Do "L" lenses become obsolete?

[SunTsu]

Hello,

After hearing all the horror stories on the 5D rebate(s), I've decided to buy a Rebel XTi and use that until a 5D replacement comes out. I know I can always wait for new technology, but it's different wanting a new $4K item than a new $600 item when a newer replacement comes out.

So being new to Canon lenses, I'm wondering if there is any reason I shouldn't just go wild and buy a bunch of L lenses now, knowing that I intend to pair them with a FF body in (hopefully) 6 months. Do "L" lenses become obsolete in the sense that they have short product life cycles and are always being replaced by newer models with incremental improvements? My hunch says that these lenses stay current for at least two years, but I would appreciate it if someone could verify that. :)

Thanks!

[J|D]

L's = several years. Bodies = 18 months (ish)

[tekkie]

eventually they will be but its going to be many years, not months

[Woolburr]

"L" series lenses tend to remain "current" for well beyond 2 years. In fact, there aren't many obsolete lenses running around.

[sWampy]

Unless you need a lens for some reason, I don't see a reason to just go wild and buy a bunch. While they don't drop in value as fast as new cars/travel trailers/boats, they sure aren't going to increase in value.

[shaunknee]

I’m not sure if demand / popularity has anything to with prices but when I first looked at 70-200 2.8 IS a couple of years ago it was at least $800 more then what I paid. The 35L however didn’t seem to move at all. It has been around for much longer however.

[cjm]

Absolutely!

The 28-80 L and 80-200 L although absolutely awesome Oldies are very aged. There are even others like the 50-200 L (push/pull) that are so dated. The 20-35 and 17-35 L's are really showing their age also.

However all of the obsolete L lens still take excellent photos, etc. They are just like an old car, they dont have some of the newer features like better focusing, optics, IS, and whatever that the newer ones do but they still drive from point A to B. (if they work ;))

I had a 28-80 L f2.8-4 Lens last year for 9 months and although it was old, heavier and bulkier then the 24-70 L some of the images it took were simply awesome. It was nice and sharp and very usable like this one of my niece. CLICK TO SEE EXAMPLE (http://christophermartin.smugmug.com/gallery/2150609/1/111535742) And hundreds of others I have.

[cjm]

"L" series lenses tend to remain "current" for well beyond 2 years. In fact, there aren't many obsolete lenses running around.What does this mean? Do you mean not that many people selling them? Which is correct. Or do you mean there isnt that many discontinued L lenses? Which is wrong, more discontinued L lenses exist then the current lineup.

Its a rare thing to see a 28-80 L or 80-200 L for sale. Im not sure why this is, if it is that fewer were bought then they are now (probably) or if most that bought them wont sell them because they are still just as good as todays with very minor differences.

[DrPablo]

They may become obsolete by virtue of technology changes, as in when Canon changed from the FD mount to the EF mount. But these changes happen like once a generation, i.e. exceedingly rarely. The 'upgrades' to lenses, like adding image stabilization, improving autofocus, increasing max aperture, decreasing minimum focus distance, are to be sure improvements, but they don't render the previous versions obsolete.

Most importantly, they will NOT become obsolete optically.

In fact if you look around you'll find that other 35mm format users are using Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Voigtlander, and other lenses that are decades old. In medium format and large format people go even older. People who shoot ultralarge format (11x14" film and above) will use lenses as much as 100 years old and still get stunning results.

So in buying an L-lens you're making a long term investment in a way that's not possible with buying new DSLR bodies. Maybe some day the DSLR technology will plateau, and like 35mm SLRs the maddening cycle of new products will slow way down. And then demand will be for a DSLR that you can run over with your car, drop off a waterfall, and still leave in your will for your great grandchildren. But right now the DSLRs are very ephemeral things -- and this is not only because they become 'obsolete', but because our expectation of obsolesence denies the manufacturers any motivation to make a camera that will last you (god forbid) 5 or 10 years.

[coreypolis]

200 F/1.8L, its more than double its MSRP if you can find one.
50mm F/1.0L, way more than double

[cjm]

Paul I think the likelihood of Canon changing their mounts is so remote that I don't think it will ever happen. No one needs to worry about this.

If a EOS system of Electronic Focus' didn't come around and all lenses were still manual, we would for sure still be using FD mount. EF mount is a perfect mount and Canon changing it would give many Canon users an easy excuse to check out the competion which isnt something they want.

So its so remote they would change the mounts that I think even in 20 years it is remote.

[calicokat]

Lenses are much better finacial investments

[joegolf68]

Until some incredible new technology comes along, like liquid lenses, current lenses will be good for decades, IMHO. Sure, there will be incremental improvements, but most everything will be limited due to weight until there is something brad spanking new out there. Relax and enjoy. A child born today, would most likely be able to use my 70-200mm IS lens at his college graduation.

[ScottE]

Canon can make lenses obsolete. For example all the old FD and FM lenses would be considered obsolete now because of the EOS mount. The old 80-200mm f/2.8 was a great lens and still is a great lens, but it did not have a USM autofocus motor. Most people switched to the 70-200mm f/2.8.The 20-35mm f/2.8 L had a good reputation, and many that purchased the 17-35 f/2.8 L that replaced it complained that the new lens was not as sharp. As a result, the 17-35mm f/2.8 was replaced by the 16-35mm f/2.8.

A lens does not become obsolete in that it suddenly stops working, but sometimes it is replaced with a lens with new technology such as an electronic interface (EOS), aspheric lens elements, better AF motor (USM), image stabilization (IS) or better weather sealing. No one knows what will come out in the future.

Some people would say that all L lenses became obsolete when the EF-S mount was introduced and we are only still using them until superior EF-S models are introduced. ;)

[DrPablo]

Paul I think the likelihood of Canon changing their mounts is so remote that I don't think it will ever happen. No one needs to worry about this.

If a EOS system of Electronic Focus' didn't come around and all lenses were still manual, we would for sure still be using FD mount. EF mount is a perfect mount and Canon changing it would give many Canon users an easy excuse to check out the competion which isnt something they want.

So its so remote they would change the mounts that I think even in 20 years it is remote.

Yes, I agree. I was merely arguing for the circumstance in which a lens might become obsolete, but that's certainly nothing for which we should expend any energy peparing.

[Mark_Cohran]

Some people would say that all L lenses became obsolete when the EF-S mount was introduced and we are only still using them until superior EF-S models are introduced. ;)

The EF-S mount was to support short back-focus lenses to allow for wide angle FOV lenses on 1.6 crop cameras. The electical contacts, optics, etc. appear to be the same as EF lenses however the mechanics of the mount are slightly different to prevent mounting the EF-S lenses on FF cameras. Therefore, I doubt you'd find many photographers that would say L lense are going to be obsoleted by EF-S lenses.

Mark

[StealthLude]

IMO, I think you are pretty damn safe.

Lenses in this hobby are almost like a constant compared to everything else.

[kram]

Lenses can become less popular in the short to medium term (6m to 2 yrs) and eventually, many lenses will get replaced with better technology.

The 70-200 F4 for example, sells for around $50 less than it used to as there is another option in the 70-200 F4 IS. But the lens still performs very well and so the resale value isnt too relevant to me.

A short answer to your question would be that one can spend without too much downside risk on lenses than on bodies.

[ScottE]

The EF-S mount was to support short back-focus lenses to allow for wide angle FOV lenses on 1.6 crop cameras. The electical contacts, optics, etc. appear to be the same as EF lenses however the mechanics of the mount are slightly different to prevent mounting the EF-S lenses on FF cameras. Therefore, I doubt you'd find many photographers that would say L lense are going to be obsoleted by EF-S lenses.

Mark

The EF-S mount was also to allow Canon to design lenses with a smaller image circle and not have people try to use the lenses on full frame cameras where there would be severe vignetting. Designing for a smaller image circle allows for higher optical quality and extended zoom range. I could say that my 17-40 L EF has become obsolete for my EF-S capable camera since I got my 17-55 EF-S because I don't use the 17-40 on that camera any more. That does not mean that the 17-40 is obsolete for my film camera, just that the EF-S lens is a better choice for an EF-S capable camera.

[jdos2]

Considering that the Petzval design was still in use on Hasseblads until the 80's, and that was only a 140 year run, the current L glass will be optically good enough to make images for a little while.

[fuzzypix]

70-200mm f/2.8 Non IS model was first introduced in 1995, and is still in production line.

[steved110]

An L lens may become superceded by newer versions or better versions - 17-35 L and 20-35L and 28-70 L are a few that spring to mind. Oh, and the 200 f/1.8 L .....

But these lenses last a long time, so if a lens is replaced by Canon, that doesn't mean it suddenly explodes or anything! they keep right on going.

[CyberDyneSystems]

While they don't drop in value as fast as new cars/travel trailers/boats, they sure aren't going to increase in value.

Unless it's a discontinued 200mm f/1.8L :)

[Mark_Cohran]

The EF-S mount was also to allow Canon to design lenses with a smaller image circle and not have people try to use the lenses on full frame cameras where there would be severe vignetting. Designing for a smaller image circle allows for higher optical quality and extended zoom range. I could say that my 17-40 L EF has become obsolete for my EF-S capable camera since I got my 17-55 EF-S because I don't use the 17-40 on that camera any more. That does not mean that the 17-40 is obsolete for my film camera, just that the EF-S lens is a better choice for an EF-S capable camera.

Interesting use of the word "obsolete." :) Don't forget, though, the Canon Professional cameras (1D and 1Ds) as well as the 5D don't use the EF-S mount, so would EF-S lenses be "obsolete" for them? J/K

The truth is, L lenses maintain their value for quite a long time. I met at guy at the Portland Pirate Festival in October who was using a 35-350 L with a 1DsMk II. He's a member of this forum and I seriously doubt he'd consider that lens obsolete - he sure didn't seem inclined to sell it. :)

Mark

[coreypolis]

Unless it's a discontinued 200mm f/1.8L :)
or 50mm F/1.0L

[steved110]

or 50mm F/1.0L


What has happened to the market for the 50 1.0L now the 1.2L is out?

[Madweasel]

What has happened to the market for the 50 1.0L now the 1.2L is out?
That's a good question (and I don't know the answer), but there will always be people who want one because it is the fastest. It's softness will never matter to them. :)

[BrewsterPilot]

Hello,

After hearing all the horror stories on the 5D rebate(s), I've decided to buy a Rebel XTi and use that until a 5D replacement comes out. I know I can always wait for new technology, but it's different wanting a new $4K item than a new $600 item when a newer replacement comes out.

So being new to Canon lenses, I'm wondering if there is any reason I shouldn't just go wild and buy a bunch of L lenses now, knowing that I intend to pair them with a FF body in (hopefully) 6 months. Do "L" lenses become obsolete in the sense that they have short product life cycles and are always being replaced by newer models with incremental improvements? My hunch says that these lenses stay current for at least two years, but I would appreciate it if someone could verify that. :)

Thanks!


What previous experience do you have when it comes to photography?

[michael_]

put it this way i know of a few people who have owned 28-70 lenses and 24-70 lenses for more than 2 years each, they recently sold them and lost no more than $100 on each compared to the original purchase price, you will find that purchasing 'L' lenses you can pretty much guarantee a minimal loss (if you are prepared to wait for a buyer) when reselling (so i have found anyway).

[Longwatcher]

Lenses, especially the higher end of the line tend to hold their value well.

In some cases the older lens is preferred to the newer. Such as in my case the 28-70/2.8L I have is better for how I shoot then the 24-70/2.8L I could get only because I tend to shoot in the one area the 28-70/2.8L is superior to the 24-70L.

Meanwhile if being paranoid, wait until 06 Mar 2007 and if Canon announces no better lenses then you are as close to guaranteed that no new lenses will be out for at least 6 months and anything released between now and then is probably good for 4-6 years even if Canon changes the mount (highly unlikely at this point). If nothing gets announced then you should be good for at least 2-3 years at least.

But right now a 24-70/2.8L is a safe bet. the 70-200/2.8L is fairly safe. The 16-35/2.8L is a maybe and the 100-400L is a bit over due.

[corinto]

There's so much confusion with the term "obsolescence"! It seems to spill over from the computer world.

As regards computing power, you may well talk about obsolescence not in terms of the computer "exploding" or any such thing. It is that greater power (speed, disk access time, etc) make it possible to design "heavier" software capable of managing greater data size. So, the new software require the greater power of newer computers. So, if you want to keep up to date on software, you WILL need more power and, consequently, lay down your old machine. This is what obsolescence is all about. If you still use WordPerfect, your old 486 will be perfect for the job. But if Win Vista is your next purchase, a new computer is mandatory.

In the case of bodies, it may well happen that new smaller, cheaper, more powerfull and less power-hungry chips may provide better noise handling or lower ISO. An ISO 25 capable camera will make my 20D obsolete because there will be situations where my camera will not be able to take the picture when the newer one will.

Not so with lenses. You may eventually find a lens that makes a photo easier to take. But there will be no situation where a photo will not be possible except with a new lens. At least, not until Canon comes out with an XX mm f/0.5L. ;):cool:

Unquestionably, IS-technology is good but it does not make a non-IS lens obsolete. At least, not in my book.

And it seems safe to assume, as suggested by others, that a mount change is improbable in the years to come.

My 2 cents.

Edit:

I will add that it may be said that older DSLR have become "obsolete" in the sense that their pixel count was simply not enough for the average user print size. Not any more. Present resolution is large enough for normal use. A pixel increase might be nice but certainly not required unless for certain professional end and even then.

[austincabot]

I don't believe that anything becomes obsolete. Things age, yes. But as long as it still works and serves the purpose that it was intended for, then its not obsolete. Is a Model T obsolete? No. Outdated? Yes. Will it still get you across the country / anywhere you want to go? Yes - as long as it doesn't have extreme conditions that a normal, current car couldn't get through. In summary - I don't believe anything becomes obsolete, so long as it still functions.

[treeshugger]

I think I read somewhere that zoom tech is advancing much faster than fixed lenses. Something to think about

Also the model T is obsolete because it isnt street legal and cant keep up with traffic
camera gear would be obsolete if photographers with newer gear take away your business as a result

[Citizen_Insane]

The only thing I can think of that would make all our lens obsolete would be a single lens that could cover all focal ranges from 10-400mm with high image quality and constant low aperture. They're a long way off, but someday they'll exist. Liquid lenses, digital shutters and digital apertures will eventually become available to the regular consumer. ...I can't wait!

[Steiglitz]

The L glass you buy today will be fantastic 20 years from now so long as you treat them well....bodies come and go...that is why I put 90% of the $$ I spent on my kit in lenses and the balance on bodies....bodies are evolving too fast, too often...that is why it is a better financial decision to skimp on the body and put the big $$ in the glass...for example the $8,000 1 DS Mark I image quality is below that coming from the $2,600 5D...if you have a fixed amount to spend, then put most your $$ in glass, even if that means the only body you can afford is the XTi...an XTi with great glass will often provide higher image quality then a 1DS Mark II with BS glass. It's sad that many blow their budget on a 5D or 1D Mark IIn, then are forced to buy BS glass.

The $1,400 I spent 5 years ago for the 100-400L provides me today with excellent performance...can't say the same for my $3,200 Canon D30 :-(

But this is all so gear-centric...at the end of the day, BS glass or premium glass is not going to do anything to improve your compositional skills, and resulting pictures. So the best thing one can do to improve their image quality is to improve their shooting technique, and compositional skills which will do much more for IQ then L lenses.

[Jon]

My D60 still does the job it did 4 years ago when the 10D came out. Is it obsolete? No. Obsolescent? Yes. It lacks some features that newer cameras have, but it'll still do just fine as long as I bear its capabilities (like any other camera's) in mind. I'll suggest that if the camera can't do the job today, it really wasn't all that suitable for that particular job in its heyday. Lenses will take even longer to go "obsolete".

[tcphoto1]

obsolete? no, just the techniques used with them;)

[karusel]

The current choice of EF L lenses may become obsolete if Canon decide to invent a new mount, or some new and spectacularly revolutionary technology in producing lenses comes along. Very highly unlikely on both counts, at least withing next 5-10 years. Plus, replacing so many so good lenses would be a tremendous effort, not to mention the grief and perhaps anger of gee... tens of thousands of photographers owning a selection of high quality EF lenses.

Oh yes, one thing I thought of. The new cameras are at the border or are arguably outresolving camera sensors already, so this obviously cries for better lenses, yes? If they can make a miracle, we just might get something with hyper resolution. And hyper price. I'm not sure about diffraction thing though.

[Steiglitz]

The D60 has been superceded by later DSLR models that offer better image quality and performance. Each camera's performance will not change overtime, but how we rate them does...so what you called amazing back in 2003 is what we might call so-so today, especially in the noise department.

[SunTsu]

Lenses, especially the higher end of the line tend to hold their value well.

In some cases the older lens is preferred to the newer. Such as in my case the 28-70/2.8L I have is better for how I shoot then the 24-70/2.8L I could get only because I tend to shoot in the one area the 28-70/2.8L is superior to the 24-70L.

Meanwhile if being paranoid, wait until 06 Mar 2007 and if Canon announces no better lenses then you are as close to guaranteed that no new lenses will be out for at least 6 months and anything released between now and then is probably good for 4-6 years even if Canon changes the mount (highly unlikely at this point). If nothing gets announced then you should be good for at least 2-3 years at least.

But right now a 24-70/2.8L is a safe bet. the 70-200/2.8L is fairly safe. The 16-35/2.8L is a maybe and the 100-400L is a bit over due.

How about the 24-105mm L and the 100mm macro? From what I understand, the 24-105mm has been out as long as the 5D. I wonder how often on average, an L lens is replaced or discontinued.

[Madweasel]

How about the 24-105mm L and the 100mm macro? From what I understand, the 24-105mm has been out as long as the 5D. I wonder how often on average, an L lens is replaced or discontinued.
The 5D and 24-105L were both released late 2005. The 100mm macro in USM form came out in 2000. Zooms are updated more frequently than primes.

The earliest EF lens still in production is the EF 15mm fish-eye, introduced in April 1987. Other lenses introduced in 1987 and still in production are: 28/2.8, 50/2.5 macro, 135/2.8 soft-focus. The earliest zoom still in production is the EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6, introduced in June 1990.

The earliest L prime still in production in 2006 was the 85/1.2L (Sept 89), just replaced now. The next earliest still in production is the 14/2.8L, Dec 91. The earliest L zoom still in production is the 100-400/4.5-5.6L, since Nov 98.

Sorry for being such a geek!

[SunTsu]

The 5D and 24-105L were both released late 2005. The 100mm macro in USM form came out in 2000. Zooms are updated more frequently than primes.


Sorry for being such a geek!

The funny thing is that before I read your last sentence, I was wondering, "How the hell does he know/remember all this?" But thanks!

If they come out with a 24-105L 2.8 and some improved 100mm macro with IS, I'll SH*T.