Most requested lenses for replacement?

[Radiating]

I just thought I'd see what everyone wanted to see replaced most in Canon's lineup. Feel free to post your top requests for lenses that need replacement. I'll start:

Rank - Lens Name - What Needs Fixing

#1 - 50mm 1.2L - sharpness, CA (even at the the cost of aperture speed in my oppinion)
#2 - 50mm 1.4 - sharpness, Modern USM (Badly needs updating, Nikon's is far ahead)
#3 - 35mm 1.4 L - sharpness, CA (very badly needs updating, 14 year old design, Nikon's is much much better)
#4 - 135mm f/2.0 L - aperture, image stabilization (16 year old design, there are plenty of 135mm f/1.8 lenses around, would love to see f/1.8 + IS, like a mini 200mm f/2.0 IS)
#5 - 16-35mm f/2.8 II L - sharpness, CA - (it's a good lens but Nikon's 14-24mm gives it a run for it's money)

Feel free to list your own top 5

 

[Loswr]

100-400mm - updated coatings, weather sealing, updated IS

35L - updated coatings, weather sealing

#1 - 50mm 1.2L - sharpness, CA (even at the the cost of aperture speed in my oppinion)

FWIW, the cost wouldn't be aperture, the cost would be the incredible bokeh for which the 50L is known. Also, it's a recent design - this one is really far down in Canon's list.

 

[monzak]

100-400mm - updated coatings, weather sealing, updated IS

+1

i'm waiting for this lens to be updated before i go ahead and purchase it

 

[EOBeav]

#4 - 135mm f/2.0 - aperture, image stabilization (16 year old design, there are plenty of 135mm f/1.8 lenses around, would love to see f/1.8 + IS, like a mini 200mm f/2.0 IS)

It's interesting that you mention this. I was just looking at both 135mm's today online, this one and the f/2 L that is a far more recent design. If they did redesign this one, added IS, maybe a little wider aperture, I wonder if they would need to price it at the level of the current 135mm f/2 L. I'm not sure that they would have two similarly priced primes of the same focal length on the market at the same time. My take is that they'll keep producing the non-L 135mm as long as there is a market for it, then discontinue it altogether. I could be wrong, though.

 

[paul13walnut5]

The 135mm f2.8 SF.

Replace with USM version. Perhaps even drop the SF bit.

I loved this lens on APS-C, but the AFD motor was horrifically slow for the focal length.

Was compact, fairly cheap, and pretty good optically.

 

[crasher8]

My weird requests

OT I know but I'd love a EF 100mm 1.8 or 2.0 L non macro, weather sealed all Al body.

Besides that to stay on topic, I'd like to see the 35 f/2 get an update but not for video like it's cousins. Also how about true ring on the 50 1.4.

 

[Ricku]

The world needs a 50L II.

I want it to be sharper wide open (on par with wide open shots from the 85L II and 135L), and I want it to be free from focus shift issues.

 

[Imagination_landB]

50 1.4(the sigma is so much better imo), 135 f2(sony has a 1.8, why not canon?), 400 5.6 (with IS it could be wonderful) or maybe an 2500$ f4 ?, a 14-24 or 12-24(like the sigma) could also be a big seller.

 

[briansquibb]

135II would get better contrast. IS is a complication/weight that is not needed.

 

[Ricku]

135II would get better contrast. IS is a complication/weight that is not needed.

Thats what I said until I tried and bought the 70-200 2.8 IS II. Now I can't live without the IS.

Canon's latest image stabilizing tech is truly remarkable.

Who doesn't want to be able to shoot 1/10 - 1/20 sec handheld at 200mm?

All lenses should come with IS, even wide angle ones.

 

[Dylan777]

The world needs a 50L II.

I want it to be sharper wide open (on par with wide open shots from the 85L II and 135L), and I want it to be free from focus shift issues.

+1....sharp as 35L wide open - fix the focus shift !!!PLEASE!!!

 

[briansquibb]

Who doesn't want to be able to shoot 1/10 - 1/20 sec handheld at 200mm?

All lenses should come with IS, even wide angle ones.

If you dont get motion blur then a monopod/tripod is even better

So the answer from me is no - for the 135 I shoot at a minimum about 1/200 which is why it is so sharp

 

[paul13walnut5]

Who doesn't want to be able to shoot 1/10 - 1/20 sec handheld at 200mm?

+1 for me. I would far prefer to use a monopod. If my exposure was this low with such a long lens I would consider upping the iso, or getting in closer and using a shorter focal length.

IS never has and never will solve subject motion blur, which at 200mm is more likely to be the killer.

I shoot video so I never venture away from 1/50th for moving footage anyway, and I tend to have my camera on a fig rig, video monopod or solid video tripod anyway. I will ALWAYS have at least one form of camera support with me.

But thats me doing video. Whole different ball game.

 

[nikkito]

Does someone know if the 85mm 1.2 will be updated soon?

 

[pdirestajr]

50mm f/1.8 mkIII. Metal mount, real focus ring (basically the mkI), they can even leave the USM out to keep it real cheap!

 

[photophreek]

Does someone know if the 85mm 1.2 will be updated soon?

Why do you need this lens to be updated? It's sharp at all apertures, unreal bokeh and very accurate AF. It really isn't as slow as what you read in reviews IMHO and the "focus-by-wire" is not sometng you need to get used to at all...tremendous lens. To answer your orginal query, the lens was released in 2006, so an update is a long way away.

 

[westr70]

135II would get better contrast. IS is a complication/weight that is not needed.

Thats what I said until I tried and bought the 70-200 2.8 IS II. Now I can't live without the IS.

Canon's latest image stabilizing tech is truly remarkable.

Who doesn't want to be able to shoot 1/10 - 1/20 sec handheld at 200mm?

All lenses should come with IS, even wide angle ones.

Here, here..... Love my 200 mm.

 

[bdunbar79]

Does someone know if the 85mm 1.2 will be updated soon?

Why do you need this lens to be updated? It's sharp at all apertures, unreal bokeh and very accurate AF. It really isn't as slow as what you read in reviews IMHO and the "focus-by-wire" is not sometng you need to get used to at all...tremendous lens. To answer your orginal query, the lens was released in 2006, so an update is a long way away.

I've shot sports with the 85 f/1.2L. It's amazing and I didn't notice it being slow. I had a lot of keepers with it. My requested update would be a 50mm lens, but that isn't going to happen because the 1.2L is too new. I don't see a 1.4 II coming out, even though I'd personally like one.

I'd like a 35L II perhaps, maybe a 100-400L II IS, or some other odd prime focal length, like a 70L. That'd be cool. Oh well I'm not contributing here, just wishing, sorry. (20L and 28L too )

 

[pwp]

I don't own a 135 f/2 at the moment but it's a brilliant piece of glass which feels very last century now that I've been spoiled by IS in the brilliant 70-200 f/2.8ISII. My 135 f/2 wasn't getting any use so was traded. I don't hold as steady as some photographers who can hand-hold at insanely low shutter speeds. I do value IS! The 135 f/2 lens would be a popular candidate for upgrade. I'd like to see it presented at the design level of the L100 f/2.8is macro. Even with the inevitable price boost, this would be a great seller.

EF50 f/1.4 would be another welcome upgrade, as would an optically improved 16-35 f/2.8III. Lessons learned in the redesign of the 24-70 f/2.8II may flow through to the 16-35.

There will always be time lapses in the development cycles, but that's life. But overall I see Canon's lens set as offering brilliant choices for just about any shooting style or special project.

PW

 

[EOBeav]

Folks, they're not going to update the 135mm f/2 SF just so that it can compete with the current 135mm f/2 L. Remember, and updated version isn't going to come out at ~$500USD where the current one is. The hypothetical lens would come out more like ~$1000USD, where the 135mm f/2 L currently sits. It's just not gonna happen.