Which Canon lens is most in need of updating.

[ahsanford]

Can't pick any single one of them, but Canon needs to upgrade the low end 50mm, 85mm, and 100mm primes same as the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm primes.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II does such a good job for me, I sold the 85mm f/1.8. The zoom's IQ & IS make me pass on the extra stop, weight, and switching lenses.

I keep the 50mm f/1.4 because it has a two stops advantage on the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 and three on the EF 24-70/105mm f/4 IS.

Actually, the Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG HSM ART is cheap enough, that I'm considering not waiting for Canon to make the upgrade, or buy the Sigma.

The 'low' 50 was just revised to the 50mm f/1.8 STM, lest we forget. It's the 'middle' one -- the EF 50 f/1.4 USM -- that is in desperate need of a corporate makeover.

But going all retrofocus and chasing Art / Otus resolution makes the lens huge / heavy / expensive, and that's best left for the next 50L. I think Canon can make a 50mm in something like the 35mm f/2 IS USM footprint (hat's the 35mm f/2 IS body I've PS'd below) and keep it small, and I would strongly prefer that over a pickle jar form factor.

- A

 

[Antono Refa]

Can't pick any single one of them, but Canon needs to upgrade the low end 50mm, 85mm, and 100mm primes same as the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm primes.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II does such a good job for me, I sold the 85mm f/1.8. The zoom's IQ & IS make me pass on the extra stop, weight, and switching lenses.

I keep the 50mm f/1.4 because it has a two stops advantage on the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 and three on the EF 24-70/105mm f/4 IS.

Actually, the Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG HSM ART is cheap enough, that I'm considering not waiting for Canon to make the upgrade, or buy the Sigma.

The 'low' 50 was just revised to the 50mm f/1.8 STM, lest we forget. It's the 'middle' one -- the EF 50 f/1.4 USM -- that is in desperate need of a corporate makeover.

Point taken.

But going all retrofocus and chasing Art / Otus resolution makes the lens huge / heavy / expensive

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is ~20% more expensive than the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM.

The Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 VC is ~10% more expensive than the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, and based on the digital picture, seems to have better IQ than the EF 50mm f/1.4

If I can get improved IQ + IS + same price bracket as the 35mm f/2 IS, I'll live with the size, weight, and even slightly smaller max aperture.

I think Canon can make a 50mm in something like the 35mm f/2 IS USM footprint (hat's the 35mm f/2 IS body I've PS'd below) and keep it small, and I would strongly prefer that over a pickle jar form factor.

I hope Canon can do it.

 

[MikleK]

Definitely 50 mm f/1.2!
It's going to happen soon I guess And will surely cause it cost more than 35 f/1.4 II

 

[scyrene]

Big White zooms (100-400, 200-400) --> the gaping hole in the lineup. Those two lenses are terrific, but currently, those are all we have. I flag as a red because there's no way to shoot Canon glass past 400mm on FF without the drawbacks of a teleconverter or some $9k leaving your pocket. A 'modestly-priced' zoom option ($2-3k) up to 600mm is sorely needed, though many have done the 600mm / 5.6 math and doubt Canon can offer one so inexpensively.

I dunno. I suppose the whole premise is based on the assumption Canon should compete with every lens other manufacturers make, which may be fair enough (I personally don't think so). The -600mm zooms seem to be imperfect/significantly compromised: they don't really go to 600mm, they aren't f/5.6 at the long end, and they are pretty soft especially at the long end, so I've read. If you're on a very tight budget, they are a reasonable prospect, but they're hardly a headline product for a big manufacturer to show off. This has been discussed at length in other threads, but I think Canon is unlikely to bother. They have the 100-400 II, which will take the 1.4x extender and still AF on more and more bodies, and supposedly maintains reasonably IQ in doing so. There can't be a huge amount of profit in a £1000 150-600mm lens (say) in any case, so why bother? And the 600 f/5.6 maths is unavoidable.

I still think a 500mm f/5.6 IS is a reasonable lens to replace the 400 f/5.6, albeit at a higher price, but that's it for this segment (and it's obviously not a zoom - I think we've seen the long zooms that Canon will make for the foreseeable).

 

[scyrene]

• • 180L Macro --> no idea what it's missing as I don't shoot with this or read much about it, but many people want a longer-than-100mm macro option for more working distance with more skittish or more dangerous subjects.

  
  Image stabilisation, simply put. For less money, you can get the Sigma which is a half stop wider and has 4-stop IS, and the image quality is superb. It's one area I would recommend a third party lens over a native one.

 

[chrysoberyl]

I still think a 500mm f/5.6 IS is a reasonable lens to replace the 400 f/5.6, albeit at a higher price, but that's it for this segment (and it's obviously not a zoom - I think we've seen the long zooms that Canon will make for the foreseeable).

This 500mm f/5.6 IS would be perfect for me. I am beginning to crave this like ahsanford craves a 50mm IS.

 

[scyrene]

I still think a 500mm f/5.6 IS is a reasonable lens to replace the 400 f/5.6, albeit at a higher price, but that's it for this segment (and it's obviously not a zoom - I think we've seen the long zooms that Canon will make for the foreseeable).

This 500mm f/5.6 IS would be perfect for me. I am beginning to crave this like ahsanford craves a 50mm IS.

It would be an exciting lens for them to produce, and I hope they do.

 

[neonlight]

+1 for zoom lock on 18-135; gimme a 500 f/5.6 for half the price of a f/4 ...

 

[uri.raz]

I've settled on a trio of f/2.8 zooms, and plan to upgrade to the 16-35mm f/2.8 mkIII. Those lenses' IQ is good enough that I'm selling my primes - the one stop difference isn't worth it.

So, I think the two lenses most need in an upgrade are the 50mm f/1.4 (the cheap model, where it's worth my money for the two stops difference), and EF 24-70mm f/2.8 - I'd love an IS on that one.

 

[tron]

I still think a 500mm f/5.6 IS is a reasonable lens to replace the 400 f/5.6, albeit at a higher price, but that's it for this segment (and it's obviously not a zoom - I think we've seen the long zooms that Canon will make for the foreseeable).

This 500mm f/5.6 IS would be perfect for me. I am beginning to crave this like ahsanford craves a 50mm IS.

If only Canon made a 600 5.6 DO. I know they are preparing a 600 f/4 DO but a 5.6 version would be lighter and cheaper...

 

[Crosswind]

Canon is lacking in the WA & UWA prime lens department There's only the 14L (which is not the best in its class to be honest), the TS-E 17L and the very old EF 20mm (poor performer). All of these 3 lenses are either very expensive, very old, or just underwhelming regarding optical performance.

I really do like primes and so I wish that Canon would surprise me one day with a really good and affordable UWA prime lens (that's why I am so excited about the next EF-S prime). Something between 10-15mm, f2-2.8 and superb image quality like they've managed to achieve with the EF-M 11-22mm. I imagine they could do even better (optically speaking) with an EF-S/EF-M 11mm f/2.8 for example. I believe that'd also sell like a hotcake!

 

[tron]

Canon is lacking in the WA & UWA prime lens department There's only the 14L (which is not the best in its class to be honest), the TS-E 17L and the very old EF 20mm (poor performer). All of these 3 lenses are either very expensive, very old, or just underwhelming regarding optical performance.

I really do like primes and so I wish that Canon would surprise me one day with a really good and affordable UWA prime lens (that's why I am so excited about the next EF-S prime). Something between 10-15mm, f2-2.8 and superb image quality like they've managed to achieve with the EF-M 11-22mm. I imagine they could do even better (optically speaking) with an EF-S/EF-M 11mm f/2.8 for example. I believe that'd also sell like a hotcake!

14L II is quite good and so is 17TS-E. Have you used them? I have both of them and I use them.
Good and affordable and uwa cannot coexist! Get real and choose 2 out of 3 attributes. You can't have the cake and eat it!

 

[Ah-Keong]

If I am the Canon's lens team, I would propose:

EF mount
1) 14mm f/1,2
2) 85mm f/1,4 IS
3) 135mm f/1,4 IS
4) 105mm f/1,4 IS
5) 180mm f/4,0 IS macro

 

[Crosswind]

You can't have the cake and eat it!

Then I might just have to buy into Samyang lenses. They have all the good and affordable wideangle primes (10mm 2.8, 12mm 2.0, 16mm 2.0... to name a few), just manual focus only. If they can design such great performing lenses at such a low price, Canon could also do it and maybe charge 100 bucks more for AF... which I'd still consider as inexpensive "hotcake". I don't get it why they still didn't do something in that department. Is it because such lenses are more of a niche product?

 

[Antono Refa]

You can't have the cake and eat it!

Then I might just have to buy into Samyang lenses. They have all the good and affordable wideangle primes (10mm 2.8, 12mm 2.0, 16mm 2.0... to name a few), just manual focus only.

The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM costs about half as much as as either of those prime costs, and you could AF.

You have to look at it from the manufacturer's point of view as well. Canon makes lenses for one mount only, Samyang reuses the same design for several mounts. Possibly, there's not enough money in primes for Canon to make them just for EF-S, but Samyang can make a nice profit by selling for several mounts.

In other words, Canon might intentionally leave this niche for third party manufacturers.

 

[TheDrift-]

For me....

1) 50 1.2L
2) 50 1.2L
3) 50 1.2L

 

[tron]

You can't have the cake and eat it!

Then I might just have to buy into Samyang lenses. They have all the good and affordable wideangle primes (10mm 2.8, 12mm 2.0, 16mm 2.0... to name a few), just manual focus only. If they can design such great performing lenses at such a low price, Canon could also do it and maybe charge 100 bucks more for AF... which I'd still consider as inexpensive "hotcake". I don't get it why they still didn't do something in that department. Is it because such lenses are more of a niche product?

Of course you can. If you don't care for manual focus, distortion (samyang 14mm) and decentering (samyang 24mm 1.4). I am talking about FF. I have no opinion about APS-C and 4/3rds though...

 

[Pandy]

For me....

1) 50 1.2L
2) 50 1.2L
3) 50 1.2L

I have to second this; it needs updating very badly to match up with the performance of their new 35mm.

 

[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

 

[uri.raz]

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.