Rumored 10 new lenses, 5 of which (CR) mentioned...

[dr croubie]

Old or not, it is just a top-notch lens.

I was thinking about the 135L again, and look at it another way. They made a lens, that great, 20-30 years ago.
Just imagine what they could do now, with better materials, better glass, most importantly better coatings, they already had fluorite back then but didn't use it, maybe they would in a II. Such a lens would have to improve on the current 135L, and if it did, it would be stunning...

 

[Loswr]

Old or not, it is just a top-notch lens.

I was thinking about the 135L again, and look at it another way. They made a lens, that great, 20-30 years ago.
Just imagine what they could do now, with better materials, better glass, most importantly better coatings, they already had fluorite back then but didn't use it, maybe they would in a II. Such a lens would have to improve on the current 135L, and if it did, it would be stunning...

I've got a 135L among my collection of L lenses, too, and it's an amazing lens. But the above is exactly my point. - consider the change from the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MkI to MkII, and extrapolate that to the 135L.

 

[bchernicoff]

L-series versions of the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses.

+1 for the 90mm. That would make life complete.

In what way do find the 90mm lacking? Or do you just want the red ring?

 

[Deeohuu]

L-series versions of the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses.

+1 for the 90mm. That would make life complete.

In what way do find the 90mm lacking? Or do you just want the red ring?

I want the flexibility of the newer 17mm and 24mm design that offers independent tilt and shift mechanisms. I am indifferent to marketing decorations.

 

[jwong]

L-series versions of the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses.

+1 for the 90mm. That would make life complete.

In what way do find the 90mm lacking? Or do you just want the red ring?

TS rotation would be nice!

 

[Loswr]

L-series versions of the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses.

+1 for the 90mm. That would make life complete.

In what way do find the 90mm lacking? Or do you just want the red ring?

To clarify, the original TS-E lenses have tilt and shift fixed at a 90 degree orientation to each other. It can be changed, but to do so requires disassembling the lens. The new L versions (17mm and 24mm II) allow altering the orientations of tilt and shift on-the-fly - and it's a great feature.

 

[bchernicoff]

To clarify, the original TS-E lenses have tilt and shift fixed at a 90 degree orientation to each other. It can be changed, but to do so requires disassembling the lens. The new L versions (17mm and 24mm II) allow altering the orientations of tilt and shift on-the-fly - and it's a great feature.

Ah, I only own the 90mm and wasn't aware of this feature.

 

[Loswr]

To clarify, the original TS-E lenses have tilt and shift fixed at a 90 degree orientation to each other. It can be changed, but to do so requires disassembling the lens. The new L versions (17mm and 24mm II) allow altering the orientations of tilt and shift on-the-fly - and it's a great feature.

Ah, I only own the 90mm and wasn't aware of this feature.

I only own the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, but I use the rotation so frequently that I wouldn't even consider the 45mm or 90mm versions without it (90mm would be my preference - I can use the 2x Extender on the 24mm if I need ~45mm, and the optical performance is decent because the 24 II is so damn sharp to start with).

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Shooting the 135mm f/2L recently on the 7D, I got the impression that it was very nearly being limited by the sensor and its AA filter.

I would definitely like an update to the 50mm f/1.4.

Though the TS-E 90mm could use an update for rotation, it hasn't proven to be a make-or-break issue for me. I think it might be more useful for the EF lineup on balance to get a longer TS-E with the new movements.

 

[dvdbrm]

How old is the 50mm 1.2 ? Isnt that due for an update?

 

[mmmoore]

Being an APS-C camera user and with no plans to upgrade to full-frame in the future, I would LOVE to see the following:

- An upgrade to the 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens with a slightly better build; something between the current 17-55 and L build quality. Could take the form of a 15-50mm f2.8 IS, in order to get true 24mm equivalent.
- A crop version of the 70-200L series lenses. Could take the form of a 50-150mm f2.8 IS, with the same build quality as mentioned above.

These two lenses would better resemble the 24-70 and 70-200mm ranges that are so useful and popular in the full-frame world.

If they can make those with great optical quality (such as the current 17-55mm lens), I would buy them in a heartbeat! (providing they are less expensive than their L counterparts).

 

[Loswr]

How old is the 50mm 1.2 ? Isnt that due for an update?

2006, so not old by lens standards. I don't expect an update any time soon...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

How about the EF 500mm f/4 L IS II? Or the 600mm? Are they real products or just one step above 'rumour'?

They are coming. Those huge CaFL lens crystals for the big whites take up to a year to grow, and the production took a big hit when the earthquake hit. Expect to see them soon, as its been about a year since the earthquake.

 

[michi]

Also hoping for a new 50mm 1.4 USM. Heck, I'd take a new 50mm 1.8 USM if it had spectacular optics. Just praying that Canon doesn't decide to double the price on ALL newly announced lenses...

 

[Jim K]

L-series versions of the TS-E 45mm and 90mm lenses.

+1 for the 90mm. That would make life complete.

In what way do find the 90mm lacking? Or do you just want the red ring?

To clarify, the original TS-E lenses have tilt and shift fixed at a 90 degree orientation to each other. It can be changed, but to do so requires disassembling the lens. The new L versions (17mm and 24mm II) allow altering the orientations of tilt and shift on-the-fly - and it's a great feature.

This might be the final thing to push me into starting a FF landscape kit :-\

 

[Wrathwilde]

Old or not, it is just a top-notch lens.

I was thinking about the 135L again, and look at it another way. They made a lens, that great, 20-30 years ago.
Just imagine what they could do now, with better materials, better glass, most importantly better coatings, they already had fluorite back then but didn't use it, maybe they would in a II. Such a lens would have to improve on the current 135L, and if it did, it would be stunning...

I've got a 135L among my collection of L lenses, too, and it's an amazing lens. But the above is exactly my point. - consider the change from the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MkI to MkII, and extrapolate that to the 135L.

This shows where the 135mm f/2L MTF chart stands against the MTF chart of Canon's top performing prime the 400mm f/2.8L IS II. Two completely different lenses, of course, but it shows just how remarkable Canon's current lens technology is, and how much the 135 could be improved. In simplified terms... the higher the lines and the closer they track each other the better the quality of the lens.

 

[Axilrod]

Also hoping for a new 50mm 1.4 USM. Heck, I'd take a new 50mm 1.8 USM if it had spectacular optics. Just praying that Canon doesn't decide to double the price on ALL newly announced lenses...

The 50mm 1.4 design is from 1987, and it's a hugely popular lens so I would guess that we could see an update in the next few years.

From what I've seen it appears that Zeiss will be releasing some new lenses at NAB, I think that CP.2 zoom and an EF mount 15mm f/2.8.

 

[Marsu42]

Being an APS-C camera user and with no plans to upgrade to full-frame in the future, I would LOVE to see the following:
- An upgrade to the 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens with a slightly better build; something between the current 17-55 and L build quality. Could take the form of a 15-50mm f2.8 IS, in order to get true 24mm equivalent.
- A crop version of the 70-200L series lenses. Could take the form of a 50-150mm f2.8 IS, with the same build quality as mentioned above.

There won't be any 'better built' or even 'ef-s L' lenses for aps-c or Canon would turn their marketing strategy upside down and cannibalize their full frame sales. And the 70-300L is the tele optimized for crop bodies, Canon techs say so themselves - if you really need a sharp f2.8 tele, you're in the price range where you own a ff body anyway.

 

[mmmoore]

Being an APS-C camera user and with no plans to upgrade to full-frame in the future, I would LOVE to see the following:
- An upgrade to the 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens with a slightly better build; something between the current 17-55 and L build quality. Could take the form of a 15-50mm f2.8 IS, in order to get true 24mm equivalent.
- A crop version of the 70-200L series lenses. Could take the form of a 50-150mm f2.8 IS, with the same build quality as mentioned above.

There won't be any 'better built' or even 'ef-s L' lenses for aps-c or Canon would turn their marketing strategy upside down and cannibalize their full frame sales. And the 70-300L is the tele optimized for crop bodies, Canon techs say so themselves - if you really need a sharp f2.8 tele, you're in the price range where you own a ff body anyway.

Hi Marsu42, thanks for your answer. Could you please tell me a little more about the 70-300L being optimized for crop bodies? That's a lens I find interesting and I might even consider it... Thanks!

 

[Loswr]

Could you please tell me a little more about the 70-300L being optimized for crop bodies? That's a lens I find interesting and I might even consider it... Thanks!

I'm not sure that Canon technicians said the 70-300L was optimized for crop bodies. Nor is it in any way 'optimized' for APS-C in a technical sense - it's an L-series EF lens designed for FF sensors. I think this stems from a Canon DLC article about the lens (basically a marketing piece), which points out that with the 1.6x crop factor the lens is like a 500mm lens on FF, thus it 'comes into its own' on APS-C. In one way, I guess you could say it's a practical lens for 7D users - many of them have a 17-55mm, and the focus and zoom ring positions on the 70-300L match the 17-55mm (which is reversed from most L-series lenses). Not sure if that was the reason for doing it, or (more likely) it was dictated by the optical design.

Still - it's an excellent lens on both formats, optically excellent, great build, weather sealed, and compact.