Old L lenses that are still in production

[dolina]

These L lenses were introduced before 2006 and are still in production. They are likely to get a Series II or IS update.

1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

 

[Loswr]

I'm not so sure "likely" applies. If design age were a major priority for updates, the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 100/2 are older than all the lenses on your list. The 35/1.4 is a 1998 lens, that was updated recently but it's newer than most lenses on your list. Updates are driven by what Canon thinks is going to appeal to buyers, and today that's generally zoom lenses.

For the 70-200 zooms, there are IS versions now and I doubt that Canon will update the non-IS versions. The popularity of the 70-200 zooms and 100-400 I/II make me wonder about updates to the 200/2.8, 300/4 IS and 400/5.6 lenses, not sure we'll see those either. Similarly, there have been patents published on updated designs for the 28-300L (some as a 24-300), but no lens has materialized – I don't think a new professional superzoom is a priority.

I do expect we'll see an updated long macro, something like a 200/4 H-IS.

 

[midluk]

I doubt the 70-200 non IS will be replaced. Those that want this focal length range for cheap are not likely to upgrade. And those that want to have the best will have to give more money to Canon to buy the IS version.
My guess is the f/2.8 will just be dropped at some point without replacement and the f/4 will at best be replaced by a non-L version.

And the 400mm has been replaced by the collapsible 400 w/IS (aka 100-400).

 

[slclick]

I really don't want the 135 and 200 to get a refresh, I just don't need that kind of GAS agony. The ones I have are perfect. Now, the 300 f/4 and 400 5.6....... please and take my money.

 

[H. Jones]

Surprisingly I see plenty of people still shooting with the 70-200mm f/2.8 rather often. I really can't imagine an upgrade however, because if people could afford a new $1,300 lens, they could probably afford the f/2.8 IS II, which I've seen(rarely) refurbished or used for around $1,500 now. f/2.8 IS II is easily my favorite lens.

There is absolutely nothing I can find wrong with it; it's sharp as a knife, IS works wonders(I've had plenty of shots at 200mm 1/15th that were completely sharp), the durability is incredible even after I've had it slammed into the ground during protests, and it's only 100 grams heavier than the non-IS, so if you're worried about weight, you're probably using the f/4 lenses anyway.

Of any of the lenses on the list, I wouldn't mind seeing a new 180mm f/3.5 macro if it had IS and fast autofocus. I know it's a specialty lens and almost always used on a tripod, but I would like if it could be a more multipurpose telephoto lens. It'd make a nice two-lens kit with a wider zoom; you'd have a decent telephoto and macro lens in one, possibly replacing my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II on nature hikes instead of making me bring a macro, a telephoto zoom, and a wide zoom. Add a supertelephoto lens to that and you have all of your nature photography bases covered in three lenses.

Now as a photojournalist I've always found the 28-300mm to be an interesting lens, but I'd rather it be 24-200mm and somewhat wider/sharper than 28-300mm f/5.6. I think that'd have a bigger market as well--I still don't know if I'd use it though, since I'm more of a two-camera kinda PJ anyway. 24-200mm would be a nice back up lens to keep in the bag though, since even if I lost both my 24-70mm and 70-200 on assignment I could still have that range covered for cheaper than buying spares of both lenses. Hm.

Not much to say about any of the other lenses since I've never used them or really had a use for them. I could be interested in a cheap 500mm replacement to the 400 f/5.6, but I'm not sure how that would work out.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Some of those older lenses are still excellent and affordable too. Canon likely makes a nice profit on them because they sell well to those who want a "L" lens and a reasonable price, and they cost less to produce.

In general, every one of them is a good buy.

With the refurbished 70-200mmL f/2.8 MK II sometimes falling below 1600, its falling into the more affordable category, but still out of reach for many.

 

[The Supplanter]

These L lenses were introduced before 2006 and are still in production. They are likely to get a Series II or IS update.

Where does this assertion come from?

 

[dolina]

These L lenses were introduced before 2006 and are still in production. They are likely to get a Series II or IS update.

Where does this assertion come from?

Seriously? Are you new here?

 

[The Supplanter]

These L lenses were introduced before 2006 and are still in production. They are likely to get a Series II or IS update.

Where does this assertion come from?

Seriously? Are you new here?

Young lady, everyone shot you down. Embarrassing.

 

[Loswr]

These L lenses were introduced before 2006 and are still in production. They are likely to get a Series II or IS update.

Where does this assertion come from?

Seriously? Are you new here?

Well, I'm not new here but it sounds to me like you pulled that assertion out of one of your orifices that, not coincidentally, starts with the same trio of letters as 'assertion'. If you have anything beyond your own belief to support that assertion, it would be good to know. OTOH, if it's just your opinion that's fine, too – it will get the credence it deserves.

 

[ahsanford]

I believe the situation will be:

Green = Hammerlock certainty to be refreshed/upgraded (a question of when, not if)
Orange = Possibly up for a new version, but certainly not a high priority
Red = Unlikely to be refreshed/upgraded

Responding to your list and throwing in some older non-L primes as well:

1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM - a 'gateway drug' L lens for wildlifers
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM - all but obsoleted by the quality of the 70-200 lenses
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM - maybe not 180, but a macro with a larger working distance than we have with the 100mm options
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM - this is an opportunity more than a must, the current 135L is still great
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM - hate these lenses, but Canon simply has to offer one

1991 EF 100mm f/2 USM - seems super niche in light all the 70-200s and two 100 macros
1992 EF 20mm f/2.8 USM - 20mm devotees want much faster glass for astro --> future new L lens
1992 EF 85mm f/1.8 USM - a modern/modest 85 that isn't a pickle jar is a must
1993 EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - don't get me started, there are endless threads on this
1995 EF 28mm f/1.8 USM - like it or not, the non-L fast prime (other than 50/85) may be a thing of the past
2000 EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (non-L) - not everyone needs L quality, IS, etc. with macro

I'll be the first to say this is a total swag based on the overall value proposition / screaming need / 'You gotta have one of those in your portfolio' sort of considerations. (And yes, I deliberately left out the 50mm compact macro for petty reasons.)

- A

 

[slclick]

I believe the situation will be:

Green = Hammerlock certainty to be refreshed/upgraded (a question of when, not if)
Orange = Possibly up for a new version, but certainly not a high priority
Red = Unlikely to be refreshed/upgraded

Responding to your list and throwing in some older non-L primes as well:

1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM - a 'gateway drug' L lens for wildlifers
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM - all but obsoleted by the quality of the 70-200 lenses
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM - maybe not 180, but a macro with a larger working distance than we have with the 100mm options
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM - this is an opportunity more than a must, the current 135L is still great
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM - hate these lenses, but Canon simply has to offer one

1991 EF 100mm f/2 USM - seems super niche in light all the 70-200s and two 100 macros
1992 EF 20mm f/2.8 USM - 20mm devotees want much faster glass for astro --> future new L lens
1992 EF 85mm f/1.8 USM - a modern/modest 85 that isn't a pickle jar is a must
1993 EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - don't get me started, there are endless threads on this
1995 EF 28mm f/1.8 USM - like it or not, the non-L fast prime (other than 50/85) may be a thing of the past
2000 EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (non-L) - not everyone needs L quality, IS, etc. with macro

I'll be the first to say this is a total swag based on the overall value proposition / screaming need / 'You gotta have one of those in your portfolio' sort of considerations. (And yes, I deliberately left out the 50mm compact macro for petty reasons.)

- A

The 200 is not obsoleted by zooms and white lenses, it holds a special place as the longest FL black Canon lens. Plus it's sharp as shite. Add a TC and it still AF's pretty quick and clean at 280 f/4. I think it's not needed to be updated since there's nothing wrong with it. Do we really need to add IS to every lens?

 

[scyrene]

I believe the situation will be:

Green = Hammerlock certainty to be refreshed/upgraded (a question of when, not if)
Orange = Possibly up for a new version, but certainly not a high priority
Red = Unlikely to be refreshed/upgraded

Responding to your list and throwing in some older non-L primes as well:

1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM - a 'gateway drug' L lens for wildlifers
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM - all but obsoleted by the quality of the 70-200 lenses
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM - maybe not 180, but a macro with a larger working distance than we have with the 100mm options
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM - this is an opportunity more than a must, the current 135L is still great
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM - hate these lenses, but Canon simply has to offer one

1991 EF 100mm f/2 USM - seems super niche in light all the 70-200s and two 100 macros
1992 EF 20mm f/2.8 USM - 20mm devotees want much faster glass for astro --> future new L lens
1992 EF 85mm f/1.8 USM - a modern/modest 85 that isn't a pickle jar is a must
1993 EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - don't get me started, there are endless threads on this
1995 EF 28mm f/1.8 USM - like it or not, the non-L fast prime (other than 50/85) may be a thing of the past
2000 EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (non-L) - not everyone needs L quality, IS, etc. with macro

I'll be the first to say this is a total swag based on the overall value proposition / screaming need / 'You gotta have one of those in your portfolio' sort of considerations. (And yes, I deliberately left out the 50mm compact macro for petty reasons.)

- A

The 200 is not obsoleted by zooms and white lenses, it holds a special place as the longest FL black Canon lens. Plus it's sharp as S___e. Add a TC and it still AF's pretty quick and clean at 280 f/4. I think it's not needed to be updated since there's nothing wrong with it. Do we really need to add IS to every lens?

I wouldn't say nothing wrong with it. I sold mine pretty quickly because I found the colour fringing too strong.

 

[ahsanford]

The 200 is not obsoleted by zooms and white lenses, it holds a special place as the longest FL black Canon lens. Plus it's sharp as S___e. Add a TC and it still AF's pretty quick and clean at 280 f/4. I think it's not needed to be updated since there's nothing wrong with it. Do we really need to add IS to every lens?

The 'special place as the longest FL black lens' is more a piece of trivia than a real value proposition to shooters.

And both LensTip and PhotoZone (granted, one lens each) gives the nod to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II over that 200 f/2.8L at 200mm. And the 70-200s can be teleconvertered as well.

So the principal selling points of that 200 2.8 lens is cost/size/weight. Because of that, I see that lens in the 'Value L' bucket alongside the 17-40L, 24-105L, 400 f/5.6L, etc.

Total speculation on my part -- I"m sure it's a fine lens and don't mean to sling mud -- but Canon surely isn't making the unit sales or dollars on that lens as it does on the various 70-200 zooms, so I have to believe that 200 prime is being left to rot (keep in production rather than refresh, adding IS, etc.) in favor of injecting energy into other parts of the portfolio. But I could certainly be wrong.

- A

 

[slclick]

The 200 is not obsoleted by zooms and white lenses, it holds a special place as the longest FL black Canon lens. Plus it's sharp as S___e. Add a TC and it still AF's pretty quick and clean at 280 f/4. I think it's not needed to be updated since there's nothing wrong with it. Do we really need to add IS to every lens?

The 'special place as the longest FL black lens' is more a piece of trivia than a real value proposition to shooters.

And both LensTip and PhotoZone (granted, one lens each) gives the nod to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II over that 200 f/2.8L at 200mm. And the 70-200s can be teleconvertered as well.

So the principal selling points of that 200 2.8 lens is cost/size/weight. Because of that, I see that lens in the 'Value L' bucket alongside the 17-40L, 24-105L, 400 f/5.6L, etc.

Total speculation on my part -- I"m sure it's a fine lens and don't mean to sling mud -- but Canon surely isn't making the unit sales or dollars on that lens as it does on the various 70-200 zooms, so I have to believe that 200 prime is being left to rot (keep in production rather than refresh, adding IS, etc.) in favor of injecting energy into other parts of the portfolio. But I could certainly be wrong.

- A

I agree with most of what you wrote except for the black lens part. It is amazing to me (and I'm not in this camp mind you) that a HUGE amount of folks have a stigma about white lenses and feeling out of place, like a peeping tom, worried they are a theft target and on and on. But it's a fact. Also those on paper specs are things that are hardly perceptible to the naked eye. (200 vs the long end of the 70-200) And to compare a 1799 lens to a 599 lens is nuts.

I also believe it's being left to rot by them and to be enjoyed by us.

 

[dolina]

History will prove me right. I just provided that list for everyone's convenience.

 

[ahsanford]

History will prove me right. I just provided that list for everyone's convenience.

Possibly -- who knows? But arguably, none of the lenses on your list are even in the top 5 most likely to come next:

I'd contend each of the following are much 'squeakier wheels', in higher demand, etc.:

• EF 16-35 f/2.8L III USM --> it's hard to command a $1,500+ asking when the cheaper/slower f/4L IS lens outperforms it optically...
• EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS II USM (or similar replacement for the current EF-S 17-55)
• EF 50mm f/1.4 II USM (or IS instead of II, it may not be f/1.4, etc.)
• EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS USM --> this was always a 'once Nikon or Canon offers one, the other must follow suit' sort of 'yes we have that' portfolio peacock to show off
• EF 200-600 f/5.6L IS USM (give or take -- a somewhat affordable longest zoom to stack up to Nikon's 200-500, Sigma and Tamron's various 150-600s, etc.)

But Canon does work in nutty ways, so who knows?

- A

 

[dolina]

History will prove me right. I just provided that list for everyone's convenience.

Possibly -- who knows? But arguably, none of the lenses on your list are even in the top 5 most likely to come next:

I'd contend each of the following are much 'squeakier wheels', in higher demand, etc.:

• EF 16-35 f/2.8L III USM --> it's hard to command a $1,500+ asking when the cheaper/slower f/4L IS lens outperforms it optically...
• EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS II USM (or similar replacement for the current EF-S 17-55)
• EF 50mm f/1.4 II USM (or IS instead of II, it may not be f/1.4, etc.)
• EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS USM --> this was always a 'once Nikon or Canon offers one, the other must follow suit' sort of 'yes we have that' portfolio peacock to show off
• EF 200-600 f/5.6L IS USM (give or take -- a somewhat affordable longest zoom to stack up to Nikon's 200-500, Sigma and Tamron's various 150-600s, etc.)

But Canon does work in nutty ways, so who knows?

- A

You forgot the 800mm replacement.

I have observed that the timing of updates are based on the following

* Technical reasons such as the lens is outresolved by a camera having too much megapixels
* Competitor offers an update before Canon like say the 24-70/2.8 VR or 16-35/4.0 VR
* Competitor offers a new product that they do not have in Canon's catalog like say the 14-24/2.8 or 200-400/4.0

in 2007 Sony Zeiss' 135mm f/1.8 was released so an update to the 1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM is likely

In 2015 Nikon released a DO version of the 1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM

 

[YellowJersey]

Gotta say the 70-200mm f/4 USM is one hell of a sharp lens. I got a second hand one last summer and am blown away by how sharp it is.

 

[TheJock]

• History will prove me right. I just provided that list for everyone's convenience.

  
  Possibly -- who knows? But arguably, none of the lenses on your list are even in the top 5 most likely to come next:
  
  I'd contend each of the following are much 'squeakier wheels', in higher demand, etc.:
  
  

  • EF 200-600 f/5.6L IS USM (give or take -- a somewhat affordable longest zoom to stack up to Nikon's 200-500, Sigma and Tamron's various 150-600s, etc.)

  
  But Canon does work in nutty ways, so who knows?
  
  - A

  I must say that this lens has me weak at the knees, I would jump all over it if it came out at a price I could justify, like around $5,000. What do you think it would cost for such a lens?????