The future of Canon L primes

[Ruined]

Hi all,
Was curious if anyone saw any patents or info that might imply some of the L classic primes might have an update in the pipeline.

For instance, maybe adding IS to the 135 f/2? Or correcting some of the focusing issues some have with the 50 f/1.2 (I don't have personal experience with this)?

We have some of the consumer lenses coming out with IS and all new optics, and while the L primes are fantastic, one might wonder if they could be even better with new designs (as we have seen quality improvement with new designs of L zoom lenses and consumer primes).

So anyone see any hints of updates of the classic L primes, or no? Just curious Note these updates might include IS, increased sharpness or focusing, etc...

 

[J.R.]

No hints, Canon almost never releases any till such time they want to start a teaser campaign (probably) ... but I want an update to the 16-35 II and the 35mm L

 

[Maximilian]

... but I want an update to the 16-35 II and the 35mm L

I think - or better hope - after Sigmas 35mm challenge, Canon has to pick up the gauntlet.
But I suppose, that first some L zooms will reach the market.

 

[Loswr]

IIRC, there have been two patents for a 35/1.4 from Canon fairly recently. Not that that means much…

 

[ERHP]

Honestly I've been expecting Canon to release an updated 800 v2 to counter Nikon's initial release. Shaving a pound or two off like the 600f/4 remake did would be pretty nice. Or making an f/4 version that weighed what the old 600 did.

It really comes down to market share and profitability. What demand signal towards lens updates are they getting from the consumer/prosumer crowd?

 

[Ruined]

Found this too!

http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-patent-85mm-f1-2-85mm-f1-8-135mm-f2-50mm-f1-4/

 

[preppyak]

I think it stands to reason that Canon will release a new ultrawide zoom sometime soon, whether its a 16-35 update or a 14-24. They just updated both the 24-105 and 24-70 lenses, as well as the 70-200. That leaves the 100-400 to update sometime in the next year or two.

Of the primes, the 35L is the oldest by almost 10 years. The 135L is also in that timeframe. So, I'd say those are the next two L updates. That said, I think the 135L is still selling well, not sure it really needs an update yet.

The100-400 seem to be the most likely update, since Canon has updated all their tele lenses in the last few years. 35L and ultra-wide probably come after that. But, with a lot of good L lenses, you may see them update their non-L lenses before. I think the 50mm IS update is coming, and they've refreshed all the kit lenses with STM

 

[LookingThroughMyLens81]

Canon will definitely update their lenses to get coverage for the new high-megapixel DSLRs and many of the older ones have been around almost ten years or more, so they are due for an update with all the advances since then.

 

[Eldar]

If they only listened to us ... we would have been out testing new great gear

With the incredible performance of the 600 f4L IS II, with the 1.4xIII extender, I don´t see a new 800 f5.6 as very likely. I would never consider that lens.
The 35 1.4L and 50 1.2L is under heavy fire and could do with updates. I got the Sigma 35/1.4 and I have ordered the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4. And the (high) number of photographers who are buying these lenses should be a concern to Canon.
Personally I would really like to see an update to the 85mm 1.2L II´s AF performance. I can easily live with the rest. the 135 f2L from an IQ perspective is still great, but it would be helped by including IS.
Of the zooms, I am waiting for the 12-24 or 14-24, whatever it´ll be. I am not very fond of my 16-35 f2.8L II. And the much used and well liked 100-400 is overdue. But they have a dilemma with this lens, since it might steal customers from the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x. If the 100-400 gets close to 70-200 f2.8L IS II IQ, who would pay +8-9k$ for the other?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

At this point I think the 50mm L lens is the worse performance-price ratio. The question is whether only improves optics and a bit more expensive, or also adds Image Stabilizer and becomes much more expensive. :-\

 

[Zv]

At this point I think the 50mm L lens is the worse performance-price ratio. The question is whether only improves optics and a bit more expensive, or also adds Image Stabilizer and becomes much more expensive. :-\

Agree. I would like to own a 50L but at that price I may as well just fork out a little more and get the excellent 24-70II, which would give me 24, 35 and 50mm prime quality if not better. However, carrying a large zoom lens just to get 50mm is leas than ideal.

Also, if Canon updated the 50L it would only make the new lens more expensive. In fact any L prime update is gonna be reaching the $2000 mark. For some that's prob pocket change but for us poor folk we just have to wait several years for the price cuts! (Which, again is why I reckon the 24-70II is the best value vs performance lens if you need primes in that range).

 

[9VIII]

Honestly I've been expecting Canon to release an updated 800 v2 to counter Nikon's initial release. Shaving a pound or two off like the 600f/4 remake did would be pretty nice. Or making an f/4 version that weighed what the old 600 did.

It really comes down to market share and profitability. What demand signal towards lens updates are they getting from the consumer/prosumer crowd?

Unfortunately, an 800f4 would have a 200mm front element, just 14mm away from the size of the 1200f5.6, a lens that cost as much as a small house.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Patents are coming out all the time, and for many different types of lenses. That really means nothing as far as what might be coming. Canon has about 2000 patents released a year.

I don't expect to see many if any new "L" primes in the near future. Canon is smart enough to know that there is so much pressure on prices that it would be a poor investment. They are conservative and hang on to their cash when sales are slow, it costs many millions of dollars to bring a new "L" lens into production, including tooling, distribution, inventory, advertising and probably more. That's why prices are so high for early adopters.

 

[preppyak]

I don't expect to see many if any new "L" primes in the near future.

I agree for everything but the 35L. That one has fierce competition, and by age, it's due for a replacement. That said, they might not even be able to compete with the Sigma lens. The current 35L retails for $500 more than the Sigma, and an update would be an even bigger gulf. They'd have to release the perfect 35mm lens to make it worth it.

It's not a situation like the Tamron 24-70 where they made a nice lens with VC, but the Canon version was clearly sharper and better and worth the extra

 

[Loswr]

With the incredible performance of the 600 f4L IS II, with the 1.4xIII extender, I don´t see a new 800 f5.6 as very likely.

I think that's exactly why we will see an 800/5.6 II, and soon. I agree that the 600 II + 1.4x makes the current 800L superfluous. But the bare 600 II is sharper than the 400 II + 1.4x, and I'd expect the bare 800 II to be sharper than the 600 II + 1.4x. Also, like the 800/5.6 is lighter than the older 600/4, the MkII would again be lighter. Also, there's a black version of the 800 for a different mount that looks to be quite sharp. Canon has reigned supreme in the supertele class - it's likely they'll want an 800 II to keep the crown.

I agree for everything but the 35L. That one has fierce competition, and by age, it's due for a replacement. That said, they might not even be able to compete with the Sigma lens. The current 35L retails for $500 more than the Sigma, and an update would be an even bigger gulf. They'd have to release the perfect 35mm lens to make it worth it.

It's not a situation like the Tamron 24-70 where they made a nice lens with VC, but the Canon version was clearly sharper and better and worth the extra

I'd expect a new Canon 35L to be a bit sharper than the Sigma, or be f/1.2 It would also be weather sealed, and of course, have the Canon logo. I expect it would sell well.

 

[dolina]

A replacement for the 800/5.6 will come in by 2020. By then I hope they shave off at least 25% of the weight. I expect Canon to sell it for say $20,000-26,000.

35/1.4, 135/2, 180/3.5 Macro, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6 are prime candidates for an update.

What I would love to see is a 600mm f/2.8 that weighs under 23lbs/8.25kg.

 

[eml58]

Looking at what Canon really need to do, there's not a lot, I think.

800f/5.6 II, needed to compete with Nikon's new Lens, and I've seen it, it's good (Nikon's 800 I mean), probabely within the next 6 to 12 months, they have to, no choice for Canon.

35f/1.4 II, needed, forget what Sigma can & can't do, Canon need to revamp this Lens, again, next 6 to 12 months.

135 L II, needed, current lens is a beauty, but Zeiss have raised the Bar, so Canon will reciprocate, maybe 12 to 18 months away.

200f/2 II, hard to judge, how do you improve on perfection ?? but this Lens will probably get the Series II treatment, 12 to 18 months away.

TSE's, Overdue for a 50 & 90 revamp, 2014 for sure.

Man, 2014 looks to be a year to live for, of course we will all be poorer by 2015, but that's like 2 years away, why worry now.

 

[Fabian]

I really hope for a 400/5.6 update. I mean, the 300/4 got its update like almost 17 years ago.

 

[ERHP]

35/1.4, 135/2, 180/3.5 Macro, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6 are prime candidates for an update.

I was just thinking about buying a 180/3.5 macro today from Canon's refurb site. Then thought, this is fairly old and as soon as I buy it, a new one with IS will be announced

Eldar, totally agree that making a v2 of the 100-400 too good will most likely take sales away from the 200-400. But the price point is the determining factor. And supposedly lots of samples in the wild.

 

[Hillsilly]

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon focuses more on the enthusiast market over the next couple of years. Updated 100-400 and 400/5.6 lenses would be welcome additions (especially if their release coincided with a new 7D2). The 17-40 is also in need of some minor tweaking. For a more budget conscious photographer, an updated 17-40 seems a natural choice for a 6D.