ahsanford said:
traveller said:
If they were going to produce the lens that you wanted, I think that it would have come out soon after the 35mm f/2 IS USM and 24/28mm f/2.8 IS USM series were released.
The 24/28/35 refresh was actually to retire three very old lenses that pre-dated the non-L USM primes entirely, I believe. See chart, it's bit dated but you get the idea.
So those three got their own refresh wave while the 20 2.8 / 28 1.8 / 50 1.4 / 85 1.8 / 100 2 USM primes are still plugging away. What's infuriating about those 5 lenses is that the 50 appears to be the only one that was saddled with Micro USM and that horrible length-changing (externally focusing / telescoping nonsense) sort of design. If only the EF 50 f/1.4 USM was like all the others on that list -- especially the 85 f/1.8 -- I'd probably be happy with it as my small 50 prime.
I personally see a non-L USM prime update happening, possibly downgraded to Nano USM instead of ring USM in light of the underwhelming response to the 24/28/35 IS lenses (which are loved but were overpriced out of the gate).
- A
I can see your point about the 50mm f/1.4 being upgraded along with the rest of the 'USM series' of non-L primes, trouble is that I'm not convinced that those lenses will be updated any time soon either. Neither do I agree with you five levels of lens classification, I see only three (of different vintages and technology levels) for all primes and zooms:
1) 'L'-series
2) Premium non-L (EF & EF-S)
3) Budget (EF & EF-S)
Canon clearly marks (1), so there is no doubt over which lenses fall into this category. Where the boundaries lie in terms of the others is up for debate and I'm not sure that Canon themselves have hard and fast rules about this, as their thinking seems to shift over time. I would argue that the old 24/28/35 f/2.8 AFD lenses were part of a series that was perhaps intended to be the only line below the 'L's. This would have also included the old 'version 1' of the 50mm f/1.8. This series got overtaken by advances in technology that led to the remaining lenses in the series gaining USM: in chronological order: the 100mm f/2 (1991), 85 f/1.8 (1992), 20mm f/2.8, 50 f/1.4 (1993) and 28 f/1.8 (1995 - and the last non-L, non-macro lens that Canon released until the 40mm STM). The 50mm f/1.8 is a bit of an aberration, as it managed to get downgraded to budget on the release of version II (in 1990) even before the 50 1.4 USM was available -perhaps this signal a shift in Canon's strategy around this time. It may have been Canon's original intention to downgrade all the original series by introducing premium USM variants, but it seems they never completed the set by introducing a 24 f/2 (?) USM or a 35 f/2 USM (until the 35 f/2 IS USM over a decade later).
If Canon were going to update the USM series primes, then the 28mm f/1.8 USM is the lens most in need, as it's easily the worst performer of the bunch, but the 28mm focal length became somewhat unfashionable years ago, when people started to prefer the 24mm. This was also true of the 50mm length, which declined in popularity versus the 35mm, but less so because at least the 50mm lenses were ultra cheap entry points to fast aperture primes. The 85 f1.8 USM is a very good lens (if now a bit behind the class leaders), which would benefit from a refresh, but I don't think we'll see one for a couple of years to give Canon the opportunity to upsell people to the new 85 f/1.4 L IS USM. That leaves the 100 f/2 USM, which was a totally neglected (except for macro) focal length by all manufacturers, right up until Nikon released their new 105 f/1.4. Again, I just can't see Canon updating this lens as most people prefer the 85mm and you are realistically only going to need one of these two. If there is a new 100mm lens, I think Canon will give it the 'L' treatment and a >= f/1.4 aperture.
I can see the advantage to Canon of having a complete non-L lineup as Nikon have a complete set in both f/1.4 and f/1.8 aperture from 24mm up to 85mm. However there is a differentiation danger (from the manufacturer's point of view) as a lot of Nikonians recommend the f/1.8 versions for being as sharp, cheaper and lighter, unless you are desperate for the extra 2/3rds stop.