New Lenses Imminent? [CR1]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm ready for my next lens purchase but I am dragging my feet at the moment to see what Canon is going to release prime lens wise. I want a fast prime around 35 to 50mm for portrait work using my APS-C camera.

I've had my eye on the 50 f/1.4 for a while but It seems like it should be due for an update--more so than the f/1.8 II. I'm hoping for a ring USM upgrade to f/1.4.

On the other hand 35mm is closer to a "normal" lens (56mm FF) so I'm considering 35. I really want to go faster than f/2 since I have a APS-C camera and as you can see from signature, my fastest lens is a f/2.8.

For me I'll take a 50 f/1.4II please. . . or do I want to go with the 35 f/1.4? :-\
 
Upvote 0
When my 70-200 2.8 isn't fast enough, the 85 1.8 is my go to lens in darkly lit gymnasiums. It's the only reason I haven't sold it, but it does suffer from some pretty brutal CA wide open. A canon 85 1.4 would be a dream come true, and make for a very versatile complement to my zoom I know sigma has an 85 1.4 and I've had good luck with their glass, but I admit that I prefer Canon glass.

I rarely shoot at 50mm since I find the 30mm range more versatile but I'd like to see a Canon 35 mm just a little faster than 2.0
 
Upvote 0
Bob Howland said:
What's going on here??? Is canon "optimizing" their prime lenses for use with EF mount camcorders?
Good catch - there's the rumor stating that there would be multiple (I read three) PL or EF lens announced alongside this new video camera. If they are updating these lenses to match a video system, though, I don't expect they would end up being recognizable as the current three lenses mentioned. Price would balloon pretty markedly just to give them a constant angle of view and improve the manual focus ring (it also seems it would be difficult to market these old primes as good for video if they keep their current long manual focus path).
 
Upvote 0
traveller said:
Canon badly need a decent 'normal' prime for APS-C users because the current offering all have significant weaknesses, as does the main third party alternative. Beyond that, there is a need for some affordable wide angle primes. To be honest, if it saves money they might as well make them EF-S, as anyone that can afford a full frame camera should really be able to afford 'L' glass (and if not, they've probably got their buying priorities wrong!). I don't buy the argument that some people make that it's only full frame users who care about prime lenses. A decent full frame setup will cost you many thousands of your local currency; it's a little insulting to suggest that only the rich can afford to be 'serious photographers'.

I disagree with your statement regarding FF users and the cost of an FF setup. FF users are not much more likely to be rich than your average prosumer APS user these days: here in Canada, a 5D2 is $1999 and a 7D is $1449, which is not a huge difference. Also, used 5Dc's and 1Ds(II)'s can easily be had for less than $1500.

Secondly, a 5D2 with a 35/2 provides better performance at a cheaper price than a 7D with 24L (my set up); similarly, said 5D with 50/1.4 is much cheaper and better than said 7D with 35L. You can pretty much go on forever with similar comparisons. A 5D2 with 24/2.8 isn't even comparable to APS, as an EF-S 15/1.8 doesn't exist and if it did, the price would be frightening.

If you look at it this way, you can see that your statement about a "decent" FF kit being expensive is quite wrong. One (myself included) might even say the opposite is true. I suppose that makes me look dumb, as I have a 7D/24L, but in my defense, they were purchased years apart, I need the 7D's features and my mkI 24L was way less than the new one is.

If you don't need high PD or the AF/FPS of a 7D, how exactly are your priorities wrong in buying a 5D2 with cheap glass? You get better performance for less $$$ and often end up with a lighter, smaller kit as well. There's no rule stating that FF users are stuck buying L glass and honestly, they need it less than us APS guys.

This is why I like the idea of Canon updating these non-L primes: they would benefit both APS and FF shooters. These lenses are mostly fine optically, all they need is USM, more aperture blades and maybe a tweak here and there. They should definitely be kept EF though, even if there is a small cost savings to make the wider ones APS, there's more than enough interest in them from FF users. Personally, I'm looking to add an FF body as soon as I can afford it and would definitely buy a 35/2.
 
Upvote 0
I hope those lenses aren't going to be refreshed the same way the EF-S 18-55mm was.

I have a 35mm f/2, and if it was upgraded with USM and improved boken (lines in the background look bad), it will be an attractive upgrade for me.

Am not sure where the 85mm f/1.8, which is a favourite of mine, can be improved. Maybe IS, though it's absence in this lens didn't bother me.
 
Upvote 0
I wouldnt be supprized if the 35mm f/2 actually goes the same way as the 50mm 1.8, cheaper build and a cheaper price.

It does afterall make for a good normal lens on a crop and if Canon can knock say a third off the price then that offers them an easy way to compete with Nikon's 35mm 1.8 without having to go though a costly total redesign.

Another option could I spose be that these lenses are the rumoured ones with an amature dial on them designed for the video market.
 
Upvote 0
the 85 1.8 is an amazing lens, dont see it needing replacing. without lenshood i have no CA or other issues with it, lenshood always helps to that (its massive).

the 50 1.8 dont see it being replaced as its just too cheap for canon to profit from. they should (imho) refresh the 1.4 with proper USM. IQ could be improved on it aswell im sure. Ive read reviews that commented the 1.8 version being sharper overall than the 1.4 - something which at 3x the cost is just not right.

-P
 
Upvote 0
Typical! I just got the 35 f2 for 5dc two weeks ago. But I love it and my 24-70L is almost anathema now its so big.

I haven't noticed the focusing being slower than my 24-70 which really surprised me, its much faster than the other non-usm lenses I've used.

Even so I don't think any dslr lens should be without usm these days. Its not exactly new technology. Just don't let it get any bigger. Also fixing the flare in direct sunlight would be good. To be honest I'd pay for an L version that was f2 and compact; I love this focal length.
 
Upvote 0
ericski said:
Are there (valid) complaints about the 85 f/1.8? Mine is one of my best lenses I own. I can't imagine improvements and it staying in the same price range/class.

x2 -- nothing wrong with the 85mm.

What would the point of improving the 50mm f1.8 be? Don't get me wrong, there's room for improvement, but improving build quality/speed would make it basically exactly the same thing as the 50mm f/1.4 except for gaining the (think???) 2/3 of a stop? There would be no motivation to buy the f/1.4. "I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there."

Maybe we're back to bored tipsters making crap up again . . . we'll know soon enough if more 'official 5DmkIII specs come in ;)
 
Upvote 0
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
- Needs IS and new optics.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6L IS II USM
- Needs new optics and IS update.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L II USM
- Needs new optics.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L II (or IS) USM
- Needs new optics and possibly IS.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 II (or IS) USM
- Needs new optics and possibly IS.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II USM
- Needs the new optics from the updated IS version.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L II USM
- Needs the new optics from the IS version.

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L IS USM
- Needs IS and new optics.
 
Upvote 0
dhofmann said:
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
- Needs IS and new optics.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6L IS II USM
- Needs new optics and IS update.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L II USM
- Needs new optics.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L II (or IS) USM
- Needs new optics and possibly IS.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 II (or IS) USM
- Needs new optics and possibly IS.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II USM
- Needs the new optics from the updated IS version.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L II USM
- Needs the new optics from the IS version.

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L IS USM
- Needs IS and new optics.

you forgot, 200-400mm f4 w/ x1.4 converter
this just needs to come out
 
Upvote 0
it is good to see that I am not the only one who wants a fast normal prime for aps-c :)
I would prefer 28mm rather than 35mm though.

28 1.4 usm or 30 1.4 usm below 500 euros would be nice.
for me it could be ef-s, I do not mind.

currently the canon 28/1.8 (which is 16 years old) or the sigma 30/1.4 seem to be the best option.

I think there is not much to update either the 50/1.8 or the 85/1.8, rather the 50/1.4 then..
 
Upvote 0
whatta said:
28 1.4 usm or 30 1.4 usm below 500 euros would be nice.
for me it could be ef-s, I do not mind.

If either of those happened I'd guess they'd have to be EF-S to avoid killing the sales of the L lenses.

If Canon did make them EF-S though I doubt they'd stick with those focal lenghts, they'd probabley go with something like 22mm and 31mm to get the crop equivilents of 35mm and 50mm.
 
Upvote 0
unruled said:
the 85 1.8 is an amazing lens, dont see it needing replacing. without lenshood i have no CA or other issues with it, lenshood always helps to that (its massive).

You're thinking of lens flare, the hood does nothing for the CA (chromatic aberration). CA is particularly visible at sharp, high-contrast edges near the corners of the field of view, especially with the lens wide open. The lenshood is one of the smaller, I don't understand why you call it "massive", perhaps you confuse it with another lens'.
 
Upvote 0
Soft wide open till about 2.2 or 2.8. Too many chromatic abberations for me at wider appertures. No IS.

Compact, affordable, and light are working for it.

ericski said:
Are there (valid) complaints about the 85 f/1.8? Mine is one of my best lenses I own. I can't imagine improvements and it staying in the same price range/class.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.