The 10 Oldest Canon Lenses in Production

[Sabaki]

Question: why does it seem that the apertures on proposed replacement lenses are getting smaller?

Canon EF 50 f/1.4 to Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS &
Canon EF 85 f/1.8 to Canon EF 85 f/2.0 IS

It's as if those larger wide open apertures are undesirable but certainly the advancement in technology should make new lenses capable at those speeds?

What am I missing in this line of logic?

 

[mackguyver]

Question: why does it seem that the apertures on proposed replacement lenses are getting smaller?

Canon EF 50 f/1.4 to Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS &
Canon EF 85 f/1.8 to Canon EF 85 f/2.0 IS

It's as if those larger wide open apertures are undesirable but certainly the advancement in technology should make new lenses capable at those speeds?

What am I missing in this line of logic?

Answer: Cost. Adding IS increases cost and the only way to keep these lenses affordable (they are part of the consumer line, not L line) is to reduce the aperture. Canon has the technology to do about anything, but they have to balance aperture against things like image quality, size, weight, features (IS) and cost.

 

[Jemlnlx]

135mm f/2 just missed it, maybe # 11 on the list - 1996 I think...still one the best lenses. Sharpness + super fast focusing!!

 

[mrzero]

Question: why does it seem that the apertures on proposed replacement lenses are getting smaller?

Canon EF 50 f/1.4 to Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS &
Canon EF 85 f/1.8 to Canon EF 85 f/2.0 IS

It's as if those larger wide open apertures are undesirable but certainly the advancement in technology should make new lenses capable at those speeds?

What am I missing in this line of logic?

Answer: Cost. Adding IS increases cost and the only way to keep these lenses affordable (they are part of the consumer line, not L line) is to reduce the aperture. Canon has the technology to do about anything, but they have to balance aperture against things like image quality, size, weight, features (IS) and cost.

To be fair, though, the two lenses mentioned here are both rumors. The actual lenses and their respective apertures haven't been announced yet.

As for the three non-L IS versions that have been announced, two of them kept the same aperture as their predecessors (24/2.8 and 35/2). Both jumped in filter size (52mm to 58mm and 67mm, respectively), although Canon doesn't seem to be very concerned with filter sizes any more.

Only the 28mm dropped from 1.8 to 2.8, which is a shame because a 1.8 with IS would have been a great "normal" lens on crop and would have made a real distinction between the new 24 and 28. But Canon has kept the original 28/1.8 thus far, so apparently they weren't ready to kill that particular darling just yet, despite the sense it would have made. Now they have two 28s in the lineup, which sell for about the same amount new, with the only spec differences being aperture and IS.

Trying to make sense out of Canon lineup decisions is maddening. For instance, why start putting IS in your wide angles rather than your telephotos???

 

[deleteme]

Two of my favorite lenses are on the list; the 85 1.8 and the 70-200 2.8L . While the vII of the 70-200 has a bit better performance wide open neither lens is a slouch.

Whatever replaces them will never deliver IQ improvement that any client would notice. For me the real proof is that despite their vintage their resale value is still very high.

 

[jthomson]

Trying to make sense out of Canon lineup decisions is maddening. For instance, why start putting IS in your wide angles rather than your telephotos???

Video.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

To be fair, though, the two lenses mentioned here are both rumors. The actual lenses and their respective apertures haven't been announced yet.

As for the three non-L IS versions that have been announced, two of them kept the same aperture as their predecessors (24/2.8 and 35/2). Both jumped in filter size (52mm to 58mm and 67mm, respectively), although Canon doesn't seem to be very concerned with filter sizes any more.

Only the 28mm dropped from 1.8 to 2.8, which is a shame because a 1.8 with IS would have been a great "normal" lens on crop and would have made a real distinction between the new 24 and 28. But Canon has kept the original 28/1.8 thus far, so apparently they weren't ready to kill that particular darling just yet, despite the sense it would have made. Now they have two 28s in the lineup, which sell for about the same amount new, with the only spec differences being aperture and IS.

Trying to make sense out of Canon lineup decisions is maddening. For instance, why start putting IS in your wide angles rather than your telephotos???

I think the decision about the 28mm lenses make sense. Canon has two options:

1. Kill both the f/1.8 & f/2.8 versions, and sell a 28mm f/1.8 IS USM. Canon sells only one lens.

2. Upgrade the f/2.8 w/ IS & USM, and keep selling the f/1.8. Canon sells two lenses, one having already covered it's expenses, allowing customers to choose between either a 1+ stop and IS & USM.

More importantly, the 2nd option leaves a wider margin to release an L, e.g. EF 28mm f/1.4 L USM. A lot of people would rather have IS over a fraction of a stop, especially if neither have weather sealing. Make the difference two stops, and things look a lot different.

 

[Random Orbits]

To be fair, though, the two lenses mentioned here are both rumors. The actual lenses and their respective apertures haven't been announced yet.

As for the three non-L IS versions that have been announced, two of them kept the same aperture as their predecessors (24/2.8 and 35/2). Both jumped in filter size (52mm to 58mm and 67mm, respectively), although Canon doesn't seem to be very concerned with filter sizes any more.

Only the 28mm dropped from 1.8 to 2.8, which is a shame because a 1.8 with IS would have been a great "normal" lens on crop and would have made a real distinction between the new 24 and 28. But Canon has kept the original 28/1.8 thus far, so apparently they weren't ready to kill that particular darling just yet, despite the sense it would have made. Now they have two 28s in the lineup, which sell for about the same amount new, with the only spec differences being aperture and IS.

Trying to make sense out of Canon lineup decisions is maddening. For instance, why start putting IS in your wide angles rather than your telephotos???

The 28 f/2.8 IS replaced the 28 f/2.8 non-IS. The 28 f/1.8 is still being sold; the 28 f/2.8 non-IS is not.

Also agree with Ellen that Canon is leaving the option open to release a fast 28mm lens. The non-L IS lenses are 35 f/2, 28 f/2.8 and 24 f/2.8. The Ls go 50 f/1.2, 35 f/1.4 and 24 f/1.4. A 28 f/1.4 L would slot nicely between the 35 and 24Ls. Although I'm not sure if there is a sufficiently large market for 28mm primes anymore. It seems like the 24s are a lot more popular than the 28s.

 

[pdirestajr]

You know it's slow in Canon land when people start making lists like this to pass the time!

 

[Daniel Flather]

To be fair, though, the two lenses mentioned here are both rumors. The actual lenses and their respective apertures haven't been announced yet.

As for the three non-L IS versions that have been announced, two of them kept the same aperture as their predecessors (24/2.8 and 35/2). Both jumped in filter size (52mm to 58mm and 67mm, respectively), although Canon doesn't seem to be very concerned with filter sizes any more.

Only the 28mm dropped from 1.8 to 2.8, which is a shame because a 1.8 with IS would have been a great "normal" lens on crop and would have made a real distinction between the new 24 and 28. But Canon has kept the original 28/1.8 thus far, so apparently they weren't ready to kill that particular darling just yet, despite the sense it would have made. Now they have two 28s in the lineup, which sell for about the same amount new, with the only spec differences being aperture and IS.

Trying to make sense out of Canon lineup decisions is maddening. For instance, why start putting IS in your wide angles rather than your telephotos???

The 28 f/2.8 IS replaced the 28 f/2.8 non-IS. The 28 f/1.8 is still being sold; the 28 f/2.8 non-IS is not.

Also agree with Ellen that Canon is leaving the option open to release a fast 28mm lens. The non-L IS lenses are 35 f/2, 28 f/2.8 and 24 f/2.8. The Ls go 50 f/1.2, 35 f/1.4 and 24 f/1.4. A 28 f/1.4 L would slot nicely between the 35 and 24Ls. Although I'm not sure if there is a sufficiently large market for 28mm primes anymore. It seems like the 24s are a lot more popular than the 28s.

I'd buy a 20mm f1.8 (or 2.0) L if it was on par with the 24L & 35L

 

[Random Orbits]

You know it's slow in Canon land when people start making lists like this to pass the time!

Only if you ignore the DR threads. :

 

[Random Orbits]

I'd buy a 20mm f1.8 (or 2.0) L if it was on par with the 24L & 35L

I'd be interested in that too, which would allow much to ditch the 16-35 II.

 

[robbinzo]

I don't think that Canon should replace the 50mm f/1.4 with a f/1.8 IS. The reason being the Sigma Art lenses.
I would hazard a guess that a new Canon 50mm f/1.8 IS would be a similar price to the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4. That would be an interesting choice.

 

[Random Orbits]

I don't think that Canon should replace the 50mm f/1.4 with a f/1.8 IS. The reason being the Sigma Art lenses.
I would hazard a guess that a new Canon 50mm f/1.8 IS would be a similar price to the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4. That would be an interesting choice.

I wouldn't be surprised if the IS goes into a f/1.8. A lens at f/1.4 with IS is too close to the L, unless they made a f/1.2L with IS, but Canon's strategy seems to IS their non-L lenses, and maximum apertures are reserved for their L counterparts (i.e. at 24mm and 35mm). With the Sigma 50 coming in larger than the previous version, a small and compact 50 f/1.8 IS would be great for those that value low weight and discretion while the 50L II would have to offer more than the S50.

 

[mrzero]

To be fair, though, the two lenses mentioned here are both rumors. The actual lenses and their respective apertures haven't been announced yet.

As for the three non-L IS versions that have been announced, two of them kept the same aperture as their predecessors (24/2.8 and 35/2). Both jumped in filter size (52mm to 58mm and 67mm, respectively), although Canon doesn't seem to be very concerned with filter sizes any more.

Only the 28mm dropped from 1.8 to 2.8, which is a shame because a 1.8 with IS would have been a great "normal" lens on crop and would have made a real distinction between the new 24 and 28. But Canon has kept the original 28/1.8 thus far, so apparently they weren't ready to kill that particular darling just yet, despite the sense it would have made. Now they have two 28s in the lineup, which sell for about the same amount new, with the only spec differences being aperture and IS.

Trying to make sense out of Canon lineup decisions is maddening. For instance, why start putting IS in your wide angles rather than your telephotos???

The 28 f/2.8 IS replaced the 28 f/2.8 non-IS. The 28 f/1.8 is still being sold; the 28 f/2.8 non-IS is not.

Also agree with Ellen that Canon is leaving the option open to release a fast 28mm lens. The non-L IS lenses are 35 f/2, 28 f/2.8 and 24 f/2.8. The Ls go 50 f/1.2, 35 f/1.4 and 24 f/1.4. A 28 f/1.4 L would slot nicely between the 35 and 24Ls. Although I'm not sure if there is a sufficiently large market for 28mm primes anymore. It seems like the 24s are a lot more popular than the 28s.

My bad -- I completely forgot about the old 28/2.8. If you take that into account, then all of the new IS primes have actually kept the same aperture as the lens they replace. If the 50 IS turns out to be 1.8, perhaps that means the 1.4 will stay and the nifty fifty will go (with the pancake being the low-cost gateway prime). Or maybe the 50 IS will be 1.4 and the 85 IS will be 1.8 -- I think those would really sell like crazy.

Also, I wouldn't think there is much market for a 28L. There is at least 10mm between all the Ls from 14 to 50 (excluding the TS-E lenses), and that would be 4 and 7 from the 24 and 35.

 

[davidcl0nel]

The 28 f/2.8 IS replaced the 28 f/2.8 non-IS. The 28 f/1.8 is still being sold; the 28 f/2.8 non-IS is not.

Yep. If you look at the lens body you can propably sort lenses by style. There are 3 lines.
The black (cheapest) line - (15 2.8 Fisheye), 24 2.8, 28 2.8, 35 2.0, 50 1.8, no 85, no 100, 135 2.8 Softfocus.
The golden line (little golden ring at the front element) - 20 2.8, 28 1.8, no 35, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 100 2.0, no 135
The L line - 14 2.8, 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, (100 Macro), 135 2.0, ...

Currently Canon only replaced the black line - and the new body (of 24 IS, 28 IS, 35 IS) has a silver ring at the front (makes sense, isn't?) - so propably there will be a replacement for the 50 1.8 with IS, but no 85 (because this is the golden line!). Or they begin to replace the golden line after the possible 50 1.8 also. Or they add a silver version with less f-stop for 85 and 100 into the silver line.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I wonder about the 50mm lenses.

The 50mm f/1.8 was what the EF-S 18-55mm is today. I guess it's sold because it already covered it's R&D & tooling costs, and people buy it to get a cheap, fast, small lens. Point being the 50mm lens which is in the same class as the 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, and 35mm f/2 is the f/1.4, not the f/1.8

Therefore I would expect Canon to upgrade the 50mm f/1.4, and keep the existing 50mm f/1.8 because it's profitable.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the f/1.2 upgraded to give a fair fight to the competition, the f/1.4 upgraded with IS & full ring USM, and the f/1.8 sold on just the way it is.

 

[Knut Skywalker]

I own the 100mm f/2 and I love it for portraits. You have a nice distance to the model for the close headshots and the bokeh is as creamy as it gets. For 300€ used you get a hell of a lot of bang for your buck. Currently it's one of two lenses I own together with the 50mm f/1.4 and i really like them both for portraits.

 

[rbr]

I'd also buy a 20L if it was on par with the 24L in a heartbeat. I'd also settle for a revamped 20 f2.8 IS if it was as good as the new 28 and 35 IS lenses. Same with something slightly wider like an 18mm.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I've been praying for years for a fast ultra wide prime. 20mm f/1.8 ; 18 f/1.8 and i'll buy two of each !

Not Canon, nor loved by all, but Sigma has been making one for years. It's a specialty lens for sure and I love my copy even with its odd MF/AF clutch and switch mechanism:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/20mm-f18-ex-dg-asp-rf