhpho.to/2r8SA3a">Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM</a> (Replaced by the <a href="https://bhpho.to/2pNHjkS">EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM</a>)</li>
<li><a href="https://bhpho.to/2pNMl0T">Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS DO USM</a> (No direct replacement)</li>
</ul>
<p>We haven’t heard anything about a new DO zoom lens coming down the pipeline. While I always liked the compact size of the little DO zoom, I never saw much point in using it over the Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS, especially once you consider the L costs less and fits vertically in most camera backpacks to save space.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Rockskipper]

Does this mean they will also discontinue support for those lenses if you need repair/etc.?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Does this mean they will also discontinue support for those lenses if you need repair/etc.?

When they discontinue a lens, they have a stock of spare parts manufactured which will last for several years, usually 7-10 years for "L" lenses, less for non L. When the parts are depleted to the point where they decide they can no longer repair a lens, they stop and sell the remaining inventory of parts to their independent repair shops who then continue to repair the lenses as long as they have a part. They may obtain refurbished or used parts as well, so repairs are often possible for long discontinued lenses.

 

[aceflibble]

I mentioned that they were winding down production on the 24-105, in preparation for the mkII, on this forum two years ago:

Don't know if it's been mentioned before, but Canon are discontinuing the 24-105 f/4L

I then went on to mention the mkII, the 5D4, etc.

Whoever is writing the front page posts, do you not pay attention to your own forums? You had this 'news' *two* *years* *ago*.

 

[unfocused]

I mentioned that they were winding down production on the 24-105, in preparation for the mkII, on this forum two years ago:

Don't know if it's been mentioned before, but Canon are discontinuing the 24-105 f/4L

I then went on to mention the mkII, the 5D4, etc.

Whoever is writing the front page posts, do you not pay attention to your own forums? You had this 'news' *two* *years* *ago*.

Canon Rumors does not simply take as gospel anything posted on this forum. Looking back at your old post, it appears your "source" was apparently a camera shop. Camera shops are notoriously unreliable.

Your prediction was pretty safe. I can confidently predict today that Canon is planning to cease production of the 5D IV and come out with a 5D V. I can also reliably predict that there will be a 70-200mm f2.8 replacement in the future...that Canon is working on a 7DIII...that the 100-400 zoom will ultimately be replaced...etc. etc.

 

[AvTvM]

There are a good number more Canon lenses that could and should be "officially discontinued".
First and foremost 75-300 III and 75-300 III USM come to mind, pieces of junk.

Are any of the following officially discontinued ?
* 50/1.8 II (replaced by STM)
* 135/2.8 SF (no replacement)
* 28/1.8 USM (replaced by 28/2.8 IS)
* 28-135 (replaced by 24-105 IS STM "non L")
* 17-40/4 L (replaced by 16-35/4 L)
* 16-35 / 2.8 L II (replaced by Mk. III)
* 200/2.8 L II (replaced by 70-200/2.8 II IS)
* 28-300 L (no replacement)
* 24-70 / 2.8 L (replaced by Mk. II)
* 100-400 L (replaced by Mk. II)
* 70-200 / 4 L (replaced by IS)

 

[Sporgon]

There are a good number more Canon lenses that could and should be "officially discontinued".
First and foremost 75-300 III and 75-300 III USM come to mind, pieces of junk.

Are any of the following officially discontinued ?

* 200/2.8 L II (replaced by 70-200/2.8 II IS)

How exactly does a £2,000 lens replace a £680 one ? Have a thought for those that can't afford £2000, or want smaller and lighter. A reasonably priced 2.8/200 prime has a place.

The 70-300 DO, that was always a strange one. Very expensive for its optical quality, but it did actually clean up very well in post.

 

[Chaitanya]

I guess 50mm Macro and corresponding life size adaptor should also be part of list.

 

[RandomRazr]

can someone tell me if the 6d II comes out, would it have leser features then the 5D IV?

 

[Antono Refa]

There are a good number more Canon lenses that could and should be "officially discontinued".
First and foremost 75-300 III and 75-300 III USM come to mind, pieces of junk.

There's a reason Canon does not discontinue those lenses, my guess is profit. E.g. people buy the 75-300 III USM as a cheap tele for APS-C cameras.

Are any of the following officially discontinued ?

<snip>

* 28/1.8 USM (replaced by 28/2.8 IS)

If anything, the 28/2.8 IS replaces the 28/2.8.

* 17-40/4 L (replaced by 16-35/4 L)

Canon has four 70-200mm lenses - f/4, f/2.8, w/ IS, w/o IS.

Possibly, Canon is doing the same here - the 16-35/4 L IS lives side by side with the 17-40/4 L IS-less.

* 28-300 L (no replacement)

The 28-300 replaced the 35-350. Apparently there's a demand for a FF superzoom, same as for the EF-S 18-200.

* 70-200 / 4 L (replaced by IS)

Again, as long as two version of the lens make profit at two different price & feature set points, why cancel one?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I mentioned that they were winding down production on the 24-105, in preparation for the mkII, on this forum two years ago:

Don't know if it's been mentioned before, but Canon are discontinuing the 24-105 f/4L

I then went on to mention the mkII, the 5D4, etc.

Whoever is writing the front page posts, do you not pay attention to your own forums? You had this 'news' *two* *years* *ago*.

Well, that was timely news. I predict that in about 7 years they will discontinue the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS, a while after they release the 24-70/4L IS II. You heard it here first. :

 

[Ozarker]

I mentioned that they were winding down production on the 24-105, in preparation for the mkII, on this forum two years ago:

Don't know if it's been mentioned before, but Canon are discontinuing the 24-105 f/4L

I then went on to mention the mkII, the 5D4, etc.

Whoever is writing the front page posts, do you not pay attention to your own forums? You had this 'news' *two* *years* *ago*.

Please accept our apologies. We had no idea the force was so strong in you... nor how important you think you are. I'll sleep better tonight knowing you and Larry the camera shop guy are on the job.

 

[jolyonralph]

Are any of the following officially discontinued ?

* 50/1.8 II (replaced by STM)

Yes, seems to have been discontinued.

* 135/2.8 SF (no replacement)

Also seems to have fallen off the official lists and is no longer in stock in B&H, so I say it's dead.

* 28/1.8 USM (replaced by 28/2.8 IS)

The 28 1.8 is certainly still available, and I'm curious why you'd think an f/2.8 lens would replace this one? It's still the only low-cost wide(ish) low light lens Canon do.

* 28-135 (replaced by 24-105 IS STM "non L")

This is still listed for sale ($339) by B&H, but Canon's website doesn't list it in the current lineup, which makes me suspect it's being phased out.

But the 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM at $599 (B&H) is hardly a direct replacement being nearly twice the price. The 28-135 was the first lens I bought to complement my 18-55 on my 500D. I used it a lot, and actually got to quite like it.

* 17-40/4 L (replaced by 16-35/4 L)

Again, the 17-40 offers a lower entry point for a high (L) quality wideangle lens. And it's much lighter than the 16-35 4L IS. Maybe we'll see this around for a little while yet.

* 16-35 / 2.8 L II (replaced by Mk. III)

Still available but again no longer promoted by Canon. The price of the 16-35 2.8 II is halfway between the f/4 and the 2.8 III. I think we'll see this one just fade away as demand for it falls.

* 200/2.8 L II (replaced by 70-200/2.8 II IS)

What? Lol. Totally different lenses. The 200/2.8L is here to stay and I think we'll eventually see a 200/2.8L IS to replace it.

* 28-300 L (no replacement)

Is that because you just don't like it? I happen to know a lot of people (especially videographers) who love being able to take a single lens out with them to cover every eventuality. There's a lot of snobbery about this lens. It's not a lens I'd probably ever want to buy, but I can certainly see the place for it.

* 24-70 / 2.8 L (replaced by Mk. II)

The original 2.8L has been discontinued for a while now.

* 100-400 L (replaced by Mk. II)

Canon kept the Mk 1 on sale for a while because of the significant price hike of the Mark II. The Mk.1 is still available new from B&H for $1300 vs $2000 for the Mk.2 - and this will be another case of the lens being kept on until there's no more demand for it.

* 70-200 / 4 L (replaced by IS)

Another odd suggestion. The non-IS is half the price, lighter and is a superb lens. if you don't need IS why buy the heavier lens? The IS version probably is due for a refresh anyway.

 

[JonAustin]

I guess 50mm Macro and corresponding life size adaptor should also be part of list.

The 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro was discontinued last year. I bought one new in 2003, and it has recently started to show its age ... the AF motor has slowed down significantly. Still works great in manual focus mode, though.

I use it mostly as a normal lens these days, as I also have the 100mm f/2.8L IS macro. It probably isn't worth the cost to get it repaired. I plan to retire mine when Canon finally releases the AHSanford Special.

 

[jolyonralph]

The 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro was discontinued last year.

Not according to Canon UK, it's still in their current lineup. And it's still very much available for sale. While people still want it (and it is pretty much the sharpest 50mm lens Canon currently sell - which to be fair isn't saying a lot) they'll still make it.

I love mine.

(however I haven't seen the 1:1 adaptor for it offered for sale new for a very long time)

 

[vangelismm]

Canon finally releases the AHSanford Special.

50mm ring USM 1.4 IS macro 1:1? lol

 

[Jopa]

I'd take that, but nano USM please. It will be ideal for video as well.

 

[drnedel]

More out of curiosity: Has the 35mm 1.4 mark I already been officially discontinued? At least at some online-sites, It is still available for purchase ...

As great as the mark II version might be optically, it is a little bit pricey for me ...

 

[YuengLinger]

More out of curiosity: Has the 35mm 1.4 mark I already been officially discontinued? At least at some online-sites, It is still available for purchase ...

As great as the mark II version might be optically, it is a little bit pricey for me ...

In my opinion, it would be a poor investment to pay for a version I 35mm. Mine was not especially sharp and had purple fringing even at f/5.6. I went with the Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 for a couple of years, thought it much better than the Canon I, but had some reservations about AF on outer points, and I wasn't crazy about the bokeh.

Enter the Canon II, wow, what a lovely lens! If I'm not mistaken, it has already been available refurbished from Canon, and I'd much rather get one of those than a new version I.

Yes, the newer one is pricey, but sometimes it's worth it to save up a while longer and spend a bit more than lay out cash for something that would likely never quite satisfy, leading to buying the version II later anyway.

 

[symmar22]

* 70-200 / 4 L (replaced by IS)

Another odd suggestion. The non-IS is half the price, lighter and is a superb lens. if you don't need IS why buy the heavier lens? The IS version probably is due for a refresh anyway.

Don't fully agree here, the 70-200 f4 IS is the sharpest of all Canon 70-200 I've had. It is much better than the f2.8 IS V1, and at least equal to the f2.8 V2 that replaced my V1 (if not slightly sharper on my 5DSR). Distortion is about the same, as is chroma and vignetting, but for half the price and the weight. When paired with the x.1.4 converter (v3) I get better results with the F4.

The only flaws IMO are the very noisy stabilizer, and a known mechanical weakness in the design of the focusing ring, that can just stop working in manual focus (mine was repaired for that very reason and I am not the only one).

The 70-200mm f2.8 IS V2 is perfect on the 5D3, but shows it's limits more on the 5DSR than the 70-200mm f4 IS.

Somehow, when I do not absolutely need f2.8, the f4 is always my choice over the f2.8.

As for the 50mm CM, it is still the best choice for my architectural and interior work, since canon failed to deliver a better option (actually the better option is the 40mm STM).