Which Canon lenses DON'T need an update?

[RC]

100mm f/2.8 L macro

70-200 f/4L USM IS

+ 1 on these. I'm fine with the high tech plastic on the 100.

 

[unruled]

70-200mm f4 USM IS
70-200mm f2.8 USM II IS
300mm 2.8 USM IS II
400mm f/2.8 USM IS II

i think most older lenses could be improved with better coatings.
some could need more aperture blades or circular blades for better bokeh.

the mentioned 85mm f1.8 is an example.

that it is a good lens does not mean it could not be better with todays technology/materials.

if you count the 85 1.8 as needing an upgrade, then you might as well add every lens under the sun as needing an upgrade. I think that at the current price point and quality, the 85 1.8 is one of the best canon lenses there is, I wouldn't want a better coating at double its price.

 

[preppyak]

I want a L macro with a metal body that fits the high price tag instead of the plastic on the current 100L

You probably need IS, but, if you didn't, the non-L has a pretty solid construction. Feels like a Maglite flashlight to me.

100mm non L. Nothing bad to say about it.

Same, especially since an update would make it cost more. I don't need the IS for most of my macro work, so i was glad to get it pretty cheap used.

 

[Marsu42]

I want a L macro with a metal body that fits the high price tag instead of the plastic on the current 100L

You probably need IS, but, if you didn't, the non-L has a pretty solid construction. Feels like a Maglite flashlight to me.

Um, I've got the 100mm non-L - and while its the ok Canon "gold ring" quality: Did you ever get your hands on something like the 70-300L or 70-200L/2.8? These are real metal cases and and entirely different thing.

 

[gerga]

Lenses that don't need an update in my oppinion:
70-200 f/4L USM IS
70-200mm f/2.8L USM IS II

Though it'd be nice if the 70-200 shed half a kilo!

If we're including value for money in this discussion, then perhaps the 50mm f/1.4 could be thrown into consideration? It's my understanding the optics haven't really changed since the days of the Canon A-1 (if not before): light, fast, decent IQ, very sharp esp. when stopped down. While many would like it to be metal-barelled, faster, and having more aperture blades for nicer bokeh, there's already the 50mm 1.2L (which I wouldn't include here as that could do with an update!).

 

[squarebox]

Lenses that don't need an update in my oppinion:
70-200 f/4L USM IS
70-200mm f/2.8L USM IS II

Though it'd be nice if the 70-200 shed half a kilo!

If we're including value for money in this discussion, then perhaps the 50mm f/1.4 could be thrown into consideration? It's my understanding the optics haven't really changed since the days of the Canon A-1 (if not before): light, fast, decent IQ, very sharp esp. when stopped down. While many would like it to be metal-barelled, faster, and having more aperture blades for nicer bokeh, there's already the 50mm 1.2L (which I wouldn't include here as that could do with an update!).

the 50mm 1.4 uses an outdated USM mechanism, though fast, isn't as fast as the new version. I think that has been the only complaint (if any) that could be said about the 1.4. It's a great lens btw, I have it as well.

 

[Marsu42]

the 50mm 1.4 uses an outdated USM mechanism, though fast, isn't as fast as the new version. I think that has been the only complaint (if any) that could be said about the 1.4. It's a great lens btw, I have it as well.

While being a good medium-budget lens, the 1.4's af is louder than ring-type usm, too. But the main "issue" is technical evolution: Canons 50mm is the simple legacy "normal" which is outperformed (wide open sharpness, bokeh) by newer designs with more glass by Nikon and Sigma, and these don't have the focus shift of Canon's f1.2.