After the "EF-s Primes" Poll, I got to thinking that there are now less than a handful of "L" Primes that haven't been updated in the "Digital Age".
Here are the lenses 200mm and below (not counting the 200L f/2 IS) that have not been updated. Thinking that Canon has more priorities to update these than create a line of EF-s Primes, which one would you like to see updated and considered a "prediction" or speculation? And maybe even a "why" you'd like it to happen. Possibly the end also of "Non-L" line primes?
EF35mm f/1.4L USM-Dec. 1998 vs. No Mk II*** EF135mm f/2L USM-Apr. 1996 vs. No Mk II *** - Gets my nomination !!!
EF200mm f/2.8L USM-Dec. 1991 vs EF200mm f/2.8L II USM-Mar. 1996***
Here are the Prime "L" Lenses and their dates that have been updated since the "Film" age...
EF14mm f/2.8L USM-Dec. 1991 vs. EF14mm f/2.8L II USM-Sept. 2007
EF24mm f/1.4L USM-Dec. 1997 vs. EF24mm f/1.4L II USM-Dec. 2008
EF50mm f/1.0L USM-Sept. 1989 vs. EF50mm f/1.2L USM-Jan. 2007
EF85mm f/1.2L USM-Sept. 1989 vs. EF85mm F/1.2L II USM-Mar. 2006
(I left the 100L f/2.8 Macro IS off the list cause it's not an "L" upgrade per se)
I voted for the 135. There might be as much chance for the 35, because it is surrounded by FLs that have been updated, but I'd rather see a 135L with IS, of course retaining its very quick internal AF and equal or better in IQ. I'd grab one of those as soon as it became available!
My vote goes for the 35L. This is one lens that is loved by Canon shooters and envied by Nikon shooters (so they say). It would be big trouble for Canon if Nikon were to release a version that one-ups them so they should go ahead and update this one to keep Nikon playing catch-up.
I'd like to see weather sealing, new lens coating, and better LoCA control.... and F1.2
In terms of potential improvement in image quality, it would have to be the EF 35/1.4L that deserves the upgrade most. New sub-wavelength coating would greatly improve flare resistance, and an updated optical formula could improve corner performance slightly. The EF 135/2L and EF 200/2.8L are already quite excellent and don't really need anything more. Upgrading either one to include IS might cut into sales of the EF 100/2.8L macro IS and the EF 200/2L IS, respectively--although I can absolutely appreciate the desire to have IS in these superb lenses. The 135/2L is a gorgeous design, quite brilliant.
mttran wrote:
How big is 135f1.4 II L IS ?
Another 2+kg lens?
Hot damn! f/1.4!
L primes that are expecting an update from oldest to newest. Year cut off is 2002.
1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1998 EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
I'd love to see a 135mm f/1.8L with four shutter stops of IS at the same weight of the current 135/2L
All these lenses are fine, but the 35L will probably be updated to 24L2 level sooner or later.
I don't think we'll see a 135 or 200/2.8 within the next couple of years. And if they do get updates, at 2x the original price many people will be disappointed
An EF 135/1.4L IS would be the perfect lens for indoor gymnastics. There wouldn't be any AF lens out there that is as long or as fast.
But it would probably come in at something like $5K, judging from the price of the EF 200/2L IS. It would be smaller and lighter, but with such a big front element, it would necessarily be expensive.
My guess would be a new 180ish macro with hybrid IS. I don't think they will make a new 200/2.8 ever because the 70-200 IS II and 200/2 have that spot covered nicely (and expensive).
As for the 35 and 135... I never heard any complaints about these two. IS on the 135 would be nice and maybe f/1.8 like the Sony/Zeiss?
Photon wrote:
I voted for the 135. There might be as much chance for the 35, because it is surrounded by FLs that have been updated, but I'd rather see a 135L with IS, of course retaining its very quick internal AF and equal or better in IQ. I'd grab one of those as soon as it became available!
No problem, with new and super updated design + new elements + 4 stop IS + 30% increase in weight/size it will cost you nothing - > $1800.00
Since there is known issues with 35L on 1D bodies, I would say yes it needs new version. But I manage using 24L mk II instead, it gives me about same focal on 1.3 crop.
Wow, Reno, you'd take three of the best EF lens designs and have Canon mess with them ?
OK, let us take a look at some key factors which would make Canon upgrade a lens model.
(1) Increase profitability of the model. As an example, they slap a $50 IS assembly into the lens and raise the price by $500.
(2) Maintain/strengthen competitive position in the market.
(3) Reduce production costs by maintaining homology between models.....e.g., 24L and 35L used to share many common parts, assemblies and material.
(4) Respond to (potential) obsolescence of parts.
Making a good lens even better performing for the photographers community is not a Canon's objective in itself.
I'd love to see the 135L get updated with IS but have got a good feeling the 35L will be first in line--I'm actually pretty surprised it hasn't happened yet. I'd also expect another HIS macro to be coming down the pike sooner or later. OTOH, given Canon's more recent updates, it's anyone wild guess as to what we'll see next.
Breitling65 wrote:
Since there is known issues with 35L on 1D bodies, I would say yes it needs new version. But I manage using 24L mk II instead, it gives me about same focal on 1.3 crop.
What issues are there? I've been using the 35L on my 1D3 and it's been great!
Breitling65 wrote:
Since there is known issues with 35L on 1D bodies, I would say yes it needs new version. But I manage using 24L mk II instead, it gives me about same focal on 1.3 crop.
Leonid, my current 35L copy performs well beyond my expectations on 1DMkIIN and 1DsMkII (and 40D as well).....in fact I am so pleased with it that I will not be updating to 35L MkII whenever that comes out.
Those prices of the 300/400 can give someone a heart attack.