Most requested lenses for replacement?

[pwp]

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.

I assume you're talking about the 135 f/2.8SF, an old design with film era relevance which will probably quietly disappear from Canon's inventory sometime soon. I wonder how many they sell per year? It's the venerable 135 f/2L which also hales from last century, April 1996 to be exact which I'm hoping to see upgraded.

PW

 

[sharka23]

the entire world is just waiting for brand new TS-E 45mm and the TS-E 90mm .

 

[Deleted member 20471]

A 16-35/2.8L, still with 82mm filter size, but with a better edge and corner sharpness. And not extending (like the present 16-35) when zooming.

 

[JoeDavid]

How about a new version of the 400/5.6L adding IS. Also, now that Canon has boosted the price of the big white lenses to beyond reason, maybe a 500/5.6L with IS also...

 

[Marsu42]

I'd like to see it presented at the design level of the L100 f/2.8is macro.

Well, the 100L certainly has a nice design, but it's still just a plastic lens. Maybe I should be grateful because sturdier build would double the price, but I wouldn't mention it as a prototype what to expect from a lens.

 

[paul13walnut5]

the entire world is just waiting for brand new TS-E 45mm and the TS-E 90mm .

Is it? These are very very specialist lenses, the 90 in partucular is an exceptionally high performer as it is.

Could use free rotating shift position (relative to the tilt) like the 24 II and 17 got, but most folk who have the problem do the simple home modification anyway.

 

[RC]

35L II with WS, and please keep the price increase reasonable. 8)

 

[Marsu42]

35L II with WS, and please keep the price increase reasonable. 8)

That sounds like the next offer for extended flame wars after the 5d3 ... what would you consider "reasonable" for added sealing & the same iq (which can get hardly any better)?

 

[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.

I assume you're talking about the 135 f/2.8SF, an old design with film era relevance which will probably quietly disappear from Canon's inventory sometime soon. I wonder how many they sell per year? It's the venerable 135 f/2L which also hales from last century, April 1996 to be exact which I'm hoping to see upgraded.

PW

I stand corrected: The 135mm "Soft Focus" lens is an f/2.8. My point is that there were some calls on here to upgrade that lens, and I just don't see it happening. Personally I'd like to see the 135mm f/2 L get upgraded AFTER I buy this current version. A new one will undoubtedly be out of my price range.

 

[friedmud]

After just trying to purchase a 16-35 f/2.8L and coming up with two duds (see here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6391.0 ) I feel like an upgrade is in order there.

The Nikon offerings are much sharper, and the 16-35 has quite a bit of CA and distortion... Definitely a lot of room for improvement!

 

[Razor2012]

IS with anything slower such as the 400 5.6.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Non-L primes: add ring USM, faster aperture, better IQ, more apreture blades, and IS where applicable - 20mm f/2 USM, 24mm f/2 USM, 35mm f/2 USM, 50mm f/1.4 [IS would be nice for APS-C cameras], 85mm f/1.8 IS USM, 135mm f/1.8 IS USM.

A new lens to compete with the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8

A big, healthy, resounding upgrade to my wallet, so I could buy all of the above, as well as the 8-15mm f/4 L, TS-E 17mm f/4 L, and 200mm f/2 L IS USM.

 

[Marsu42]

Non-L primes: add ring USM, faster aperture, better IQ, more apreture blades, and IS where applicable

Since there are the L primes, why don't you just ask Canon to write you a paycheck? However, I agree with you that the micro usm like on the 50/1.4 really needs to phased out, there are enough other things to distinguish lenses.

 

[tron]

#3 - 35mm 1.4 L - sharpness, CA (very badly needs updating, 14 year old design, Nikon's is much much better)

It is rummored to be very sharp appart from the edges/corners at f/1.4 - f/2.0 . However when someone uses such an open aperture they use it to photo people who are not at the extremes. Since I haven't this lens (but I'd love to) and I would use it for astrophotography I would like an improved 35mm f/1.4. It would cost almost the double though...

#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)

I have that lens and I believe it's close to being perfect. True, IS would help but:
There is always the danger that IS could subtract a little sharpness unless the price doubles (see 70-200 f/2.8L IS II vs. 70-200 f/2.8L non-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)

I agree. I do have the version I with the known problems around 16mm but the version II has problems in the longer part. So I am stuck with version I until (possibly) a very good version III...

 

[RLPhoto]

For me These lenses would be nice to see an update.

1. 50mm 1.4, seriously needs a revamp.

2. 135mm f/2, Fabulous lens but F1.8 and IS would just make it an utter stunner. i'd pay 2000$+ for that, as long as they keep it black also.

3. The canon 35mm primes both need a revamp. The F/2 isnt great and the 35mm 1.4L isn't as good as the 24mm L II update and shows thats its overdue for a revamp.

4. An 200mm DO F/2 under 5000$ would be nice also but a pipe dream at best.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Non-L primes: add ring USM, faster aperture, better IQ, more apreture blades, and IS where applicable

Since there are the L primes, why don't you just ask Canon to write you a paycheck? However, I agree with you that the micro usm like on the 50/1.4 really needs to phased out, there are enough other things to distinguish lenses.

I'll settle for non-L primes and half a check

And on a serious note - I'm griping about the prices Canon charge for upgraded lenses. If those lenses were released with a reasonable price tag, I'd be happy to buy and/or upgrade them one by one over time. If I made a living off my equipment (I wish I did, I wish I did, I wish I did), maybe I could afford all L lenses, but as I don't, I have to opt for the non-L & used lenses.

 

[tron]

How about a new version of the 400/5.6L adding IS. Also, now that Canon has boosted the price of the big white lenses to beyond reason, maybe a 500/5.6L with IS also...

+2
Two excellent ideas !!

 

[briansquibb]

70-300L ===> f/4 throughout the range

 

[Marsu42]

70-300L ===> f/4 throughout the range

But if this would add 500g (not to speak of the price tag), I'd rather stay with the current design or carry around a 70-200L + tc :-o

 

[unfocused]

70-300L ===> f/4 throughout the range

I never understood why they didn't do this in the first place. They could have priced it in the range of the 70-200 2.8II and still done well. I'm afraid that the current 70-300 L probably precludes this from happening.

How about a new version of the 400/5.6L adding IS. Also, now that Canon has boosted the price of the big white lenses to beyond reason, maybe a 500/5.6L with IS also...

+2
Two excellent ideas !!

Agreed.

How about a 200 f2.8 with IS?

Some wide EF-S primes (15mm, 22mm) would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.

I used to want a new 100-400mm but upon hearing the rumored price, not so much anymore. I'll make do with the current version.