Next L Lens From Canon Will be a Prime [CR2]

[photogaz]

I would buy a 35L Mark II to replace my Mark I. Not really sure the 135L needs IS, but if it was sharper (which is gonna be hard) I would replace mine.

 

[Finn M]

Unfortunately, Canon's recent releases are either blah optics (ex...24mm, 28mm or 40mm 2.8) or OVER PRICED excellent optics but slow (11-24mm f4, 16-35 f4).

Why can't Canon innovate and produce quality optics for decent prices (Sigma, Tamron, heck even Rokinon with their manual focus lenses at cheap prices).

Either way, Canon is spitting out products but it seems like it is all lack luster stuff (with exception of the 7DMkII).

I get more excited to see what Sony and Nikon are doing with their full frames, and wondering when Canon will catch up.

You mention the EF 16-35/4L IS. This super sharp lens is one of my favourites and is not over priced at all! Slow? Not at all! It is very sharp even wide open and can therefore be used at f4. This is not the case with the old EF 17-40/4L and 16-35/2,8L which both has to be stepped down to f8 to give decent results with a full format sensor.
The new 16-35/4L IS is even sharp enough for the new 50Mpix sensor of the 5Ds which I have per ordered. And with a 50Mpix sensor IS becomes important, especially if you want sharp landscapes photos without using a tripod.

I just sold a Nikon D810 and a Nikkor AF-S 14-24/2,8 lens. Why? The Nikkor lens was very heavy, expensive and most important: it was not possible to use filters. The EF 16-35/4L IS is as sharp, cheaper and a much better choice.

Even you can afford it if you do like me: just reduce the number of lenses from 6 cheap ones to 2 good ones....

Yeah, I'm a father of 2 with a stay at home wife...anything over 1K is overpriced to me. If Sigma is producing excellent lenses, most of which are <1K, I would suspect Canon can compete. IF I was going to shell out the cash for the EF 16-35, I would expect a f/2.8. Who needs IS on a tripod shooting landscape??

Maybe I sometime want to shoot WITHOUT a tripod...?

I think Canon knows what they are doing. Remember: with a 50Mpix sensor you need fast shutter speeds to get sharp pictures. Minimum 1/250 - 1/500 sec even with a wideangle lens. But with IS I gain about 4 stops! That means that I can use 1/30 sec without tripod.
Then the choice for is: IS or tripod, also in sunlight. For me the choice is easy.
And F2,8 is anyway useless for landscapes because of shallow DOF.
As I said, Canon knows what they are doing!

Since I bought the 1Ds camera in 2003 I have been complaining about the IQ of Canons wideangle lenses. The 17-35/2,8L 17-40/4L 16-35/2,8L and 16-35/2,8L II zooms and also the 20/2,8 prime (I have owned all of them) just weren't good enough, even with the low resolution 12Mpix sensor of the 1Ds. The zooms suffered from vignetting, lack of sharpness outside the centre of the image (especially on 16/17mm) and lack of contrast wide open. After some years getting more and more frustrated I switched to Nikon.....
But after 4 years with Nikon I tried the new EF 16-35/4L IS. And my response is: This lens is the best news from Canon in many years! Canon can produce high quality widangle zooms after all!

 

[dshipley]

I would buy a 35L Mark II to replace my Mark I. Not really sure the 135L needs IS, but if it was sharper (which is gonna be hard) I would replace mine.

I agree 100%. Of all the prime lenses I own the 35L seems like the most likely candidate for an update (based on age and the potential for improvements). If a new 35L was announced I'd preorder one immediately without question (I can't say the same for any other primes I own).

50L:
I'd love to see the focus shift in the current 50L fixed (I doubt that will happen anytime soon due to the age of the lens) along with a slight bump in sharpness wide open. I'd hate to see any updates to this lens drop to f/1.4.

85LII:
The only improvement I'd like to see with this is autofocus speed (while retaining its current level of focus accuracy), however, it isn't a tremendous issue. I'd also hate to see any updates to this lens drop to f/1.4.

135L:
For me to replace my 135L would depend on how improved the new version would be along with the price. I don't think the 135L needs IS. IS might be nice to have (depending on the added price and weight), but I'd be more inclined to upgrade if the new version was even faster (f/1.8 or f/1.4).

 

[Finn M]

I would buy a 35L Mark II to replace my Mark I. Not really sure the 135L needs IS, but if it was sharper (which is gonna be hard) I would replace mine.

I agree 100%. Of all the prime lenses I own the 35L seems like the most likely candidate for an update (based on age and the potential for improvements). If a new 35L was announced I'd preorder one immediately without question (I can't say the same for any other primes I own).

50L:
I'd love to see the focus shift in the current 50L fixed (I doubt that will happen anytime soon due to the age of the lens) along with a slight bump in sharpness wide open. I'd hate to see any updates to this lens drop to f/1.4.

85LII:
The only improvement I'd like to see with this is autofocus speed (while retaining its current level of focus accuracy), however, it isn't a tremendous issue. I'd also hate to see any updates to this lens drop to f/1.4.

135L:
For me to replace my 135L would depend on how improved the new version would be along with the price. I don't think the 135L needs IS. IS might be nice to have (depending on the added price and weight), but I'd be more inclined to upgrade if the new version was even faster (f/1.8 or f/1.4).

Because of the introduction of the EOS 5Ds(R) cameras I think Canon will upgrade both the 35L and the 50L in the near future. I think at least one of them will be introduced in 2015.

 

[ahsanford]

I literally just purchased the Sigma 35mm Art today -_-. Do you guys think the rumored 35mm L II will make me regret my purchase? :'(

No existing lens can compete with the 35A, let alone a rumored one. We'll see where the chips fall if/when the 35L II materializes.

35mm is one of my favorite focal lengths. I'm very seriously considering picking up the 35 Art. I at first thought, just get the new Canon 35 f/2 IS. But then I got to thinking, I already have the 40mm f/2.8 pancake. It's kind of like, if you can only get one, the 35 f/2 IS is a good compromise of aperture, image quality, and size/weight. But, I think I like the route of the shorty forty for when I want small and light, and the 35A for the ultimate pure IQ and fast f/1.4 aperture. Anyone disagree with that thinking?

The shorty forty is a tough tradeoff. It is exceptionally sharp, exceptionally small, and exceptionally inexpensive.

But it lacks fairly important things:

• No IS
• No internal focusing
• No USM (massive if you're principally a stills shooter)
• The manual focus override on the pancakes is by wire and it feels less responsive
• No standard filter size (that's a minor quibble)

As a result, my ancient 50 f/1.4 or newer 28 f/2.8 IS gets the call far more often when I need a walkaround prime.

- A

 

[brianleighty]

I literally just purchased the Sigma 35mm Art today -_-. Do you guys think the rumored 35mm L II will make me regret my purchase? :'(

No existing lens can compete with the 35A, let alone a rumored one. We'll see where the chips fall if/when the 35L II materializes.

Look at it this way, the current Canon 35L is around $1400. I can tell you right now the new one won't be cheaper and likely at least a few hundred more. Will it be better than the Sigma? I would hope so. But at more than 2x the price it better be. Doesn't mean the 35A is any less an awesome value though.

 

[ahsanford]

Unfortunately, Canon's recent releases are either blah optics (ex...24mm, 28mm or 40mm 2.8) or OVER PRICED excellent optics but slow (11-24mm f4, 16-35 f4).

Why can't Canon innovate and produce quality optics for decent prices (Sigma, Tamron, heck even Rokinon with their manual focus lenses at cheap prices).

Either way, Canon is spitting out products but it seems like it is all lack luster stuff (with exception of the 7DMkII).

I hear you, but respectfully disagree. Canon has been pumping out a lot of good things recently. The 16-35 F/4L IS is a stellar optic they could have charged $1500+ for. $1,199 is a very fair price for such an instrument. (As for it being 'slow', remember that this was principally aimed at FF landscapers -- it's not an event lens, and it was not developed as a backdoor standard zoom for crop shooters.)

Tack on the mini-1DX (7D2), a 50 MP body or two, release the white unicorn 100-400L II and drop in that absurd 11-24L and I'd say Canon's had a heck of a 12 month window.

I get a lot of "Canon isn't making anything good" when I really think it's a case of "Canon isn't making anything innovative / exclusive / exotic / droolworthy", and that might be fair. But Canon will make a boatload more money making a larger number of sensible people happy with an EF 35mm f/2 IS USM than it will by offering a 2+ pound f/1.0 standard prime design for $2-3k for a few hundred well-heeled enthusiasts.

- A

 

[gary]

There seems little point in continuing to release any other new lens when there is an inability to fulfill orders to customers of already released lens. In the meantime I will sit patiently and perhaps the 100-400 mk2 will be available before the mk3 is announced or I have died of old age.

 

[dstppy]

Please Canon, make it something really really sharp with an MSRP under $1400.

Just sharp and accurate, doesn't have to have IS.

 

[Finn M]

Please Canon, make it something really really sharp with an MSRP under $1400.

Just sharp and accurate, doesn't have to have IS.

Like the EF 16-35/4L IS?
That's a new and very sharp lens that also have IS....

 

[ahsanford]

Please Canon, make it something really really sharp with an MSRP under $1400.

Just sharp and accurate, doesn't have to have IS.

Like the EF 16-35/4L IS?
That's a new and very sharp lens that also have IS....

Just curious to see how a 50 MP sensor changes our perspective on what "really really really sharp" is. I hate DXO's lens rating system, but you know they will wash all their current L lenses through that testing again on the 5Ds models. Lenses previously hailed as legendarily sharp (the 135L or the wider T/S L lenses) will all but certainly come back to earth on such a highly resolving sensor.

I'm interested to see how our own internal pecking order of 'L lenses that need a refresh' will change once that data is available.

- A

 

[BXL]

* 2.0/50 IS USM remember that no 'non-L IS refresh' lens was released at a slower max aperture than the lens it was replacing.

Well...

2.8/24mm replaced with the 2.8/24mm IS USM
2.8/28mm replaced with the 2.8/28mm IS USM
2.0/35mm replaced with the 2.0/35mm IS USM

Don't see that Canon released lenses with a slower max aperture. In fact, on the contrary, they added IS and USM to their old designs.

 

[ahsanford]

* 2.0/50 IS USM remember that no 'non-L IS refresh' lens was released at a slower max aperture than the lens it was replacing.

Well...

2.8/24mm replaced with the 2.8/24mm IS USM
2.8/28mm replaced with the 2.8/28mm IS USM
2.0/35mm replaced with the 2.0/35mm IS USM

Don't see that Canon released lenses with a slower max aperture. In fact, on the contrary, they added IS and USM to their old designs.

Agree with you. That is exactly what I just said. Maybe you missed something above?

- A

 

[martti]

Steven Spielberg took out the Unicorn that was on the first page of this thread:

 

[Finn M]

Please Canon, make it something really really sharp with an MSRP under $1400.

Just sharp and accurate, doesn't have to have IS.

Like the EF 16-35/4L IS?
That's a new and very sharp lens that also have IS....

Just curious to see how a 50 MP sensor changes our perspective on what "really really really sharp" is. I hate DXO's lens rating system, but you know they will wash all their current L lenses through that testing again on the 5Ds models. Lenses previously hailed as legendarily sharp (the 135L or the wider T/S L lenses) will all but certainly come back to earth on such a highly resolving sensor.

I'm interested to see how our own internal pecking order of 'L lenses that need a refresh' will change once that data is available.

- A

I'm not that worried. Ten years ago I owned a 1Ds with 12Mpix sensor. I was then dissatisfied both with the 17-40/4L and 16-35/2,8L. Both lenses showed clear weaknesses especially on 16/17mm where the pictures only were sharp in the center even stepped down to f11. Many people still use these lenses with their 6D and 5D mk.II and mk.III cameras with 20Mpix+ sensors without complaining.....
Now the pixel count doubles once again. The 16-35/4L IS which is very sharp with a 22Mpix sensor, will not get less resolution with a 50Mpix sensor. Maybe we only get 35Mpix or 40Mpix effective and not 50Mpix, but I don't worry about that. It is still more than with my current camera.... And that's what important to me.

 

[Luds34]

I literally just purchased the Sigma 35mm Art today -_-. Do you guys think the rumored 35mm L II will make me regret my purchase? :'(

No existing lens can compete with the 35A, let alone a rumored one. We'll see where the chips fall if/when the 35L II materializes.

35mm is one of my favorite focal lengths. I'm very seriously considering picking up the 35 Art. I at first thought, just get the new Canon 35 f/2 IS. But then I got to thinking, I already have the 40mm f/2.8 pancake. It's kind of like, if you can only get one, the 35 f/2 IS is a good compromise of aperture, image quality, and size/weight. But, I think I like the route of the shorty forty for when I want small and light, and the 35A for the ultimate pure IQ and fast f/1.4 aperture. Anyone disagree with that thinking?

The shorty forty is a tough tradeoff. It is exceptionally sharp, exceptionally small, and exceptionally inexpensive.

But it lacks fairly important things:

• No IS
• No internal focusing
• No USM (massive if you're principally a stills shooter)
• The manual focus override on the pancakes is by wire and it feels less responsive
• No standard filter size (that's a minor quibble)

As a result, my ancient 50 f/1.4 or newer 28 f/2.8 IS gets the call far more often when I need a walkaround prime.

- A

What one considers "fairly important" can be quite subjective.

While I don't like focus-by-wire, I do find it almost completely useless, that was never a purpose with this lens. I rarely manual focus, typically for video, where IS would be useful as well. And I love internally focused primes, completely sealed, but not deal breaker on this lens. And filter size? This lens is so cheap I'm not sure it warrants a protect filter or anything.

So (besides only being f/2.8) my only real complaint with this lens is the slooow focus (especially if you rack all the way in/out). It provides a few more challenges shooting a toddler running around then say the 85mm f/1.8. But hey the engineer in me knows there is no "free lunch" and accept some short comings/compromise in exchange for the incredible small, inconspicuous package.

I agree with you that it is incredibly sharp! And while it may focus a bit on the slow side, the focus accuracy is rock solid with this lens (I expect the greater DOF at f/2.8 helps here).

 

[Ripley]

I literally just purchased the Sigma 35mm Art today -_-. Do you guys think the rumored 35mm L II will make me regret my purchase? :'(

No existing lens can compete with the 35A, let alone a rumored one. We'll see where the chips fall if/when the 35L II materializes.

35mm is one of my favorite focal lengths. I'm very seriously considering picking up the 35 Art. I at first thought, just get the new Canon 35 f/2 IS. But then I got to thinking, I already have the 40mm f/2.8 pancake. It's kind of like, if you can only get one, the 35 f/2 IS is a good compromise of aperture, image quality, and size/weight. But, I think I like the route of the shorty forty for when I want small and light, and the 35A for the ultimate pure IQ and fast f/1.4 aperture. Anyone disagree with that thinking?

All three lenses are good at what they do, which I think you've effectively articulated here. I completely agree with your reasoning.

 

[LukasS]

There seems little point in continuing to release any other new lens when there is an inability to fulfill orders to customers of already released lens. In the meantime I will sit patiently and perhaps the 100-400 mk2 will be available before the mk3 is announced or I have died of old age.

I hear you. Had ordered early in January, and on Monday I got the message that new shipment came to Polish stores. Got mine on Tuesday. Hope you get your lens soon!

 

[TommyLee]

I like the idea of a 135mm F/1.8L IS. Then I'd have no want for a 70-200II. Even a 50mm 1.4 update with Ring USM will cause money to part from my wallet and no F/2 lens will do for me. A f/2 50mm will only confirm a purchase for the Sigma A 50mm.

Why not make it faster to say... 135/1.4 with IS?

man that would tear my jeans....

I want a 135 f2 I.S. wow...or the new 200 f2 II ,

I have been circling the new 11-24....but I dont really NEED it....love wide... but soooo wide..
I need (read want) the 135 f2 I.S.... and will stretch for 200 f2 II....whatever hits first...
I have waited on 200 f2 because it needs modernizing... a bit...

I sold my 135....downsizing... doh!...

still have 85L II....but the long .... 1/8" DOF ...stuff... is where it at...4 me

and sigma cant really do it ...that Canon way
35 f1.4 sig is best yet...til Canon 35L II arrives ...maybe


but the 200 f2 II , would make me a happy guy

canon is trying to be on a roll like Sigma....and they ARE....

please a 135 or 200 replacement...

 

[TheJock]

I think that 50mp sensors are a long long way from being the norm, they are at best either an item that affluent enthusiasts will lap up just to have the latest offering, or a niche camera for professionals, I doubt that many pro’s will be running out to buy one unless their particular area demands the benefits of having files this size. Which brings me back on topic, Canon won’t be in any hurry to produce a whole range of lenses for this sensor size, so deliberating on the current L glass IQ and how it will look at 50mp doesn’t really transfer across to what actual L lenses are coming soon, that’s just my thoughts on it. Still hoping for a long ranger for wildlife with a maximum price tag of around $3,000.