Basic Information on Lenses Coming in 2016 [CR2]

[FECHariot]

I did not think any modern lenses were made with plastic mounts. thats a shame.

Considering Canon is giving us a 10mm option for as low as $280 with the 10-18, I'd hardly call that a shame.

 

[Dalantech]

Eagerly waiting for a new shorter focal length FF macro to replace ancient 50mm macro also a replacement to 180mm f/3.5 L would also suffice. On the other hand if new Ef-s lenses are really released then would like to see if Canon uses same Nano-USM motor from new 18-135mm lens and if they are compatible with power zoom adaptor for video shooters.

Kinda stunned if the 50mm "macro" gets any love since it's not really a macro lens (1:2 mag without the life size converter). The lens was pretty much eclipsed by the old 100mm USM macro. Me thinks the only way to make the 50mm viable would be to come out with a real 1:1 capable version.

I'd also think that Canon might come out with a 200mm L macro with IS as a replacement for the 180L. Not really excited about it since the increase in focal length isn't important to me. Not when I can take images like this one with the MP-E 65mm. Hand held, and I'm the "finger model".

Speaking of the MP-E: Me thinks that Canon is gonna come out with a replacement, and announce an MT-24EX II. At least I'm hoping they do at least a refresh of the macro twin flash -long overdue...

 

[scyrene]

Eagerly waiting for a new shorter focal length FF macro to replace ancient 50mm macro also a replacement to 180mm f/3.5 L would also suffice. On the other hand if new Ef-s lenses are really released then would like to see if Canon uses same Nano-USM motor from new 18-135mm lens and if they are compatible with power zoom adaptor for video shooters.

Kinda stunned if the 50mm "macro" gets any love since it's not really a macro lens (1:2 mag without the life size converter). The lens was pretty much eclipsed by the old 100mm USM macro. Me thinks the only way to make the 50mm viable would be to come out with a real 1:1 capable version.

I'd also think that Canon might come out with a 200mm L macro with IS as a replacement for the 180L. Not really excited about it since the increase in focal length isn't important to me. Not when I can take images like this one with the MP-E 65mm. Hand held, and I'm the "finger model".

Speaking of the MP-E: Me thinks that Canon is gonna come out with a replacement, and announce an MT-24EX II. At least I'm hoping they do at least a refresh of the macro twin flash -long overdue...

Well, people want different focal length macro lenses for different purposes, so I don't think a 100mm can replace a 50mm (even noting the latter wasn't a true macro lens - for many people 1:2 is plenty). I have the MP-E and love it, but it's no use for subjects you can't get close to. A 180-200mm macro lens is for things like live butterflies. Nice bee btw

 

[TheJock]

Has anyone seen that Canon have discontinued the 50mm f1.8 II???
The reason I ask is I just ordered a camo net for my blind from a local online store and noticed that the site stated the lens was discontinued by manufacturer, here's a link. https://www.desertcart.ae/products/1142543-canon-ef-50mm-f-1-8-ii-camera-lens-fixed-discontinued-by-manufacturer

 

[Loswr]

Has anyone seen that Canon have discontinued the 50mm f1.8 II???
The reason I ask is I just ordered a camo net for my blind from a local online store and noticed that the site stated the lens was discontinued by manufacturer, here's a link. https://www.desertcart.ae/products/1142543-canon-ef-50mm-f-1-8-ii-camera-lens-fixed-discontinued-by-manufacturer

It was replaced by the 50mm f/1.8 STM.

 

[TheJock]

Thanks Neuro, I wasn't sure if that was the case, first time I've seen it mentioned as discontinued, for a moment there I thought this might be news

 

[Dalantech]

Eagerly waiting for a new shorter focal length FF macro to replace ancient 50mm macro also a replacement to 180mm f/3.5 L would also suffice. On the other hand if new Ef-s lenses are really released then would like to see if Canon uses same Nano-USM motor from new 18-135mm lens and if they are compatible with power zoom adaptor for video shooters.

Kinda stunned if the 50mm "macro" gets any love since it's not really a macro lens (1:2 mag without the life size converter). The lens was pretty much eclipsed by the old 100mm USM macro. Me thinks the only way to make the 50mm viable would be to come out with a real 1:1 capable version.

I'd also think that Canon might come out with a 200mm L macro with IS as a replacement for the 180L. Not really excited about it since the increase in focal length isn't important to me. Not when I can take images like this one with the MP-E 65mm. Hand held, and I'm the "finger model".

Speaking of the MP-E: Me thinks that Canon is gonna come out with a replacement, and announce an MT-24EX II. At least I'm hoping they do at least a refresh of the macro twin flash -long overdue...

Well, people want different focal length macro lenses for different purposes, so I don't think a 100mm can replace a 50mm (even noting the latter wasn't a true macro lens - for many people 1:2 is plenty). I have the MP-E and love it, but it's no use for subjects you can't get close to. A 180-200mm macro lens is for things like live butterflies. Nice bee btw

Thanks

You mean live, wild, butterflies like this one? What if I told you that it's your skill, and the willingness of the subject, that determines if you'll get the shot and not the focal length of the lens...

IMHO a 50mm 1:2 lens is worthless -you'd be better off with a true 1:1 lens even if you only wanted to shoot at 1:2...

 

[scyrene]

Eagerly waiting for a new shorter focal length FF macro to replace ancient 50mm macro also a replacement to 180mm f/3.5 L would also suffice. On the other hand if new Ef-s lenses are really released then would like to see if Canon uses same Nano-USM motor from new 18-135mm lens and if they are compatible with power zoom adaptor for video shooters.

Kinda stunned if the 50mm "macro" gets any love since it's not really a macro lens (1:2 mag without the life size converter). The lens was pretty much eclipsed by the old 100mm USM macro. Me thinks the only way to make the 50mm viable would be to come out with a real 1:1 capable version.

I'd also think that Canon might come out with a 200mm L macro with IS as a replacement for the 180L. Not really excited about it since the increase in focal length isn't important to me. Not when I can take images like this one with the MP-E 65mm. Hand held, and I'm the "finger model".

Speaking of the MP-E: Me thinks that Canon is gonna come out with a replacement, and announce an MT-24EX II. At least I'm hoping they do at least a refresh of the macro twin flash -long overdue...

Well, people want different focal length macro lenses for different purposes, so I don't think a 100mm can replace a 50mm (even noting the latter wasn't a true macro lens - for many people 1:2 is plenty). I have the MP-E and love it, but it's no use for subjects you can't get close to. A 180-200mm macro lens is for things like live butterflies. Nice bee btw

Thanks

You mean live, wild, butterflies like this one? What if I told you that it's your skill, and the willingness of the subject, that determines if you'll get the shot and not the focal length of the lens...

IMHO a 50mm 1:2 lens is worthless -you'd be better off with a true 1:1 lens even if you only wanted to shoot at 1:2...

If you told me that I would roll my eyes a little. Sure the ability to get close to a subject is preferable, but it is not always possible - sometimes because subjects are flighty, sometimes because of intervening obstacles (like fences, undergrowth, etc) (I'd add that as I get older, I'm happy not to be crouching and kneeling more than necessary either - and a longer FL macro lens means less of that for some subjects too). Additionally, a longer FL gives more blurred backgrounds with the same magnification and aperture (Brian at TDP has shots demonstrating that on his 180L review, I think).

You're not wrong, but neither am I. We have different approaches, temperaments, and possibly different luck. It's just as with birds - some people prefer to get physically closer (fieldcraft, even camouflage and portable hides) and others prefer longer focal lengths/higher MP counts to achieve similar results - neither is wrong, and neither is better in every situation.

 

[scyrene]

Eagerly waiting for a new shorter focal length FF macro to replace ancient 50mm macro also a replacement to 180mm f/3.5 L would also suffice. On the other hand if new Ef-s lenses are really released then would like to see if Canon uses same Nano-USM motor from new 18-135mm lens and if they are compatible with power zoom adaptor for video shooters.

Kinda stunned if the 50mm "macro" gets any love since it's not really a macro lens (1:2 mag without the life size converter). The lens was pretty much eclipsed by the old 100mm USM macro. Me thinks the only way to make the 50mm viable would be to come out with a real 1:1 capable version.

I'd also think that Canon might come out with a 200mm L macro with IS as a replacement for the 180L. Not really excited about it since the increase in focal length isn't important to me. Not when I can take images like this one with the MP-E 65mm. Hand held, and I'm the "finger model".

Speaking of the MP-E: Me thinks that Canon is gonna come out with a replacement, and announce an MT-24EX II. At least I'm hoping they do at least a refresh of the macro twin flash -long overdue...

Well, people want different focal length macro lenses for different purposes, so I don't think a 100mm can replace a 50mm (even noting the latter wasn't a true macro lens - for many people 1:2 is plenty). I have the MP-E and love it, but it's no use for subjects you can't get close to. A 180-200mm macro lens is for things like live butterflies. Nice bee btw

Thanks

You mean live, wild, butterflies like this one? What if I told you that it's your skill, and the willingness of the subject, that determines if you'll get the shot and not the focal length of the lens...

IMHO a 50mm 1:2 lens is worthless -you'd be better off with a true 1:1 lens even if you only wanted to shoot at 1:2...

PS your butterfly shot is great, but not what I have in mind for the 180 macro lens. I want whole insects in their environment - just what those long macro lenses were designed for.

 

[JonAustin]

IMHO a 50mm 1:2 lens is worthless -you'd be better off with a true 1:1 lens even if you only wanted to shoot at 1:2...

Oh, I don't know about that. I've had my 50/2.5CM for nearly 13 years now. It's the lens with the oldest design in my kit -- and also the lens I've owned the longest -- but I still find it very useful. Still today (as back in 2003 when I bought it), I find it to be the best compromise between price and quality among Canon's non-L 50mm primes. I have used it on numerous paid product photography shoots ... sharp, sharp, sharp! And fast enough for these applications.

Disclaimers:

I am eagerly awaiting the 50/1.4 quasi-USM's replacement.
I also have the 100/2.8L IS macro.

 

[sdsr]

The Canon 135mm f/2 is by all accounts a very good lens (though I've never used it myself), just don't compare it to the Zeiss ZE version! (At double the price, to be fair to Canon).

Yes, it is a very good lens, but it's not as good as the fairly recent (last year) Rokinon/Samyang 135 f2 either - and while it no more has AF than the Zeiss does, at least it costs a mere $550....

 

[Dalantech]

You're not wrong, but neither am I. We have different approaches, temperaments, and possibly different luck. It's just as with birds - some people prefer to get physically closer (fieldcraft, even camouflage and portable hides) and others prefer longer focal lengths/higher MP counts to achieve similar results - neither is wrong, and neither is better in every situation.

True. I based most of my preferences on actually shooting at life size and higher and dealing with the light. A lot of people buy a macro lens and never shoot above 1/3 life size.

 

[Dalantech]

PS your butterfly shot is great, but not what I have in mind for the 180 macro lens. I want whole insects in their environment - just what those long macro lenses were designed for.

But a long focal length macro lens won't give you the subject in its environment if you're shooting above 1/3 life size -and even that might be too much magnification. A 180mm macro is gonna give you some great, smooth bokeh, that will completely obliterate the subjects surroundings -and that's not a bad thing. Getting too much detail in the background will probably just distract the viewer from the subject.

 

[Dalantech]

IMHO a 50mm 1:2 lens is worthless -you'd be better off with a true 1:1 lens even if you only wanted to shoot at 1:2...

Oh, I don't know about that. I've had my 50/2.5CM for nearly 13 years now. It's the lens with the oldest design in my kit -- and also the lens I've owned the longest -- but I still find it very useful. Still today (as back in 2003 when I bought it), I find it to be the best compromise between price and quality among Canon's non-L 50mm primes. I have used it on numerous paid product photography shoots ... sharp, sharp, sharp! And fast enough for these applications.

Disclaimers:

I am eagerly awaiting the 50/1.4 quasi-USM's replacement.
I also have the 100/2.8L IS macro.

Worthless in the sense that you really can't shoot macro with it unless you add the life size converter. I'd bet that a lot of the images that you've taken with it could have been done with a normal 50mm lens, or the EF-S 60mm (can use one even on a non crop factor camera if you add at least 12mm of extension). To me a 50mm 1:2 lens makes as much sense as drinking near beer, or decaffeinated coffee. But when I shoot macro it's usually at life size of higher mag.

 

[scyrene]

PS your butterfly shot is great, but not what I have in mind for the 180 macro lens. I want whole insects in their environment - just what those long macro lenses were designed for.

But a long focal length macro lens won't give you the subject in its environment if you're shooting above 1/3 life size -and even that might be too much magnification. A 180mm macro is gonna give you some great, smooth bokeh, that will completely obliterate the subjects surroundings -and that's not a bad thing. Getting too much detail in the background will probably just distract the viewer from the subject.

True, it's a fine balance. I'll see how it works out over the summer, and if it's not what I'm hoping for, I'll sell it. I had toyed with a standard 200mm (or 70-200mm) lens, and maybe adding an extension tube, but I imagine that will not be as optically good. The main problem with standard telephoto lenses (like my 500) is their maximum magnification is generally very low, less than 0.2x - so I can photograph a butterfly from a few metres away, but not that middle ground, say 0.5-1.5m which is the distance I encounter many flying insects. I may not be using the 180mm at 1:1 all of the time, but there aren't many (or any?) lenses that fall in the middle - that 0.3-0.5x range. So for me, the 180 is the sensible choice (I use the 100L macro at present for these shots, and it just doesn't have enough reach for things like bees that I can't easily get close to). But we'll see

 

[scyrene]

IMHO a 50mm 1:2 lens is worthless -you'd be better off with a true 1:1 lens even if you only wanted to shoot at 1:2...

Oh, I don't know about that. I've had my 50/2.5CM for nearly 13 years now. It's the lens with the oldest design in my kit -- and also the lens I've owned the longest -- but I still find it very useful. Still today (as back in 2003 when I bought it), I find it to be the best compromise between price and quality among Canon's non-L 50mm primes. I have used it on numerous paid product photography shoots ... sharp, sharp, sharp! And fast enough for these applications.

Disclaimers:

I am eagerly awaiting the 50/1.4 quasi-USM's replacement.
I also have the 100/2.8L IS macro.

Worthless in the sense that you really can't shoot macro with it unless you add the life size converter. I'd bet that a lot of the images that you've taken with it could have been done with a normal 50mm lens, or the EF-S 60mm (can use one even on a non crop factor camera if you add at least 12mm of extension). To me a 50mm 1:2 lens makes as much sense as drinking near beer, or decaffeinated coffee. But when I shoot macro it's usually at life size of higher mag.

Some of us like decaffeinated coffee! I like the taste of coffee, but if I drink it in the evening, I can't get to sleep at night. So it's a good compromise...

 

[JonAustin]

IMHO a 50mm 1:2 lens is worthless -you'd be better off with a true 1:1 lens even if you only wanted to shoot at 1:2...

Oh, I don't know about that. I've had my 50/2.5CM for nearly 13 years now. It's the lens with the oldest design in my kit -- and also the lens I've owned the longest -- but I still find it very useful. Still today (as back in 2003 when I bought it), I find it to be the best compromise between price and quality among Canon's non-L 50mm primes. I have used it on numerous paid product photography shoots ... sharp, sharp, sharp! And fast enough for these applications.

Disclaimers:

I am eagerly awaiting the 50/1.4 quasi-USM's replacement.
I also have the 100/2.8L IS macro.

Worthless in the sense that you really can't shoot macro with it unless you add the life size converter. I'd bet that a lot of the images that you've taken with it could have been done with a normal 50mm lens, or the EF-S 60mm (can use one even on a non crop factor camera if you add at least 12mm of extension). To me a 50mm 1:2 lens makes as much sense as drinking near beer, or decaffeinated coffee. But when I shoot macro it's usually at life size of higher mag.

Some of us like decaffeinated coffee! I like the taste of coffee, but if I drink it in the evening, I can't get to sleep at night. So it's a good compromise...

I don't like the taste of coffee, decaffeinated or otherwise, but I have found that the magnification provided by the 50/2.5CM was more than sufficient for many of my macro shots. Sure, a lot of the images I've captured with it could have been accomplished with a normal 50, but many more could not. My only point being that, just because it's worthless to you doesn't necessarily mean its useless to everyone else.

 

[ahsanford]

Personally, instead of the 1:2 mag macro lens, I'd prefer to have a standard lens with a wide range of use with a larger max mag. Something with quick focusing is huge for me.

Tamron is doing this with their new 35mm VC lens, which clocks in around 0.4x, and I absolutely adore the 0.7x macro mode of my 24-70 f/4L IS. Neither will replace a macro lens, so I still own the 100L, but if I'm on walkabout and want to get closer to a flower, critter, etc. the 0.7x is a killer ace up your sleeve (provided the working distance + natural light's orientation to the camera + lens isn't shading the shot).

So -- acknowledging I may have unreasonable standards -- if it can't do 1:1 macro, it had better be useful/great at something other than macro.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Those dissing the 50/2.5 CM for insect photos are ignoring the advantage of a lens where the loud buzzing the micromotor AF might attract and soothe the intended subjects.

;D

 

[ahsanford]

Those dissing the 50/2.5 CM for insect photos are ignoring the advantage of a lens where the loud buzzing the micromotor AF might attract and soothe the intended subjects.

;D

LOL. I love that for the older lenses that do not advertise the lack of focusing 'technology' in the product title, the feature that is lacking is the first, second and third thing you think about when you use them.

Try taking candids or street with one of these buzzing, squeaky relics. It's practically a foghorn in those situtations.

- A