Lenses to consider

[jeffa4444]

Canon should consider an EF125mm f2.8 (crop 200mm) and a EF150 f2.8 (crop 240mm) possibly making the EF150 marco along the lines of the EF100 f2.8L lens. Currently excluding the EF180mm Macro lens Canon goes from 135mm to 200mm in fixed focal lenght in standard form.

If they can make both to the optical performance of the EF100 f2.8L or higher then I think they will sell reasonably well.

 

[Random Orbits]

Why? There already is a 135L, which is even faster at f/2 and it's not that big a lens. 150 is too close to 135, and the other thing is that the 70-200 zooms are really good lenses. The primes have better bokeh, but why come out with primes with a max aperture of f/2.8 when the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II fulfills that role so well?

 

[mackguyver]

Why? There already is a 135L, which is even faster at f/2 and it's not that big a lens. 150 is too close to 135, and the other thing is that the 70-200 zooms are really good lenses. The primes have better bokeh, but why come out with primes with a max aperture of f/2.8 when the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II fulfills that role so well?

+1 and my (personal) policy is only to buy primes if they are faster than zooms (f/1.2-2 up to 200mm and 2.8 above 300mm) or are specialty lenses - TS-E / Macro.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have a 100mm L and a 135mm L, I would never consider a 125mm lens, no point in just a tiny difference in focal length. Most people buy zooms, so prime lenses are not big sellers.

 

[Tinky]

you are forgetting the 135 f2.8 sf.

Very nice lens with the sf dialled out. Compact too, and fairly cheap. Don't hold your breath waiting on the old arc form drive to find focus though, haha

 

[Marsu42]

Currently excluding the EF180mm Macro lens Canon goes from 135mm to 200mm in fixed focal lenght in standard form.

Don't forget the visual difference per mm gets smaller for longer focal lengths, the 65mm between these is nowhere near say 15mm and 50mm. And it's not only about specs, but about usage scenarios - excluding use on crop, what exactly is a 150mm lens for that 135L or 180L don't cover?

Currently excluding the EF180mm Macro lens Canon goes from 135mIf they can make both to the optical performance of the EF100 f2.8L or higher then I think they will sell reasonably well.

Imho they should update the 180L to IS, it would be a terrific combo lens for for long portrait, macro and tele (with tc) - a friend of mine goes on raving about Nikon's 200mm "micro" version.

Alas, Canon doesn't seem to be ready to put that much r&d into it and is busy selling Rebels and cine/stm lenses to really take care of their L lens lineup.

 

[Bennymiata]

If you want a 150mm f2.8 prime, look at the Sigma 150 macro with OS.
Fantastic lens.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Canon should consider an EF125mm f2.8 (crop 200mm) and a EF150 f2.8 (crop 240mm) possibly making the EF150 marco along the lines of the EF100 f2.8L lens. Currently excluding the EF180mm Macro lens Canon goes from 135mm to 200mm in fixed focal lenght in standard form.

If they can make both to the optical performance of the EF100 f2.8L or higher then I think they will sell reasonably well.

There is very little difference between the small AoV's you mention.
The differences are much larger at the wide end.

 

[NancyP]

An update of the current old (1998) EF 180 f/3.5L macro with IS would be nice. I don't know as I would be a client, since I have the original, a great lens. 180-200mm are good macro FLs for insect/ small critter macro. I use the 180 with an TC 1.4x II when I shoot snakes close up. Some of these snakes are poisonous, and I approach very carefully and watch for signs of nervousness (in the snake - I am already a bit nervous), at which point I withdraw slowly.

 

[davidcl0nel]

I want a 70mm prime, which can really "replace" my 70-200 2.8 IS II at 70mm 2.8. I often use the 70mm in portrait mode to do single row panoramas.

I have the 35 IS and the 100 Macro IS.
If I add an 50mm, this is too close to 35, a 85 too close to 100, 70 would be nice and in the middle.
I don't need more than f/2, but the optical quality should be superb beyond f/2.8

 

[sdsr]

Why? There already is a 135L, which is even faster at f/2 and it's not that big a lens. 150 is too close to 135, and the other thing is that the 70-200 zooms are really good lenses. The primes have better bokeh, but why come out with primes with a max aperture of f/2.8 when the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II fulfills that role so well?

If the 150 were a macro lens it would have the advantage of a shorter minimum focal distance, and presumably it would be smaller/lighter than the zoom (though the Sigma 150mm macro I rented once seemed unpleasantly heavy), so two advantages there for some. But yes, it's hard to see the point of a 125mm of any sort given the 100mm & 135mm alternatives.

 

[Tinky]

I want a 70mm prime, which can really "replace" my 70-200 2.8 IS II at 70mm 2.8. I often use the 70mm in portrait mode to do single row panoramas.

I have the 35 IS and the 100 Macro IS.
If I add an 50mm, this is too close to 35, a 85 too close to 100, 70 would be nice and in the middle.
I don't need more than f/2, but the optical quality should be superb beyond f/2.8

Sigma 70mm macro.

Seriously. Excellent excellent lens.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

Imho they should update the 180L to IS, it would be a terrific combo lens for for long portrait, macro and tele (with tc) - a friend of mine goes on raving about Nikon's 200mm "micro" version.

Alas, Canon doesn't seem to be ready to put that much r&d into it and is busy selling Rebels and cine/stm lenses to really take care of their L lens lineup.

There was a Canon patent for the 180 IS Macro last year, so we might see it relatively soon.

 

[jeffa4444]

Mathematically 100, 125, 150, 200 make more sense than 135 and 180. If the arguement made here stacks up then why have a 180 & a 200 and why jump from 135 to 200 if you exclude the fact the 180 is a macro lens.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Mathematically 100, 125, 150, 200 make more sense than 135 and 180. If the arguement made here stacks up then why have a 180 & a 200 and why jump from 135 to 200 if you exclude the fact the 180 is a macro lens.

Depending on what kind of math you follow.
In this case, the numerical focal length matters less than the Angle of view.
The AoV for the commonly used telephoto focal lengths are (horizontally):
100mm: 20 degrees
135mm: 15 degrees
200mm: 10 degrees
400mm: 5 degrees and so on.
That is why, 135mm makes sense and not 125 or 150.
[http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/standard_display/bctv_tools/bctv_range_calculator/bctv_range_angleview]

Mind you, lenses at some focal lengths are probably more optimal (in terms of price and performance) to design than others- that is a more important aspect for designers than keeping symmetry in numbers.

 

[davidcl0nel]

Sigma 70mm macro.

Seriously. Excellent excellent lens.

Yes, I have seen this... on paper. I didn't find somebody to try it out yet here in Berlin. I don't want to buy it and sent it back later - this isn't my style...
But thank you for reminding me again.