Old L lenses that are still in production

[GMCPhotographics]

My guess is new versions of the following L lens
* 135/2.0 II - maybe as EF 135 F/1.8

400/5.6, 300/4 are totally obsoleted by 100-400 II (and 70-300L).
70-200 non IS .. Mk. II not going to happen, neither f/2.8 nor f/4
200/2.8 - Mk. III not going to happen

Non-L:
* 50/14 - yes
* 85/1.8 - yes

100/2.0 - would be nice. I liked the lens except the high CA

The 300mm f4 LIS is a curious beast. Yes the new 100-400 LIS II is optically superior and it's IS is in a different league. But it's not the only 300 f4 LIS competitor, the 70-200 2.8 LIS II with a 1.4x TC is also a serious consideration. Firstly it's more versatile than the prime, but it's IQ with the TC is just as good, plus it's AF and IS is also superior. Even the MFD and Max magnification is superior...so one has to wonder what's the point of the current prime and is it even worth replacing in the contect of the 100-400LIS II and 70-200 f2.8 LIS II zooms?

 

[j-nord]

400/5.6, 300/4 are totally obsoleted by 100-400 II (and 70-300L).

Yes, 400/5.6 is pretty much obsolete if you can afford a 100-400ii. I disagree about the 300f4 which has a 1 stop advantage over the 100-400II and 70-300L. I think it still has a place in the line up but I doubt we will see a refresh in the near future.

The 300mm f4 LIS is a curious beast. Yes the new 100-400 LIS II is optically superior and it's IS is in a different league. But it's not the only 300 f4 LIS competitor, the 70-200 2.8 LIS II with a 1.4x TC is also a serious consideration. Firstly it's more versatile than the prime, but it's IQ with the TC is just as good, plus it's AF and IS is also superior. Even the MFD and Max magnification is superior...so one has to wonder what's the point of the current prime and is it even worth replacing in the contect of the 100-400LIS II and 70-200 f2.8 LIS II zooms?

The AF and IS would be updated and the optics would also probably get a slight improvement which would be a net improvement over the 70-200ii + 1.4x TC

 

[NancyP]

I can afford the 100-400 II, but haven't yet upgraded, and for the time being use my 400 f/5.6L. Right now I am more interested in a new computer.

 

[Antono Refa]

2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
- In 2010 Nikon came out with an equivalent that is half the weight and price.

Excellent example. This is a niche lens, and Canon managers have to ask themselves whether the investment in upgrades will return itself.

With a Nikon competitor, its likely nobody would switch brands for it. A 10x zoom isn't there for IQ, but for convenience of people who print relatively small anyway, so upgrade for sensor resolution (or, as you put it, "today's technical requirement") is probably not a factor here. Crop owners have the EF-S 18-200mm, so they're not really waiting for an expensive, heavy, and non-stellar-IQ FF upgrade. The lens was upgraded from film era (EF 35-350mm) to digital era.

So, yes - the previous upgrades was 10 years, I still don't see this is a priority for Canon.

1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
- film lens with film optics
- Earlier than 2009 Sony came out with an equivalent that is 1/3rd stop faster
- newer lenses from other brands have come out after 1996

The 135mm f/2 L has great IQ and attractive price, all the more so compared to the nearly twice as expensive Sony 135mm f/1.8

I own the EF 135mm, and I wouldn't pay twice for a fraction of a stop. Maybe for an IS and IQ difference.

1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
- film lens with film optics
- newer long Macros have come out from other brands that are either faster or have IS after 1996

Macro lenses are a niche market, but as Sigma came with a competitor, and Canon having a new hybrid IS, my guess Canon will upgrade this one relatively sooner rather than later.

Now, granted some of these lens are not volume sellers or would not provide a cheap option at the very low end but it does not mean that they will not eventually get an update.

Volume influences profit, and profit influences how attractive is an upgrade for Canon. So, though it doesn't mean it wouldn't get an update eventually, it does mean it would take a while.

This thread purpose is to give prospective buyers a head's up on which product will be likely to be phased out because they're old and the competition came out with something more suitable to today's technical requirement.
[/quote]

 

[Luds34]

- film lens with film optics

Whoa! It's a good thing my (digital) cameras don't know any better and still accept the light and images from all my "film optic" lenses.

 

[kphoto99]

- film lens with film optics

Whoa! It's a good thing my (digital) cameras don't know any better and still accept the light and images from all my "film optic" lenses.

Lens designed for film is different then a lens designed for digital. The reason for the difference is the thickness of the sensor stack. The glass in front of the sensor has an effect on light. Google "sensor stack thickness" and look at the article from LensRentals for a better explanation then I could give here.

 

[Loswr]

- film lens with film optics

Whoa! It's a good thing my (digital) cameras don't know any better and still accept the light and images from all my "film optic" lenses.

Lens designed for film is different then a lens designed for digital. The reason for the difference is the thickness of the sensor stack. The glass in front of the sensor has an effect on light. Google "sensor stack thickness" and look at the article from LensRentals for a better explanation then I could give here.

Given that article, one would expect the same Zeiss lens to be much sharper on the Sony A3000 than on the A6000 – is that the case?

I'd also note some flawed assumptions, like theoretical MTFs based on a glass refractive index of 1.52, when any camera with an AA filter in the stack has a substantial proportion of the stack as LiNbO3 with a refractive index of 2.3.