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

[neuroanatomist]

I hate to say it, but this time I think you are off-base and neuro is on base.

Is [it] a coincidence? I doubt it.

I doubt it, too. ;D

 

[snowphotographer]

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

But the sharper 70-200mm f/4 non-IS is on the list. Perhaps it's time for an upgrade of the IS version.

Not sure I agree, the IS version is the sharper of the two f/4 lenses.

Says you, Lensrentals says it's the other way around and I agree even though I realize I could have been just lucky/unlucky with my copies. Same goes for you.

 

[dolina]

Source: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/eos_5ds_and_5dsr_recommended_lenses.do

I corrected one typo... namely the EF200mm f/2L II USM to EF200mm f/2.8L II USM

Zoom Lenses

2011 EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM
2015 EF 11-24mm f/4L USM
2014 EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
2012 EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
2012 EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM
2010 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
2006 EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
2010 EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
2014 EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
2013 EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4x

Wide Angle Primes

2009 TS-E 17mm f/4L
2009 TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
2008 EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
2012 EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
2012 EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM
2012 EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

Standard Primes

2012 EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
2007 EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
1993 EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
2015 EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
1987 EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro

Telephoto Primes

2006 EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
1992 EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
1991 TS-E 90mm f/2.8
1991 EF 100mm f/2 USM
2000 EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
2009 EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
2008 EF 200mm f/2L IS USM
2011 EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM
2011 EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM
2015 EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM
2011 EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM
2011 EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM
2008 EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM


Canon's recommendation could indicate lenses that are not expected to be updated within 3-5 years?

 

[meywd]

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

But the sharper 70-200mm f/4 non-IS is on the list. Perhaps it's time for an upgrade of the IS version.

Not sure I agree, the IS version is the sharper of the two f/4 lenses.

Says you, Lensrentals says it's the other way around and I agree even though I realize I could have been just lucky/unlucky with my copies. Same goes for you.

If you check the comparison tool at TDP you will see that the IS version is sharper, and it's clearer on 70mm than on 200mm

 

[AshtonNekolah]

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>
<p>A couple of other oddities are the EF 50mm f/1.8 II appearing on the list and not the brand new EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, as well as the EF 50mm f/1.4 making an appearance.</p>
<p><strong>Zoom Lenses</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM</li>
<li>EF 11-24mm f/4L USM</li>
<li>EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM</li>
<li>EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM</li>
<li>EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM</li>
<li>EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM</li>
<li>EF 70-200mm f/4L USM</li>
<li>EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM</li>
<li>EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM</li>
<li>EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4x</li>
</ul>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p><strong>Wide Angle Primes</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>TS-E 17mm f/4L</li>
<li>TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II</li>
<li>EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM</li>
<li>EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM</li>
<li>EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM</li>
<li>EF 35mm f/2 IS USM</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Standard Primes</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>EF 40mm f/2.8 STM</li>
<li>EF 50mm f/1.2L USM</li>
<li>EF 50mm f/1.4 USM</li>
<li>EF 50mm f/1.8 II</li>
<li>EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Telephoto Primes</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM</li>
<li>EF 85mm f/1.8 USM</li>
<li>TS-E 90mm f/2.8</li>
<li>EF 100mm f/2 USM</li>
<li>EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM</li>
<li>EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM</li>
<li>EF 135mm f/2.0L USM</li>
<li>EF 200mm f/2L II USM</li>
<li>EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM</li>
<li>EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM</li>
<li>EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM</li>
<li>EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM</li>
<li>EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM</li>
<li>EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM</li>
<li>EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM</li>
</ul>

more proof that bodies die long before lenses. Long live the lenses. It don't matter what the list lists, lenses out live bodies any day.

 

[snowphotographer]

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

But the sharper 70-200mm f/4 non-IS is on the list. Perhaps it's time for an upgrade of the IS version.

Not sure I agree, the IS version is the sharper of the two f/4 lenses.

Says you, Lensrentals says it's the other way around and I agree even though I realize I could have been just lucky/unlucky with my copies. Same goes for you.

If you check the comparison tool at TDP you will see that the IS version is sharper, and it's clearer on 70mm than on 200mm

Yes you found on the internet that different reviewers have different opinions, maybe someone is more right, I don't know. We can leave it at that.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

But the sharper 70-200mm f/4 non-IS is on the list. Perhaps it's time for an upgrade of the IS version.

Not sure I agree, the IS version is the sharper of the two f/4 lenses.

Says you, Lensrentals says it's the other way around and I agree even though I realize I could have been just lucky/unlucky with my copies. Same goes for you.

Says TDP, Photozone, SLR Gear, and Canon's published MTF charts for the two lenses, too. I do really trust Roger's (Lensrentals) testing, but I can't find any results from him comparing the 70-200/4L IS vs. non-IS – would you mind sharing a link to those data?

 

[pwp]

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.

Yes the exclusion of the 16-35 f/2.8II was the one that jumped out at me too. Much like many other photographers copies of that lens, mine barely passes muster. I was set to replace it with the L 16-35 f/4is which has a great rep, but darn...I do like that f/2.8 option. Maybe I'll sit tight a while longer and see if the 16-35 f/2.8 III makes an appearance.

-pw

 

[snowphotographer]

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

But the sharper 70-200mm f/4 non-IS is on the list. Perhaps it's time for an upgrade of the IS version.

Not sure I agree, the IS version is the sharper of the two f/4 lenses.

Says you, Lensrentals says it's the other way around and I agree even though I realize I could have been just lucky/unlucky with my copies. Same goes for you.

Says TDP, Photozone, SLR Gear, and Canon's published MTF charts for the two lenses, too. I do really trust Roger's (Lensrentals) testing, but I can't find any results from him comparing the 70-200/4L IS vs. non-IS – would you mind sharing a link to those data?

http://blog.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03/the-best-lens-bargains

 

[PhotographyFirst]

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.

Yes the exclusion of the 16-35 f/2.8II was the one that jumped out at me too. Much like many other photographers copies of that lens, mine barely passes muster. I was set to replace it with the L 16-35 f/4is which has a great rep, but darn...I do like that f/2.8 option. Maybe I'll sit tight a while longer and see if the 16-35 f/2.8 III makes an appearance.

-pw

Since we might be seeing a new 1dx in the next year, I imagine they could update the 16-35L II. It's hugely popular with journalists and sports photographers. If they got rid of some vignetting, made it sharper, and had better coma control, it would sell really well with landscape photographers who want a one lens solutions for daytime and nighttime shots.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

But the sharper 70-200mm f/4 non-IS is on the list. Perhaps it's time for an upgrade of the IS version.

Not sure I agree, the IS version is the sharper of the two f/4 lenses.

Says you, Lensrentals says it's the other way around and I agree even though I realize I could have been just lucky/unlucky with my copies. Same goes for you.

Says TDP, Photozone, SLR Gear, and Canon's published MTF charts for the two lenses, too. I do really trust Roger's (Lensrentals) testing, but I can't find any results from him comparing the 70-200/4L IS vs. non-IS – would you mind sharing a link to those data?

http://blog.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03/the-best-lens-bargains

Interesting, thanks! He supports that statement in the comments as well. I don't think that's the norm, especially given the theoretical MTF curves (close, but the IS version is clearly better) and other reliable tests out there, but glad your copy is great!

 

[dolina]

Unlisted L lenses that may have new versions within the year or two.

2007 EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
- Canon may come out with a Series III or better yet an IS version

2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
- Nikon came out with their own in 2010

2007 EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
- Like the 15/2.8 FE the 14 has been sidegraded by the 11-24/4.0

1998 EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
- Series II to compete with Sigma Art & Nikon's marketed in 2010

1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
- Nikon came out with a PF (Nikon's equivalent to DO) in 2015.

1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
- Waiting for Nikon or other company to offer a lens like this

 

[AlanF]

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

But the sharper 70-200mm f/4 non-IS is on the list. Perhaps it's time for an upgrade of the IS version.

Not sure I agree, the IS version is the sharper of the two f/4 lenses.

Says you, Lensrentals says it's the other way around and I agree even though I realize I could have been just lucky/unlucky with my copies. Same goes for you.

Says TDP, Photozone, SLR Gear, and Canon's published MTF charts for the two lenses, too. I do really trust Roger's (Lensrentals) testing, but I can't find any results from him comparing the 70-200/4L IS vs. non-IS – would you mind sharing a link to those data?

http://blog.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03/the-best-lens-bargains

Interesting, thanks! He supports that statement in the comments as well. I don't think that's the norm, especially given the theoretical MTF curves (close, but the IS version is clearly better) and other reliable tests out there, but glad your copy is great!

It is a bit odd. Roger makes the bald statement that the non-IS is sharper without the measurements to back it up, whereas Photozone has MTF charts with the the IS version much sharper and TDP also has it sharper.

 

[sanj]

I am interested in knowing what happens if I use a non recommended lens? How will the picture be inferior?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I am interested in knowing what happens if I use a non recommended lens? How will the picture be inferior?

Your camera will melt. Best buy some new lenses!

 

[Pinchers of Peril]

I am interested in knowing what happens if I use a non recommended lens? How will the picture be inferior?

Your camera will melt. Best buy some new lenses!

Yeah it's a built in "self destruct" function. That's what the "s" stands for.

 

[Eldar]

Shit, non of my Zeiss lenses made it ... I guess I have to get rid of them ...

 

[snowphotographer]

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

But the sharper 70-200mm f/4 non-IS is on the list. Perhaps it's time for an upgrade of the IS version.

Not sure I agree, the IS version is the sharper of the two f/4 lenses.

Says you, Lensrentals says it's the other way around and I agree even though I realize I could have been just lucky/unlucky with my copies. Same goes for you.

Says TDP, Photozone, SLR Gear, and Canon's published MTF charts for the two lenses, too. I do really trust Roger's (Lensrentals) testing, but I can't find any results from him comparing the 70-200/4L IS vs. non-IS – would you mind sharing a link to those data?

http://blog.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03/the-best-lens-bargains

Interesting, thanks! He supports that statement in the comments as well. I don't think that's the norm, especially given the theoretical MTF curves (close, but the IS version is clearly better) and other reliable tests out there, but glad your copy is great!

Yes when I had it and compared to the IS I could not understand why anyone shooting sports would pay the double to get in practice about the same IQ. I thought I was upgrading but could not see it in the pictures. If you get a chance, try it and compare but as you said, it was maybe just me being lucky. In the end I sold the IS and then the f/4 non-IS to get the f/2.8. Enough OT for now, saw that the list was corrected to include the IS and not the non-IS anyway =)

 

[jeffa4444]

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

But the sharper 70-200mm f/4 non-IS is on the list. Perhaps it's time for an upgrade of the IS version.

Not sure I agree, the IS version is the sharper of the two f/4 lenses.

Says you, Lensrentals says it's the other way around and I agree even though I realize I could have been just lucky/unlucky with my copies. Same goes for you.

Says TDP, Photozone, SLR Gear, and Canon's published MTF charts for the two lenses, too. I do really trust Roger's (Lensrentals) testing, but I can't find any results from him comparing the 70-200/4L IS vs. non-IS – would you mind sharing a link to those data?

http://blog.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03/the-best-lens-bargains

Interesting, thanks! He supports that statement in the comments as well. I don't think that's the norm, especially given the theoretical MTF curves (close, but the IS version is clearly better) and other reliable tests out there, but glad your copy is great!

I have both version of the 70-200mm f4L (non & IS). MTF charts aside in real world photography I can't tell any difference and given I usually use this focal length on a tripod the IS 95% of the time is redundant. Perhaps their "recommended list" is the best Nyquist match, equally it could be better controlled Color fringing, lateral chromatic aberrations who knows, certainly better control of any type of aberration is better for a high resolution camera.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have both version of the 70-200mm f4L (non & IS). MTF charts aside in real world photography I can't tell any difference and given I usually use this focal length on a tripod the IS 95% of the time is redundant. Perhaps their "recommended list" is the best Nyquist match, equally it could be better controlled Color fringing, lateral chromatic aberrations who knows, certainly better control of any type of aberration is better for a high resolution camera.

Their 'recommended list' is merely a shopping list, the 70-200/4 IS is newer and more expensive than the non-IS version. I suspect IS with focal lengths above 100mm is not redundant for many people, even if that's the case for you. The most time my 70-200mm has spent on a tripod is for AFMA.