why there are no new L primes

[steliosk]

Hi
i'm considering to buy some new fast prime lenses for my 5D III

However Canon has left behind their L primes update, since there is no new 35L 50L 85L 135L replacements, and the 24L II isn't quite the sharpest lens wide open.

It seems Canon drop the weight on 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 IS II where these two are far the best zoom lenses i've ever used. I trust them completely at 2.8 and i get nailed focus pictures without selling me, where as a professional that means everything.

However the need for faster glass is imminent

These sigmas ART 35 and 50 seems promising.
After testing the 35A the only thing that stops me is the focus accuracy. (actually it was good in this 35A but i had bad experiences with sigma before)

However Sigma glass is perfect. no CA (damn these EF 50 1.4 and EF 85 1.8 are killing me) , sharp wide open, what else to ask for?

I haven't tested the 50A yet but i know it will be top notch like the 35A i've tested

Meanwhile after seeing this

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I was wondering why should somebody buy the 50L today.
Not a wise choice in terms of quality and price.

Anyway, is there any word out about new L primes?
maybe next year? or should i move along buying the 35A and 50A since the current 35L and 50L is out of the question since they are quite expensive and old.

 

[gigabellone]

In the EOS system there's no competition for the Canon primes, except for the Sigma 35/1.4, that makes a lens with the same specs, but with better performance and price than the Canon counterpart. If you want the 1.2 aperture, you must get the Canon lenses; if you want a 24/1.4, you either get the Canon, get a completely manual lens from Samyang, or switch to Nikon. And i also think that the pro zooms, the big whites, and the cheap ef-s lenses are those who get the most sales (and revenues).

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 50L and 85L II are from 2006, so they're pretty 'young' as far as lens designs go. The 35L is due for an update, IMO.

Sharpness is not the 50/1.2L's forte. Canon intentionally traded some sharpness for superior bokeh in the design of the lens.

As for 'no new L primes', there were four launched just 2-3 years ago. Rather big and expensive ones with white paint, but they still qualify as pretty new L primes.

 

[Good24]

I would ask the same question about non-L prime lens, esp. at 50mm and 85mm (and even the 100mm). Supposedly IS versions (akin to the 24/28/35) have been due any minute now but that's been said for two years. The "year of the lens" is running out of time and yet the standard/medium telephoto range seems to be ignored for primes.

All that said, I'm not worried about what eye charts show for the 50/1.2, if you look at real pictures it's an amazing lens and can still be very sharp at certain distances anyway. And I've used the 24L (on a 7D) and thought it was perfectly good, liked the results.

But the wait goes on for new primes in the standard/medium range....

 

[Chris Jankowski]

One of the main drivers for F1.2 or f1.4 prime lenses was available light photography. This is less important these days with increased sensitivity of sensors. There is a price to pay for F1.2 - massive amount of glass creating issues with sharpness at the borders and heavy light fall off. Also susceptible to flare and showing heavy vignetting. Heavy glass means slow focus - it is difficult to move this amount of glass. Impossible to do IS.

Personaly, I feel more comfortable with EF 35mm F/2 IS USM than with EF 35mm F/1.4 USM L.

Note that Canon released 3 of the new style primes in the past 2-3 years. They all have the same characteristics - moderate aperture, very sharp, moderate cost, but with excellent IS. These primes are very useful and the sell well.

Also note that the excellence of the EF 70-200 F2.8 USM IS L II means that there is not much incentive to use the 85mm or 135 primes that have no IS.

 

[tron]

Well there are no new L primes this year BUT there will be a new DO prime. Which looks very tempting even though I already have the 500II ... :

 

[steliosk]

So canon sacrifice the sharpness over the creamy bokeh of 1.2 glasses.

However i would compromise with newer 1.4 glasses stabilized or not doesn't make any difference to a wedding photographer as i am.

All i need is to suck the available amount of natural light without any use of flash. The new 2.8 zoom lenses are great at 2.8, sharp, creamy, with fast focusing. However a couple of ISO stops less would be nice, plus the great DOF that 1.4 gives compared with 2.8

However i think there is a great dilema for Canon if new 1.4 glasses are out, who is gonna buy the 1.2? except those who doesn't compromise with the bokeh of 1.2 glass?

However the EF 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 are horrible wide open in cameras with high megapixels. They just can't handle it, plus the CA in the bokeh which is terrible and unfixable in post process

 

[gigabellone]

I would ask the same question about non-L prime lens, esp. at 50mm and 85mm (and even the 100mm). Supposedly IS versions (akin to the 24/28/35) have been due any minute now but that's been said for two years. The "year of the lens" is running out of time and yet the standard/medium telephoto range seems to be ignored for primes.

All that said, I'm not worried about what eye charts show for the 50/1.2, if you look at real pictures it's an amazing lens and can still be very sharp at certain distances anyway. And I've used the 24L (on a 7D) and thought it was perfectly good, liked the results.

But the wait goes on for new primes in the standard/medium range....

The 85/1.8 is indeed a very old design, but i think it's good enough and doesn't need a replacement. The 50/1.4 could use a rework. My two cents.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

The 50 prime problem

From what I've been able to gather from a couple of years of net research and renting and borrowing lenses. Nobody makes an EF mount 50mm prime that works very well, at least for my needs.

I eliminate the Zeiss due to lack of autofocus.

The 50 L has focus issues at different distances

The EF 50 1.4 has poor optics and is fragile

The EF 50 1.8 is good for the price (hmmm maybe I should test that one again)

The Sigma classic 50 has autofocus problems

The Sigma 50 Art has autofocus problems

A fast 50 prime needs a very accurate and consistent autofocus system to take advantage of the shallow DOF. It is frustrating that none of the manufacturers have risen to the challenge. I don't know why it has to be so difficult. I have money to spend, but nothing to buy.

 

[tron]

Re: The 50 prime problem

From what I've been able to gather from a couple of years of net research and renting and borrowing lenses. Nobody makes an EF mount 50mm prime that works very well, at least for my needs.

I eliminate the Zeiss due to lack of autofocus.

The 50 L has focus issues at different distances

The EF 50 1.4 has poor optics and is fragile

The EF 50 1.8 is good for the price (hmmm maybe I should test that one again)

The Sigma classic 50 has autofocus problems

The Sigma 50 Art has autofocus problems

A fast 50 prime needs a very accurate and consistent autofocus system to take advantage of the shallow DOF. It is frustrating that none of the manufacturers have risen to the challenge. I don't know why it has to be so difficult. I have money to spend, but nothing to buy.

Out of all options the 50 1.8 seems the best !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[symmar22]

You forgot the 50mm compact macro on your list, brilliant in the f8 - f11 range , but the crappiest lens ever wide open. It is one of the very few (if not the only) left over from the original 1987 EF releases. The old Nikkor AI-S 55mm was much better compared to the LOMO/Canon 50 Compact Macro f2.5. Come on Canon, your standard Macro is a shame, this one as well needs an urgent upgrade. What happened to the year of the lens ???

 

[Coldhands]

Come on Canon, your standard Macro is a shame, this one as well needs an urgent upgrade.

I really can't see much of a case for renewing that lens. With the 100mm twins offering either great value (non IS) or superb IQ (IS L) as well as the 60 mm for EF-S, that leaves a very small niche for a ~50mm macro lens to fill. The short working distance that focal length requires would make it a hard sell even at a lower price than those lenses currently available.

 

[Random Orbits]

You forgot the 50mm compact macro on your list, brilliant in the f8 - f11 range , but the crappiest lens ever wide open. It is one of the very few (if not the only) left over from the original 1987 EF releases. The old Nikkor AI-S 55mm was much better compared to the LOMO/Canon 50 Compact Macro f2.5. Come on Canon, your standard Macro is a shame, this one as well needs an urgent upgrade. What happened to the year of the lens ???

EF-S 10-18, EF 16-35 f/4 IS, EF-S 24, 400 F/4 DO II, 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF-M 55-200... just not the lenses you want.

 

[monopodman]

Re: The 50 prime problem

From what I've been able to gather from a couple of years of net research and renting and borrowing lenses. Nobody makes an EF mount 50mm prime that works very well, at least for my needs.

I eliminate the Zeiss due to lack of autofocus.

The 50 L has focus issues at different distances

The EF 50 1.4 has poor optics and is fragile

The EF 50 1.8 is good for the price (hmmm maybe I should test that one again)

The Sigma classic 50 has autofocus problems

The Sigma 50 Art has autofocus problems

A fast 50 prime needs a very accurate and consistent autofocus system to take advantage of the shallow DOF. It is frustrating that none of the manufacturers have risen to the challenge. I don't know why it has to be so difficult. I have money to spend, but nothing to buy.

In addition to that, there's the same problem in Nikon F mount. If you don't want AF problems (Sigma ART) or MF (very hard on modern DSLRs), the only way to obtain a world-class 50mm is to buy a Sony A7/A7r and FE 55mm f1.8. That prime is so good, it can justify a dedicated camera body. You can also use many of your Canon EF lenses with slow-but-working autofocus through Metabones IV adapter.

 

[zlatko]

However Canon has left behind their L primes update, since there is no new 35L 50L 85L 135L replacements, and the 24L II isn't quite the sharpest lens wide open.

IMO, none of those lenses need replacements. They are all plenty sharp and draw beautifully. The 50L is one of my favorite lenses --- love the way it draws. The only update I'd love to see is the 135L with IS.

Absolute sharpness is nice, but it's not the only thing that matters about a lens. A bunch of other things matter too.

 

[gjones5252]

I would suggest you take another look at the Sigma 50 art. I have it and am enjoying it. It is sharp as anything and as far as focus it seems to hit great on my 5d3. To be honest i dont think i have ever used it nor would i on my 5d2 just because i feel it focus excellent on my other.
I have been wanting a 50mm for a long time and to be honest when canon updates the L i will most likely sell this sigma and have the canon on the way(as long as image quality is there). Not because i am hating this lens but just because i love that red ring.

 

[sdsr]

However the EF 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 are horrible wide open in cameras with high megapixels. They just can't handle it, plus the CA in the bokeh which is terrible and unfixable in post process

The EF 85 1.8 does have its flaws (esp purple fringing - but that's true of the 85L too), and if Canon were to replace it with something along the lines of the 24/28/35mm IS I would likely buy one if it fixed the purple fringing. But "horrible" wide open on high MP sensors? Perhaps my standards are low, or I don't photograph the right sort of thing in the right sort of conditions (or both), but that's not the adjective I would use. Shortly after I bought my a7r - which, of course, has a much higher MP sensor than anything Canon currently offers - I spent a few hours on a couple of days wandering around taking casual photos last Spring (all hand held, manual focus). Few of them were wide open, but I uploaded some of those that are, with crops, here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125326482@N07/sets/72157648538042789/

I think the lens holds up rather well technically (whether the photos are otherwise worth looking at is another matter). It may not be an Otus, or even the 85L, but given its size and price I'm not inclined to complain too much. And if you stop it down a bit on an a7r....

 

[Antono Refa]

However Canon has left behind their L primes update, since there is no new 35L 50L 85L 135L replacements, and the 24L II isn't quite the sharpest lens wide open.

Since you're willing to go ~5 years back:

In 2006 Canon has updated the 85mm f/1.2, and the 50mm f/1.2 was released the same year.
In 2007 Canon has updated the 14mm f/1.4
In 2008 Canon has released the 200mm f/2 and 800mm f/5.6
In 2009 Canon has updated the TS-E 24mm f/3.5, and released an all new TS-E 17mm f/4 and 100mm f/2.8 macro IS
In 2010 Canon has updated the 300mm & 400mm f/2.8 IS
In 2011 Canon has updated the 500mm & 600mm f/2.8 IS
In 2012 Canon updated it's non-L 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm lenses, and released a new 40mm STM lens.

So, in the time frame you refer to, the 85mm L has been updated, the 50mm L is a new release, and the 24mm f/1.4 has been updated (though you find the not up to your expectations).

I agree the 35mm f/1.4 L is old, but unless you need that extra stop, the 35mm f/2 IS is a great lens.

As for the 135mm f/2, I'm not sure what you would expect from a mkII, beyond the letters "II" in the name. An IS?

 

[symmar22]

Come on Canon, your standard Macro is a shame, this one as well needs an urgent upgrade.

I really can't see much of a case for renewing that lens. With the 100mm twins offering either great value (non IS) or superb IQ (IS L) as well as the 60 mm for EF-S, that leaves a very small niche for a ~50mm macro lens to fill. The short working distance that focal length requires would make it a hard sell even at a lower price than those lenses currently available.

I do not fully agree here, the 100mm L is a superb lens, but I have both the 50 Compact macro and the 100mm L and they do not serve the same purpose. I won't comment the 60mm EF-S since I don't have a crop camera. A 100mm is not a 50mm (though the perfect focal for a standard macro should IMO more be a 55-60mm).

I use the 50mm macro not for real macro (a 100mm or even the 180mm are more practical), but for the specifications of any 50-60 macro lens : ultra sharp , zero distortion, perfectly flat field and the ability to focus close. It has a use in (art) reproduction, studio photography, landscape and architecture. I used Nikon for 20 years before switching to Canon and the 55mm AI-S, then 60mm AF-D were the best lenses I had. They both could easily replace the 50mm of their time for general use, if you did not need 1.x aperture. I just cannot say the same with the 50mm Compact Macro (a 27 year old lens).

 

[privatebydesign]

Come on Canon, your standard Macro is a shame, this one as well needs an urgent upgrade.

I really can't see much of a case for renewing that lens. With the 100mm twins offering either great value (non IS) or superb IQ (IS L) as well as the 60 mm for EF-S, that leaves a very small niche for a ~50mm macro lens to fill. The short working distance that focal length requires would make it a hard sell even at a lower price than those lenses currently available.

I do not fully agree here, the 100mm L is a superb lens, but I have both the 50 Compact macro and the 100mm L and they do not serve the same purpose. I won't comment the 60mm EF-S since I don't have a crop camera. A 100mm is not a 50mm (though the perfect focal for a standard macro should IMO more be a 55-60mm).

I use the 50mm macro not for real macro (a 100mm or even the 180mm are more practical), but for the specifications of any 50-60 macro lens : ultra sharp , zero distortion, perfectly flat field and the ability to focus close. It has a use in (art) reproduction, studio photography, landscape and architecture. I used Nikon for 20 years before switching to Canon and the 55mm AI-S, then 60mm AF-D were the best lenses I had. They both could easily replace the 50mm of their time for general use, if you did not need 1.x aperture. I just cannot say the same with the 50mm Compact Macro (a 27 year old lens).

Absolutely agree.