Which Canon lens is most in need of updating.

[slclick]

Because this thread needs more pages, I'll re chime in.

50 1.4-naturally
400 5.6-add IS
100L- updated IS
135L-IS added, BR gunk
20/24/28 1.8 primes Non L

The 24mm non-L prime was updated with IS ~5 years ago.

yea and it with the 28 and 35 were either 2.8 or f/2. I'm quite aware of the newer IS primes thank you for your help though. I did type 1.8 to clarify the models and not confuse anyone with the IS trio.

 

[Antono Refa]

Because this thread needs more pages, I'll re chime in.

50 1.4-naturally
400 5.6-add IS
100L- updated IS
135L-IS added, BR gunk
20/24/28 1.8 primes Non L

The 24mm non-L prime was updated with IS ~5 years ago.

yea and it with the 28 and 35 were either 2.8 or f/2. I'm quite aware of the newer IS primes thank you for your help though. I did type 1.8 to clarify the models and not confuse anyone with the IS trio.

There is no 24mm f/1.8

 

[slclick]

Because this thread needs more pages, I'll re chime in.

50 1.4-naturally
400 5.6-add IS
100L- updated IS
135L-IS added, BR gunk
20/24/28 1.8 primes Non L

The 24mm non-L prime was updated with IS ~5 years ago.

yea and it with the 28 and 35 were either 2.8 or f/2. I'm quite aware of the newer IS primes thank you for your help though. I did type 1.8 to clarify the models and not confuse anyone with the IS trio.

There is no 24mm f/1.8

Thank you, no need to update then

 

[Crosswind]

[quote author= link=topic=31035.msg653779#msg653779 date=1488381891]

There is no 24mm f/1.8
...
Thank you, no need to update then
[/quote]

But it would be nice to see an update to the EF 20 2.8, maybe with stabilizer - in the same fashion as the 24IS.
And in the future something between 10 and 12mm at f2.5 or faster for FF... to basically give us a "prime version" of the EF 11-24, just a lot faster and an interesting rival to the new Sigma 14mm 1.8.

 

[rfdesigner]

can't believe this thread is still going, glad I started it.

still waiting for my 50mmf1.4

 

[Crosswind]

still waiting for my 50mmf1.4

Do NOT wait. SHOOT!

 

[rfdesigner]

still waiting for my 50mmf1.4

Do NOT wait. SHOOT!

indeed, hence the 50STM in my kitbag.

 

[Crosswind]

indeed, hence the 50STM in my kitbag.

I do also have that lens Well made (considering the price) and superb optical performance (except from wide-open to about f/2.8, which I don't use a lot because I'm more into landscapes). I believe that even the very expensive Zeiss Otus 55mm will not be any better, when you compare them both between f/4 and f/8.

So optically speaking... I don't need anything better at that focal lenght, seriously. I'd only sell it for a double gauss 50mm with IS & USM and about the size/weight of the 35IS. Now such a lens would be the only "real" upgrade imo.

 

[benkam]

The EF-S 17-55 2.8 is overdue for an update, isn't it?

Also wish Canon would come up with something like an EF-S 45-120 2.8 IS. That's a relatively fast 70-200-ish equivalent but also less massive, say around the size of the EF 70-300 non-L and not that of the big white 70-200 2.8 or Sigma's 50-100 1.8.

 

[StudentOfLight]

The EF-S 17-55 2.8 is overdue for an update, isn't it?

Also wish Canon would come up with something like an EF-S 45-120 2.8 IS. That's a relatively fast 70-200-ish equivalent but also less massive, say around the size of the EF 70-300 non-L and not that of the big white 70-200 2.8 or Sigma's 50-100 1.8.

45-120mm f/2.8 is equivalent to "70-200" f/4.5 8)

 

[LonelyBoy]

45-120mm f/2.8 is equivalent to "70-200" f/4.5 8)

"Equivalent" is a fun word to argue. Or not.

 

[rfdesigner]

45-120mm f/2.8 is equivalent to "70-200" f/4.5 8)

"Equivalent" is a fun word to argue. Or not.

in this case it is equivelent, depth of field, speed, field of view are all equal, effectively it would be the same lens with a little variation in the rear group to focus the same light over an APS-C sensor rather than a FF sensor.

 

[LonelyBoy]

in this case it is equivelent, depth of field, speed, field of view are all equal, effectively it would be the same lens with a little variation in the rear group to focus the same light over an APS-C sensor rather than a FF sensor.

Sure... and then you lose the size advantage the OP wanted.

 

[rfdesigner]

in this case it is equivelent, depth of field, speed, field of view are all equal, effectively it would be the same lens with a little variation in the rear group to focus the same light over an APS-C sensor rather than a FF sensor.

Sure... and then you lose the size advantage the OP wanted.

not disagreeing.. I blame physics