digitalbug30d wrote: what about updating non L primes start with 20mm,28mm,35mm
Canon changed (not redesigned) a number of non-L prime FD (manual focus) lenses in 1988, to create the auto-focus EF series. Other lenses changed at this time included the 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, and 50mm f1.8. Canon threw out the metal barrel, added a polycarbonate barrel, and auto-focus motor and released the same basic lens design. At that time, only the 28mmm f2.8 actually changed lens formula.
The same EF non-L primes Canon sells now, were actually designed somewhere in the distant past, say 1965-1970. Canon has been milking these unchanged designs for more than 40 years, without spending a penny to update them. Do you think they would lower themselves and actually throw out the arc form drive motors and add USM and improved optical coatings?
I think, no. If you looks at new Canon lens designs, for the most part, they will not update a lens that sells for less than $1,000.
Don's reading the road. It's a zoom world or gold plated specialty lens for them to care for the most part. Kremlinology was easier with who got to stand next to who on mr L's tomb than pure guesses on what they will do with lenses.
Peter Kotsa wrote:
you almost offended me, how can you better a lens that is already perfect.
The 35L is about as good as it gets in this focal range.
The only thing that would make me even look at a new version of this lens would be either f 1.2 or IS, and I think that Canon would be hard pushed to keep the image quality the same if they added IS and extra lens elements needed to accomplish this.
pk
OT, but are you saying that IS requires an extra element? I hadn't read this anywhere before. If true, that's pretty important info to be aware of.
Cableaddict wrote:
OT, but are you saying that IS requires an extra element? I hadn't read this anywhere before. If true, that's pretty important info to be aware of.
Can we verify this?
If you compare those lenses that have gone from non-IS to IS versions, I believe all of them have picked up extra elements (from what I remember, too lazy to go back and actually count). For the 300mm f4, this was a bad thing--the IS version has less contrast and is reportedly a bit less sharp. However, on most of the top shelf Ls like the 300mm f2.8, 400mm f2.8, 500mm f4/4.5, and 600mm f4 they didn't suffer optically.
Yes, IS requires at least one more glass element.
Before, adding IS was sure to bring down IQ slightly.
However, newer IS versions are much improved in every way.
Take the 70-200 f4 IS as an example.
Better than the non-IS version.
Prime like IQ in fact.
Really.
Not an exageration in any way.
Well, in the case of the 70-200 2.8, the original version has 18 elements in 15 groups, whereas the newer IS version has 23 elements in 18 groups. Yes it is a different optical design, but I'm willing to bet at least one of those 5 extra are for the IS unit.
I have a feeling that the OP just wants a cheap 35L, so by starting this rumour, we drive the cost of 35L glass down so that one can be picked up cheap.
Weather sealing would be really really nice. Other than that, I love my 35L - and would rather see an updated 24-70 with IS (will buy instantly).
The 85L was not much of an update... They should update the 50 1.2, 24 TS or make a superfast wide. The 35L is such a strong lens, I don't see them improving it much, probably wind up making it marginally sharper with crazy focus shift.
EvilZardoz wrote:
I have a feeling that the OP just wants a cheap 35L, so by starting this rumour, we drive the cost of 35L glass down so that one can be picked up cheap.
Weather sealing would be really really nice. Other than that, I love my 35L - and would rather see an updated 24-70 with IS (will buy instantly).
The OP didn't start the rumour, and already owns a 35L.
Looks like there might be something about this. Just spoke to some people if you wan't to buy this from canon all you get is we don't have any. When will you get them - We don't have any. Just keeps going like that, normally we can get a date
I quote from this, without any idea whether it is true or not:
"Replacing core primes and zooms with higher resolution lenses more suitable for the newer 50-65MP FF sensors that are coming over the next few years. This includes the 24L, 35L, 16-35L (done) and 100-400L, 200 L (done) and over time several of the longer Ls"
Ed Sawyer wrote:
forget 24-70L IS. waste of time and effort. Jeez, who needs IS at that focal length? Learn to handhold, for crying out loud.
Way to be ignorant Besides the lower shutter speeds you can shoot at with IS implemented (think of times when a tripod is unavailable), there are plenty of people out there who do not have the ability to hold their cameras steady due to old age/ailments ect ect. Bedsides, would an IS version of any lens stop you from using a non-IS version? The same applies to those crying about the idea of IS in a WA--how wouldn't it be useful?
Actually, i'd be happy with a 24-70mm f2.8 IS L. it would give me a good reason to update from my sharp Sigma copy. I'm just hoping that Canon have nailed the QC issues with it.
As the the 35L II and 24L II, does this really surprise us all? Canon started with the 85mm II L and 14mm II L, then the 16-35mm II L (long over due) and now the 24-70mm (OK 'IS' mkI but effectively II). The 50mm f1.2 L is new. So what's left in the prime arena? 135L? If the optics doesn't need an update then it'll be AF, weatherproofing and optical coatings. It all sounds good to me.
I would also hazzard a guess that we'll see an update to the venerable 70-200mm f2.8 II soon too. Along with the 300mm f4 IS and 100-400mm IS L
Besides the lower shutter speeds you can shoot at with IS implemented (think of times when a tripod is unavailable), there are plenty of people out there who do not have the ability to hold their cameras steady due to old age/ailments ect ect. Bedsides, would an IS version of any lens stop you from using a non-IS version? The same applies to those crying about the idea of IS in a WA--how wouldn't it be useful?