Which Canon lens is most in need of updating.

[geekpower]

135/2 (weather sealing and IS)
200/2.8 (weather sealing and IS)

even if the latter did not outperform the 70-200/2.8 in sharpness, it would still be much lighter and easier to sneak into sports events

 

[j-nord]

Interesting that no one has mentioned the 24L for update. It's been brought up a lot but, I guess everyone is more interested in the 16-35iii.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Interesting that no one has mentioned the 24L for update. It's been brought up a lot but, I guess everyone is more interested in the 16-35iii.

Good point. I have one, but the vignetting, coma and performance wide open are pretty terrible. And it appears that its faults contribute to poor resale value. My copy is like new and recently checked out by Canon, and its value is well less than half what I paid.

So a version III would make sense.

 

[dsnook]

+1 to all those who mentioned updating the old 45 and 90 TS-E lenses.

I use these all the time for architectural detail shots and would be glad to see an upgrade!

 

[geekpower]

Interesting that no one has mentioned the 24L for update. It's been brought up a lot but, I guess everyone is more interested in the 16-35iii.

i almost listed it as my #3 but figured that between the 24 ts-e, 11-24, and two 16-35s, the only thing that sets it apart is being fast, and somewhat like the 50L, people who like the way it renders may be willing to overlook its faults.

 

[rfdesigner]

Now everyone else has listed theirs, I'll add mine.

1. 50f1.4 - quelle suprise. mechanically, optically and AF deficient.
2. 28f1.8 - canons "affordable" wide-wide, optically deficient off axis wide open (soft + field curvature)
3. 24f1.4 - better than the 28f1.8 but no better than the sigma ART optically and double the price of the ART.

 

[tron]

EF 135mm f/2 L needs just IS. It's optics are fine. I believe 24mm 1.4 L II needs updating to perform decently fully open (sharpness and coma wise)

 

[ritholtz]

Now everyone else has listed theirs, I'll add mine.

1. 50f1.4 - quelle suprise. mechanically, optically and AF deficient.
2. 28f1.8 - canons "affordable" wide-wide, optically deficient off axis wide open (soft + field curvature)
3. 24f1.4 - better than the 28f1.8 but no better than the sigma ART optically and double the price of the ART.

Canon should make 28mm 1.8 as EFS lens.

 

[jeffa4444]

My top three:-

1. EF50mm f1.4 - replacement
2. EF85mm f1.8 - replacement
3. EF135mm f2.8L Macro - New

 

[rfdesigner]

Now everyone else has listed theirs, I'll add mine.

1. 50f1.4 - quelle suprise. mechanically, optically and AF deficient.
2. 28f1.8 - canons "affordable" wide-wide, optically deficient off axis wide open (soft + field curvature)
3. 24f1.4 - better than the 28f1.8 but no better than the sigma ART optically and double the price of the ART.

Canon should make 28mm 1.8 as EFS lens.

why?.. surely you just buy the current 28f1.8

note: you can use the ET-63 hood for use on a crop which deals with glare a lot better.

 

[Luds34]

Well Canon's lens lineup is looking pretty awesome these days, especially with the recent UWA zooms. It's more for me to figure out what lens I need to get then what lens Canon needs to update.

I know the 50mm has got to be at the top of their list and many are clamoring for it. I'm more a 35/85 combo shooter so I can pass on the 50mm.

1) 85mm f/1.8
2) 85mm f/1.2L
3) 20mm f/2.8

I'd love to see some sort of cross between the two 85mm lenses. Maybe an 85mm f/1.4, no IS, lose the focus by wire, very fast and accurate AF, optically stunning, top notch glass.

 

[Haydn1971]

The 70-300L is a young lens, unlikely to be updated. Taking extenders would mean making it physically longer, and one of the main advantages it offers over a 100-400 is its smaller size.

The 200/2.8 is 'old' but has a place as an 'inexpensive' long+fast lens. Given the 70-200 zooms, I'm not sure we'll see an updated 200/2.8 anytime soon.

The 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 were updated to MkII relatively recently and are excellent lenses – I really don't see them being updated anytime soon. I could see a 300/2.8 DO lens, though.

The 800/5.6 was not updated along with the 300-600mm lenses, the 600 II + 1.4xIII beats the 800 for IQ (and is lighter and cheaper), and Nikon recently came out with their own 800/5.6. So, of all the lenses on your list I think this one is the most likely to see an update (along with the 200/2, which also skipped the MkII update).

I'd expect the 70-300L to be a huge seller, thus prime for getting mods to keep it attractive and importantly maximise the profit margin, thus why in my list.

Slip of the f stop 200mm f2.0 not 2.8 ;-) It's kinda old now by big white prime standards

800mm - fully expect a DO version next

 

[Steve Todd]

Still hopeful for an updated 28-300L in the next few years. The one I have has served me well for over 11-years as my one-body, one-lens, travel set up! I usually carry multiple bodies and lenses on road trips, however I find myself using the single body/lens option more and more as I grow older! The images it produces on the latest EOS bodies are still great! However, newer AF, IS, zooming method and refined lens elements would be a welcomed upgrade!

 

[ahsanford]

Many possible lists...

Which three do I think 'most people' want updated?
1. EF 50mm f/1.4
2. EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8
3. EF 85mm f/1.8

Which three do I want updated?
1. MP-E 65mm f/2.8
2. EF 135mm f/2L
3. TS-E 90mm f/2.8

Which three does ahsanford want updated?
1. EF 50mm f/1.4
2. EF 50mm f/1.4
3. EF 50mm f/1.4

Sorry. Late to the party. Yes. This.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I have the weird theory that everyone clamoring for an updated 50/1.4 is actually an alterego of ahsanford.

;D

For the record, I only have one ID here (or anywhere else that I post, for that matter).

An EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM is just a good idea. I'd guess it's the #1 most wanted lens now that the White Unicorn and 24-105L have both been updated.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

What's wrong with the current MP-E?

Never used it myself, but I read it did not handle dust well. I think that was less of a general dust problem so much as how unforgiving dust is at 5x. So maybe it could be better sealed?

But I defer to the macro-rail-sliding, fly's-eyeball-shooting 5x lovers on this forum. They would know where it needs improvement.

- A

 

[j-nord]

Many possible lists...

Which three do I think 'most people' want updated?
1. EF 50mm f/1.4
2. EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8
3. EF 85mm f/1.8

Which three do I want updated?
1. MP-E 65mm f/2.8
2. EF 135mm f/2L
3. TS-E 90mm f/2.8

Which three does ahsanford want updated?
1. EF 50mm f/1.4
2. EF 50mm f/1.4
3. EF 50mm f/1.4

Sorry. Late to the party. Yes. This.

- A

Wait I'm confused, do you want a:
1) 50 f1.4 II
2) 50 f2 IS
3) 50 f1.4 IS (I think this is what everyone wants but seems unrealistic considering the other recent prime releases)

It goes with out saying these would be all be internal focus. None of the extending prime nonsense.

 

[ahsanford]

Wait I'm confused, do you want a:
1) 50 f1.4 II
2) 50 f2 IS
3) 50 f1.4 IS (I think this is what everyone wants but seems unrealistic considering the other recent prime releases)

It goes with out saying these would be all be internal focus. None of the extending prime nonsense.

Short answer: a new 50mm with internal focusing and modern reliable USM and in a non-enormous size.

Longer answer: It depends on what Canon offers us, as many have conceded that a 50 f/1.4 IS USM could steal 50L sales and Canon may not offer us that. So here's my spectrum of Yes/No for this lens (from a prior post):

"As far as what I would / would not buy in a new 50:

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM II = Buy. Opportunity lost with no IS, but if it's this or nothing, I'll take it.

EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM = Buy. Pricey, but if still relatively small compared to the pickle jars, I'd be in.

EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM = Buy.

EF 50mm f/2.0 IS USM = Buy. Could be awesomely tiny and low-profile, but I imagine they'd never put this out given that the budget STM lens is still f/1.8.

EF 50mm f/anything L USM = Not buy. Presumably too big/expensive/specialized for my needs, but we'll see. If it was not a draw/bokeh specialist of a lens and was sharper across the frame, I'd maaaaybe consider it.

EF 50mm f/2.5 1:2 compact macro USM = Not buy. I think I need f/2 or quicker, and I don't need another macro (either due to a large internal focusing housing or non-internal focusing design that leans out a great deal.)

EF 50mm of any sort with STM = kill it with a hammer. Not good enough for this class of lens.

I imagine everyone's personal buy / not buy list is quite different, though."

- A

 

[JMZawodny]

Wait I'm confused, do you want a:
1) 50 f1.4 II
2) 50 f2 IS
3) 50 f1.4 IS (I think this is what everyone wants but seems unrealistic considering the other recent prime releases)

It goes with out saying these would be all be internal focus. None of the extending prime nonsense.

Short answer: a new 50mm with internal focusing and modern reliable USM and in a non-enormous size.

Longer answer: It depends on what Canon offers us, as many have conceded that a 50 f/1.4 IS USM could steal 50L sales and Canon may not offer us that. So here's my spectrum of Yes/No for this lens (from a prior post):

"As far as what I would / would not buy in a new 50:

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM II = Buy. Opportunity lost with no IS, but if it's this or nothing, I'll take it.

EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM = Buy. Pricey, but if still relatively small compared to the pickle jars, I'd be in.

EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM = Buy.

EF 50mm f/2.0 IS USM = Buy. Could be awesomely tiny and low-profile, but I imagine they'd never put this out given that the budget STM lens is still f/1.8.

EF 50mm f/anything L USM = Not buy. Presumably too big/expensive/specialized for my needs, but we'll see. If it was not a draw/bokeh specialist of a lens and was sharper across the frame, I'd maaaaybe consider it.

EF 50mm f/2.5 1:2 compact macro USM = Not buy. I think I need f/2 or quicker, and I don't need another macro (either due to a large internal focusing housing or non-internal focusing design that leans out a great deal.)

EF 50mm of any sort with STM = kill it with a hammer. Not good enough for this class of lens.

I imagine everyone's personal buy / not buy list is quite different, though."

- A

I'm sorry, but a new 50mm at any f# is not a major priority. Despite your adamant protestations to the contrary. Nevertheless, a new 50mm is likely in the next 12 months, but that is because it will will be a kit lens they toss in with their newer bodies. There is so much more fertile ground to be plowed.

 

[ahsanford]

I'm sorry, but a new 50mm at any f# is not a major priority. Despite your adamant protestations to the contrary. Nevertheless, a new 50mm is likely in the next 12 months, but that is because it will will be a kit lens they toss in with their newer bodies. There is so much more fertile ground to be plowed.

Respectfully disagree. Canon doesn't have a sharp across-the-frame 50mm prime with anything resembling a modern feature set. That is not an extravagant need, and as such, I find it a gap for the world's largest imaging company.

We presently have a choice of:

• The 50L = a fairly specialized large aperture tool due to its nutty not-quite-a-plane of focus (not to mention ordinary lenses outresolve it after f/2.8 or so)
• The ancient 50 f/1.4 USM = decent IQ but fragile build quality and it lacks a ton of modern features
• An even ancienter f/2.5 1:2 macro that I won't even spend another moment on
• The 50 f/1.8 STM is fine... if you like STM, focus by wire, plasticky build, no distance scale, external focusing, etc. The optics are not terrible but the user experience suffers due to all the things it cannot do

Canon needs a workhorse 50mm that says yes to all the needs of general use. Just take the same old vanilla double-gauss optics from the 50 f/1.4 USM and put it in an internally focusing package with modern USM and IS (like the 24/28/35 non-L IS lenses) and it will solve the gap I am referring to.

It doesn't need to resolve like an Art or Otus (the next 50L will surely pull a 35L II, get huge, and compete with Sigma and Zeiss on that front) -- the new non-L 50 just needs to be an 8 out of 10 in everything in a reasonably sized package... just like the 24/28/35 non-L IS lenses. That's what irks me the most -- Canon has the perfect roadmap for this lens from 24/28/35 IS re-designs, but those designs (apparently) tanked commercially and Canon appears to be gunshy to expand that refresh effort to the 50mm and 85mm focal lengths. #sadness

- A