Old L lenses that are still in production

dolina

dolina

Messages
639
Edit My Images
Yes
These L lenses were introduced before 2006 and are still in production. They are likely to get a Series II or IS update.

1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
 
a1ex2001 said:
Strange thread.

Can't see either for the non IS 70-200mm's getting updated!
Click to expand...
Especially as there are already 70-200 lenses with IS.
The only one that may get revamped would be the 400 f5.6 imo but even that would be a long shot.
 
Interesting as the starting point for a discussion
For example he 70-200 f4 non is doesn't need updating the is version is fairly recent but the 300 f4 is could do with updating to the newer is technology
I have had my 70-200 F 4 for a long time and it's one of my favourite lenses
 
The Series II lens you pertain to has IS. The 1999 lens has no IS.

There are 4 variations of the 70-200 zoom as it is a very popular focal range.
 
dolina said:
The Series II lens you pertain to has IS. The 1999 lens has no IS.

There are 4 variations of the 70-200 zoom as it is a very popular focal range.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find there are 5 versions - f4, f4 is, f2.8 non is, f2.8 is and f2.8 mkii is.
Not really any room for additional lenses here imo.
 
wardy07 said:
I think you'll find there are 5 versions - f4, f4 is, f2.8 non is, f2.8 is and f2.8 mkii is.
Not really any room for additional lenses here imo.
Click to expand...
f2.8 IS is out of production for a long long time already. Whatever you see on the shelf are either old stock or used.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Strange thread.

Can't see either for the non IS 70-200mm's getting updated!
Click to expand...
It is a strange thread, and there's some lenses missing from the list too, including my most used L lens ;)
 
Last edited:
I will expound on my original post to better convey my ideas.

1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
- film lens with film optics
- newer 70-200 without IS have come out from other brands after the 90s.

1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
- film lens with film optics
- In 2015 Nikon came out with an equivalent that is PF (Nikon's DO equivalent) that is lighter and smaller

2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
- In 2010 Nikon came out with an equivalent that is half the weight and price.

1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
- film lens with film optics
- Earlier than 2009 Sony came out with an equivalent that is 1/3rd stop faster
- newer lenses from other brands have come out after 1996

1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
- film lens with film optics
- newer long Macros have come out from other brands that are either faster or have IS after 1996

1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
- film lens with film optics
- Could be replaced by a Series III or with IS

1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
- film lens with film optics
- Could be replaced by a Series III or with IS

Now, granted some of these lens are not volume sellers or would not provide a cheap option at the very low end but it does not mean that they will not eventually get an update.

This thread purpose is to give prospective buyers a head's up on which product will be likely to be phased out because they're old and the competition came out with something more suitable to today's technical requirement.
 
You keep missing one out, possibly the most used L lens :)

And you know Canon couldn't possibly issue mk2 versions of all these lenses "soon"! And most of the above lenses will likely be discontinued rather than updated, as newer equivalents already exist.

It's just like saying anything old that hasn't been updated is going to be updated soon?
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
You keep missing one out, possibly the most used one :)

And you know Canon couldn't possibly issue mk2 versions of all these lenses "soon"!

And some of those above aren't in production and have already been succeeded?
Click to expand...
Which lens did I leave out? This list only concerns in-production L lenses announced prior to 2006 as this is the focus of the discussion. Another thread about other lenses would be more suitable to keep things on topic.

Canon issues about half a dozen lenses a year. This is a mix of L, non-L EF, EF-S and EF-M. Some are totally innovations that are new in the photography industry like say the TS-E 17mm or 8-15mm fisheye, a counterpart from the competition (EF 11-24/4 to Nikon's 12-24/2.8) or a Series II or IS version of a an older lens.

Now, some say "if you wait for the latest you will wait forever" or something to that effect. I am more on the side of "good things come to those who wait".

Finally, if you need certain gear at a certain time for a once in a lifetime event or a paid gig then buy it now. If it is just a want then wait.

Twice have I experienced buying gear within 6 months before a replacement was announced. it sucked considering how much I paid for it. Price difference between the Mark I and Mark II was less than $500 but depreciation from the announcement knocked half the value out.

This is a public service for people who are like me.
 
dolina said:
Which lens did I leave out? This list only concerns in-production L lenses announced prior to 2006 as this is the focus of the discussion. Another thread about other lenses would be more suitable to keep things on topic.

Canon issues about half a dozen lenses a year. This is a mix of L, non-L EF, EF-S and EF-M. Some are totally innovations that are new in the photography industry like say the TS-E 17mm or 8-15mm fisheye, a counterpart from the competition (EF 11-24/4 to Nikon's 12-24/2.8) or a Series II or IS version of a an older lens.

Now, some say "if you wait for the latest you will wait forever" or something to that effect. I am more on the side of "good things come to those who wait".

Finally, if you need certain gear at a certain time for a once in a lifetime event or a paid gig then buy it now. If it is just a want then wait.

Twice have I experienced buying gear within 6 months before a replacement was announced. it sucked considering how much I paid for it. Price difference between the Mark I and Mark II was less than $500 but depreciation from the announcement knocked half the value out.

This is a public service for people who are like me.
Click to expand...

The 24-105 f/4 L :)

Production started in 2005, still going strong with the mk1. Its possibly the most popular L lens.

You shouldn't wait for a replacement thats not been announced, unless the current one isn't what you need. In that case, look elsewhere. Some lenses may never get replaced.

I'm an advocate of know what you're buying into, research it well and if its what you want / need then buy it and the best price possible. That way you won't have any regrets.
 
Last edited:
2013 Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM

At the time of purchase the body and lens were the best price in town. Alas I should have waited. It was a want that could have waited.

I get why people dont want their purchase to be replaced by something newer but that's the nature of technology. Best to buy it when you need it or buy it within the first year of introduction if it is a want.

odd jim said:
The 24-105 f/4 L :)

Production started in 2005, still going strong with the mk1. Its possibly the most popular L lens I'd say.

You shouldn't wait for a replacement thats not been announced, unless the current one isn't what you need. In that case, look elsewhere. Some lenses may never get replaced.

I'm an advocate of know what you're buying into, research it well and if its what you want / need then buy it and the best price possible. That way you won't have any regrets.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
It's still a good lens though?

Do you think shot for shot you'd see a difference?
Click to expand...

If I was buying one I'd go with the newer model. If I had the 11yo lens you are comparing to I would not upgrade unless it was giving me problems.

I own both the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM I am happy to keep them at the same time. The timing of the purchase are acceptable in my book.

I own the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM but I am uninterested with the Series II as the filter thread is larger and the optical improvements is not enough for me to upgrade. I would be keen to get one with IS version if one were to be announced. I expect it to happen soon as Nikon and Tamron started selling them in 2015 and 2012 respectively.

I was waiting for the 35/1.4L II to come out but I saw a better use and value when the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM came out. I do not mind it being slow at 2.8 or 5mm narrower so long as it fits a body like body cap, weighs not and costs me only half a month's groceries.

BTW I was referring to the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM and 5D Mark I as gear that was bought 6 months before the replacements were announced. If I waited I would be using the new 600mm today and saved on depreciation when I traded in my virginal 5D mark I for a used 7D + cash.

I bought a EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM about a year before the L with IS came out but I honestly do not mind it happening as I wasnt expecting it to be announced that soon. I did have an opportunity to sell it at a price I bought it for and that I did regret not doing. I would be sporting the L with IS if I did!

This list is for people who are buying the focal length for the first time and those looking for an upgrade.

Judging from this thread people are unaware about which lenses have been replaced recently. This thing I do is for public service.
 
Last edited:
hqdefault.jpg
 
I like Mister Bean. He owns a McLaren F1 until he sold it. ;)

If the image is meant to show disinterest or boredom then why even click on it and then look for an image to express your state of mind?
 
Last edited:
Didn't you also start a pointless thread about all the new cameras Canon must be announcing soon because some still use Digic 4 or 5 processors. Your theory there was pretty much the same as it is here - they are old so must be replaced.
 
Ploddles said:
Didn't you also start a pointless thread about all the new cameras Canon must be announcing soon because some still use Digic 4 or 5 processors. Your theory there was pretty much the same as it is here - they are old so must be replaced.
Click to expand...
Seriously, if you dont see value in the thread why post in it? Got nothing better to do on a weekend than be mean?

There are those who are waiting for a newer body and I am just pointing them out for their convenience. If your feelings are hurt then that's the nature of technology.
 
Are you serious? Newer bodies / lenses come out all the time.

What you are pointing out is pointless, as was said by others in your other thread as well.
 
dolina said:
The Series II lens you pertain to has IS. The 1999 lens has no IS.
Click to expand...
Pertain does not mean what you think it does.


Canon no longer interests me, but I can agree with the consensus that there's an lack of clarity in the purpose of the thread - other to list lenses that have been in production for whet might be considered a long length of time in the digital age. Nothing wrong with old lenses, and a very interesting article on new lenses on The Phoblographer this morning - www.thephoblographer.com/2016/03/12/the-problem-with-modern-optics/
 
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pertain+to

^^

See "refer to".

When having the last say, make it correct.

Alastair said:
Pertain does not mean what you think it does.


Canon no longer interests me, but I can agree with the consensus that there's an lack of clarity in the purpose of the thread - other to list lenses that have been in production for whet might be considered a long length of time in the digital age. Nothing wrong with old lenses, and a very interesting article on new lenses on The Phoblographer this morning - www.thephoblographer.com/2016/03/12/the-problem-with-modern-optics/
Click to expand...
 
dolina said:
I own both the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM I am happy to keep them at the same time.
Click to expand...

Honestly, what's the difference that you see between the two in image quality, as I'm really happy with my normal mk1, didn't see a point in upgrading.
I think too many time photographers get tied down in the equipment, when actually it's all about the image.

Upgrades/updates come out all the time. If you need a tool to do the job, then it's worth buying it now rather than wait on a perceived possible release data of a new bit of kit, which may, or may not have teething troubles.

If you really want the latest and greatest at all times, must have the newest, then the obvious way to do it is to buy the new upgrade as soon as it comes out and sell what your replacing immediately, as thats the time it will have the most value.
 
Last edited:
dolina said:
I like Mister Bean. He owns a McLaren F1 until he sold it. ;)
Click to expand...

His name is Rowen Atkinson and yes he's a top bloke when it comes to cars. About 12 years ago we were at a breakfast meet at Goodwood and my 6 year old at the time expressed an interest, showed some knowledge and he took time to show us the features, explained simply and then took us for a spin around the car park.
 
dolina said:
Seriously, if you dont see value in the thread why post in it? Got nothing better to do on a weekend than be mean?

There are those who are waiting for a newer body and I am just pointing them out for their convenience. If your feelings are hurt then that's the nature of technology.
Click to expand...

It's not that your thread is pointless, it's that you haven't really outlined your viewpoint well, and the one everyone is assuming is based on flawed logic.

A couple of examples: the 70-200 2.8, if they 'modernised it' by adding IS (which seems to be one of your logical conclusions) you'd create a 70-200 2.8 IS (there's already been 2 of these) so that's nonsense. (Canon UK actually dropped the old non IS lens for a while, but reinstated it due to popular demand)

The 24-70 f4 IS is neither an upgrade to or replacement for the 24-105, it's a different focal length. It might create a new L kit lens, but if I wanted a 24-105 then the 24-70 would have something missing.

As others have said, that list contains lenses that sell in tiny numbers.

And despite what the likes of Sigma fill their marketing with, there's really no need for a 'good' lens to be redesigned for digital. Modern lens designs benefit from being designed in the digital age, but that's due to the computers used in the design, not the ones in the capture device.
 
dolina said:
These L lenses were introduced before 2006 and are still in production. Are they likely to get a Series II or IS update? Discuss.

1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
Click to expand...

Fixed it for ya? :)

As mentioned, some of these have been replaced already and unless they are no longer supported by Canon or have poor performance, there's probably not much incentive for Canon to make the investment in upgrading them.

Besides these 'legacy' L lenses, perhaps it's time for Canon to update some of their non-L lenses, e.g. 50mm f/1.4 ? I think that's been around for a long time (20-years?)..
 
GeeJay57 said:
Fixed it for ya? :)

As mentioned, some of these have been replaced already and unless they are no longer supported by Canon or have poor performance, there's probably not much incentive for Canon to make the investment in upgrading them.

Besides these 'legacy' L lenses, perhaps it's time for Canon to update some of their non-L lenses, e.g. 50mm f/1.4 ? I think that's been around for a long time (20-years?)..
Click to expand...
Now they've finally sorted the 100-400mm L the 50mm f1.4 must be the most overdue lens for an update it is badly dated both mechanically and optically but there are not even any significant rumours out there!
 
dolina said:
These L lenses were introduced before 2006 and are still in production. They are likely to get a Series II or IS update.

1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. We tend to forget that camera manufacturers are in business - to make money. Their basic stance is what product/s will do most to deliver maximum sustainable profit? Even senior insiders will have different views on that, and I can just imagine the arguments there will be at Canon over what to do about mirrorless, or should they push harder in professional video, or any number of other options in the wider imaging market (new photocopier anybody)?

And overlaid with that is budget, resource and time constraints, and competitor activity (probably 101 other things too). Canon might want to update lots of lenses immediately, but that's obviously impossible, especially if all your best lens people and production are busy with video. And there are other products that might look past their time to us, but are actually doing very well in business terms. Take the Canon 100-400 Mk2, that took 15 years to arrive, and had been heavily tipped as imminent for at least ten years. The reason for that is not that they couldn't update it, or wouldn't like to, but that the Mk1 was still a very good lens and selling in large numbers, all development costs had been recouped and it was delivering very good profits.

The rumour sites like CanonRumors and NikonRumors etc don't even dare to speculate at that business level - too many questions and too many answers. They basically report on stuff
they've been told already exists and that, if true, will have been in the pipeline for a couple of years.
 
Phil V said:
The 24-70 f4 IS is neither an upgrade to or replacement for the 24-105, it's a different focal length. It might create a new L kit lens, but if I wanted a 24-105 then the 24-70 would have something missing.
Click to expand...
This.

24-70mm is a different range to the 24-105, hence why both lenses are still available new.

If you're in the market for an all round zoom L lens, then you have the option of the 24-70mm f2.8 II, the 24-70mm f4L IS or the 24-105mm f4L IS.
Personally I don't really see much point in the 24-70 f4L IS as it's not as good for weddings/portraits due to being f4 and if you need IS, then the 24-105 gives you that option and is a bit cheaper. If you do want a 24-70 f2.8 with IS, then your only option is the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC.
 
ABTog said:
This.

24-70mm is a different range to the 24-105, hence why both lenses are still available new.

If you're in the market for an all round zoom L lens, then you have the option of the 24-70mm f2.8 II, the 24-70mm f4L IS or the 24-105mm f4L IS.
Personally I don't really see much point in the 24-70 f4L IS as it's not as good for weddings/portraits due to being f4 and if you need IS, then the 24-105 gives you that option and is a bit cheaper. If you do want a 24-70 f2.8 with IS, then your only option is the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC.
Click to expand...
To be fair to the OP, I took his post about the 24-70 being the lens he regretted buying as the mk2 came out not long after he bought it, not that it was a replacement to the 24-105, otherwise I would have corrected him :)
 
odd jim said:
To be fair to the OP, I took his post about the 24-70 being the lens he regretted buying as the mk2 came out not long after he bought it, not that it was a replacement to the 24-105, otherwise I would have corrected him :)
Click to expand...
I think, the thread is getting confused.
Looking back:
dolina said:
BTW I was referring to the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM and 5D Mark I as gear that was bought 6 months before the replacements were announced. If I waited I would be using the new 600mm today and saved on depreciation when I traded in my virginal 5D mark I for a used 7D + cash.
Click to expand...

If they had been referring to the 24-70mm f2.8 then that would make sense as the Mk2 version of that lens is meant to be damn good and a bit lighter too.

I think (maybe wrong) but the OP mention of the 24-70mm f4 L IS was in response to the mentioning of the 24-105mm f4 L IS. At which point it's clear that one is not a replacement for the other as they have different focal ranges and both exist in the current Canon L line up.
 
ABTog said:
I think, the thread is getting confused.
Looking back:


If they had been referring to the 24-70mm f2.8 then that would make sense as the Mk2 version of that lens is meant to be damn good and a bit lighter too.

I think (maybe wrong) but the OP mention of the 24-70mm f4 L IS was in response to the mentioning of the 24-105mm f4 L IS. At which point it's clear that one is not a replacement for the other as they have different focal ranges and both exist in the current Canon L line up.
Click to expand...
Indeed, maybe the OP could clarify?

And if that's the case I'll reiterate as above and what I already said, the 24-105 hasn't been replaced and is still very much in production. It's certainly the only L lens of its type as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top