Canon Releases Recommended Lenses List for EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R

[TeT]

The exclusion of the 70-200mm f/4L IS is rather surprising....

Indeed. That is a very good lens, which should have been on the list, unless there´s some marketing tactic we don´t know. ....

That list starts and stops as a marketing tactic....

 

[gn100]

No 65mm macro either?
No 14mm L?

As mentioned above, surprised the 180mm macro isn't on the list. The 35mmL is interesting .... is the new one coming out .... but the 50mm f1.8STM is already out and the old 50f1.8 is on the list. I thought the 400mm f5.6 may have been there too. The 17-40 and 24-105 are probably the worst of the L lenses, so no surprise they are missing. The 70-200mm f4IS ..... I suspect a typo as it's sharper than the older non-IS version. The 16-35mm f 2.8 corners aren't great, but it leaves the list with nothing faster than 2.8 which is wider than 24mm

The 50mmf1.4 when stopped down is optically very good, just lousy wide open, lousy af motor and lousy build quality

 

[dolina]

The 17-40L is not on the list. Given its reputation for softness in the corners, this is not surprising. The 35 1.4 is to be replaced and 400 5.6 possibly will be replaced. What of the 17-40s future?

The successor of the 2003 Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is the 2014 Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM.

 

[johnctharp]

Both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 (all versions) resolve plenty well for the 5Ds cameras at f/5.6.

As to why the 70-200/4L IS, 300/4Ls, and 400/5.6L weren't included, well, that's anyone's guess.

 

[sanj]

How do we know Canon made this list? With all due respect to Brian.

 

[Zeidora]

No 65mm macro either?

Just use any of the many other lenses that can stand in for that old dinosaur. After all, it's not even an AF lens! oh, wait ...

 

[dolina]

It appears that the cut off is more like 2008 than 2010 and here are the list of lenses prior to 2008.

2007
Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

2006
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

2005
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

2004
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

2003
Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

2002
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

2001
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Unlisted by Canon but released after 2008.

2014
Canon EF 24-105mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM

==========================

Would Canon's recommended lenses for the 5Ds and 5Ds R sway you to buy any of these lenses?

I did a side by side comparison between the 2001 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and 2010 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM on two original 7D bodies (during a futbol match, both bodies were reset, had same firmware number and identical Manual settings) and I was impressed enough to get the Series II lens but I still kept the Series I as the offers made wasnt worth selling for.

If Canon were to come out with a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM with IS then I'd be inclined to get one. This could happen as Tamron announced a Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD in 2012.

 

[Andy_Hodapp]

The 17-40L is not on the list. Given its reputation for softness in the corners, this is not surprising. The 35 1.4 is to be replaced and 400 5.6 possibly will be replaced. What of the 17-40s future?

I would say that the 16-35mm f/4 IS was a replacement for the 17-40mm

 

[Hjalmarg1]

50 1.8 II instead of the newer 50 1.8 STM? Doesn't it play nice with the new bodies? Weren't the sample shots done with the STM?

I don't trust this list ??? (not that I'm gonna be using a 5DS any time soon!)

It is actually weird

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

deleted

EDIT: On second thought, I'd bet that 70-200 f/4 IS thing is just a typo and nothing more

 

[Antono Refa]

The 17-40L is not on the list. Given its reputation for softness in the corners, this is not surprising. ... What of the 17-40s future?

I assume the 16-35mm f/4 IS USM is the upgrade path for 17-40mm owners, so I would expect the two to be upgraded about the same time, in about a decade.

 

[JoFT]

The 17-40L is not on the list. Given its reputation for softness in the corners, this is not surprising. The 35 1.4 is to be replaced and 400 5.6 possibly will be replaced. What of the 17-40s future?

For me the replacement of the 17-40 is the 16-35 f4.0 IS

 

[Lock5151]

What is EF 200mm f/2L II USM, there is no version II on the market, or I am wrong?

 

[BMLmedia]

Canon has released their list of recommended lenses according to The-Digital-Picture.</p>
<p>Notable omissions from the list are the EF 35mm f/1.4L, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, TS-E 45mm f/2.8 and EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. Oddly enough, all of these lenses are on the “to-be-replaced” soon list (“soon” is always a relative term with lenses).</p>
<li>TS-E 90mm f/2.8</li>
</ul>

So it looks like the 45 and 90 TS lenses are not being replaced together.

strikes me that this is a very big list. perhaps there should be two lists:
these lenses will be amazing with this camera
these lenses will achieve reasonable results with this camera

I have primarily used the camera with four lenses, the 24 TS mkii, 17mm ts, 11-24mm and the 55mm Otus. the image quality is outstanding

 

[1982chris911]

Actually there was a list like this already in April in Japan in der 5DSR promotional material

 

[1982chris911]

No 16-35 L II must mean Canon knows it really needs an update! Proof the v III lens will be out in the next 6 months, probably with the 1DxII.

It was said here in Germany (of course not official) that the 17-40 and 16-35 II are too weak in resolution in the corners for the sensor ... well they also said that the 50mm 1,2 L is kind of a soft lens ... and referred to the very dreamy look as kind of "feature" ... I had the impression they know very well how weak that lens is and just did not want to say that one of their main primes is basically unusable (meaning makes no difference if used on the 5 DsR or 5d MK iii) on the high resolution sensor ... As they had the Otus here (on a more or less official Canon presentation) it really looked like they are a bit puzzled about what to do with the 50mm prime range especially for all the wedding photographers

 

[1982chris911]

It appears that the cut off is more like 2008 than 2010 and here are the list of lenses prior to 2008.

2007
Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

2006
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

2005
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

2004
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

2003
Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

2002
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

2001
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Unlisted by Canon but released after 2008.

2014
Canon EF 24-105mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM

==========================

Would Canon's recommended lenses for the 5Ds and 5Ds R sway you to buy any of these lenses?

I did a side by side comparison between the 2001 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and 2010 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM on two original 7D bodies (during a futbol match, both bodies were reset, had same firmware number and identical Manual settings) and I was impressed enough to get the Series II lens but I still kept the Series I as the offers made wasnt worth selling for.

If Canon were to come out with a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM with IS then I'd be inclined to get one. This could happen as Tamron announced a Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD in 2012.

A 24-70 f2.8 WITH IS would make much sense for this camera as it would be the basic high quality walk around lens ... IS is important here to really not run into a problem in more difficult light conditions with short exposure times not possible as IS basically let's you get rid of micro shake

 

[1982chris911]

The absence of the 80/1.8 IS STM has got to be a mis-print... or else someone at Canon should be fired.

Otherwise, I wonder if the list is determined by autofocus compatibility? i.e. lenses such as the 70-200/f4L IS USM don't have a compatible AF with the 5Ds so they're not listed. Would Canon announce a firmware update if that was the case? Not sure...

Why should the AF not work on the 70-200/f4L IS, but on the non IS version ... Only thing I could imagine is that the old IS versions are not working exactly enough to be sharp with the increased resolution ...

I just nearly fell of my chair when looking at the performance on TDP of the 200-400 with internal 1,4 Ext in place and that this is actually by far not as sharp as the 100-400 MK II without Ext same with the 400 F2,8 Mk II with external Ext 1,4 in place.

So it looks that some recommendations are really thoughtful and not marketing only ...

 

[GuyF]

I'd have expected maybe one or two older lenses would be fine with the new bodies. Surely the 300mm f2.8 IS mk1 is plenty sharp enough, no? No doubt Canon want to encourage people to upgrade older lenses even if they are still sharp enough.

 

[GuyF]

Dilbert,

Fair point. Mind you, third party lenses are reverse engineered whereas Canon surely have the ability to include "full functionality" with the vast majority of their "top" lenses.

Regards.