Which L prime will be the first Canon upgrade?

[memoriaphoto]

For many many years, fellow forum members have speculated about upcoming replacements. 35L II, 135L II with IS, 50L II? Or perhaps a snappier 85L III.

Which one do you think will be the first, and why? I guess 'when' is pointless.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

I'm going to say 35mm f/1.4, because it was the first to be challenged by Sigma's Art line.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Canon 50mm F1.2L at this time is more expensive, and worse sharpness than the Sigma Art.

 

[Jim Saunders]

Canon 50mm F1.2L at this time is more expensive, and worse sharpness than the Sigma Art.

I'd guess this one as well. The 35 is in the same boat but by less of a margin.

Jim

 

[Hill Benson]

Canon 50mm F1.2L at this time is more expensive, and worse sharpness than the Sigma Art.

Sigma 50mm Art 1.2?

 

[Loswr]

35L. Every other Canon L prime 100mm or shorter has been updated or newly released in the past ~9 years. 35L needs weather sealing and an optical upgrade.

50L isn't about sharpness, it's about creamy bokeh and it's the king of the 50's in that regard.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Canon 50mm F1.2L at this time is more expensive, and worse sharpness than the Sigma Art.

Sigma 50mm Art 1.2?

Although more luminous and more expensive Canon 50mm F1.2 does not reach the level of sharpness of the Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art, even when both are compared at F1.4.
Look at this comparison between Sigma 50mm Art, and Canon 50mm L:

http://willchaophotography.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review/

When friends ask me about Canon 50mm lenses I answer the following:
The 50mm F1.2 model only has decent sharpness when used at F1.4.
The model 50mm F1.4 only has decent sharpness when used in F1.8.
The 50mm F1.8 model only has decent sharpness when used in F2.5.
The 50mm F2.5 model only has decent sharpness when used in F2.8

That seems rather ironic, but that's what I see.
Moreover, Sigma 50mm Art can be used at F1.4 with optimum picture quality and the bokeh is beautiful.

 

[Hill Benson]

Canon 50mm F1.2L at this time is more expensive, and worse sharpness than the Sigma Art.

Sigma 50mm Art 1.2?

Although more luminous and more expensive Canon 50mm F1.2 does not reach the level of sharpness of the Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art, even when both are compared at F1.4.
Look at this comparison between Sigma 50mm Art, and Canon 50mm L:

http://willchaophotography.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review/

When friends ask me about Canon 50mm lenses I answer the following:
The 50mm F1.2 model only has decent sharpness when used at F1.4.
The model 50mm F1.4 only has decent sharpness when used in F1.8.
The 50mm F1.8 model only has decent sharpness when used in F2.5.
The 50mm F2.5 model only has decent sharpness when used in F2.8

That seems rather ironic, but that's what I see.
Moreover, Sigma 50mm Art can be used at F1.4 with optimum picture quality and the bokeh is beautiful.

My apologies if you thought I was trying to suggest the 50 1.2L is sharper than the 50 Art. I don't (and never thought it ever was.)

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Canon 50mm F1.2L at this time is more expensive, and worse sharpness than the Sigma Art.

Sigma 50mm Art 1.2?

Although more luminous and more expensive Canon 50mm F1.2 does not reach the level of sharpness of the Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art, even when both are compared at F1.4.
Look at this comparison between Sigma 50mm Art, and Canon 50mm L:

http://willchaophotography.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review/

When friends ask me about Canon 50mm lenses I answer the following:
The 50mm F1.2 model only has decent sharpness when used at F1.4.
The model 50mm F1.4 only has decent sharpness when used in F1.8.
The 50mm F1.8 model only has decent sharpness when used in F2.5.
The 50mm F2.5 model only has decent sharpness when used in F2.8
That seems rather ironic, but that's what I see.
Moreover, Sigma 50mm Art can be used at F1.4 with optimum picture quality and the bokeh is beautiful.

My apologies if you thought I was trying to suggest the 50 1.2L is sharper than the 50 Art. I don't (and never thought it ever was.)

It's okay.
I understood that you did not consider it fair to compare one F1.2 lens with another F1.4 lens. But as the price is similar, the small difference of light and DOF not forbidden to do comparisons.
Lets see one more comparison:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[Cory]

Most of my typical stuff is well-handled by my 35 2.0 IS and 100 2.0 (and 10-18 EF-S). As good as those are (very sharp with near "L" colors/contrast) I always look for an excuse to use my 200 2.8II. Might not be within your needs, but it's it.

 

[slclick]

35L

 

[IsaacImage]

1 - 35L
2 - 50L
3 - 135L
4 - 85L

 

[e17paul]

50L isn't about sharpness, it's about creamy bokeh and it's the king of the 50's in that regard.

That's a good point. A lens that fast is for the bokeh, and is unlikely to match the sharpness of slower 50s. That's what the 50L should be all about.

On the other hand, if Canon released something the match the ZE 2/50 Makro, but with USM, IS and ideally weather sealing, it would quickly become my walk around lens. I will dream on...