michael_oxford Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 a sharp apochromatic 50mm lens that is preferably f/1.2. damn Leica guys with their f/1 and f/0.95... sooo pretentious. ; ) I other than that, I'm good. they already make 24L, 35L, 85L and 200 f/2L ... all i want is a 50 without problems! oh, and a camera that has working autofocus would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_moreland Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 500 5.6 IS or, second choice, add IS to the 400 5.6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradleywalter Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 100-400 f2.8 IS Now THAT would be impressive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars c Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Dream on guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 In body IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercobra Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 You guys are so reasonable. How about a 17-300mm f4L IS?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars c Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 "You guys are so reasonable. How about a 17-300mm f4L IS?!?!" 2.0 would be more unreasonable. Add mp3 player. Dream on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_quinn1 Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 16-70mm f/2.8 IS, probably impossible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josylvestre Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 150 mm f/2.8 macro IS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel flather Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 35/2.0 <b>USM</b> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 "EF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM. I don't need it but it will surely elimate future posts of " 24-105 f/4L IS vs. 24-70 f/2.8L" that we constantly see popping up. " --Sinh Nhut Nguyen It will eliminate them only if Canon can make a 24-105 lens that is as sharp as the existing 24-70 f/2.8. The existing (slower) 24-105 IS lens simply is not as sharp as the 24-70 f/2.8. Therefore my vote would be for a 24-70 f/2.8 IS, provided that it retains the sharpness of the existing non-IS version. Having said that, I, too, would love to see an IS version of the 400 f/5.6, but I don't see that ever happening. Much, much less do I see Canon producing a 100-400 f2.8 IS lens. How much would such a lens weigh? --Lannie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whwhitejr Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 I second BW's 100-400 f2.8 for night sports maybe just 100-350 f2.8L I don't care how much it weighs, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_v. Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 As stated a couple of times further up: 50-150 f/2.8 IS USM. (Oh, and sharp wide open, please.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e._r._averitt Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 How about a 1.0x or a 1.2x tele converter, with built in IS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 EF 17-55 2.8 L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregf Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Definately a 24-105 F2.8 IS. I would use the current f4 model, but the 24-70 at F2.8 is better. They could eliminate all debate between the two lenses by combining them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeap69 Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 85 1.4 L 17-70 f/4 L IS 70-300 f/4 L IS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_rockwood Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 A 50mm f/1.4 lens. Of course, they already have one, but how about one that is not so mechanically fragile? They could update it optically as well, so it competes better with the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Also, I second the notion of putting image stabilization into prime lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_seay Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 I'll second the vote for the 14-24mm f/2.8 to match Nikon's. Then again, at this focal length I'd settle for Nikon putting an aperture ring on their's so I could stop it down and use it MF. If not that then a 19mm f/2.8L would be nice -- since Canon has no plans for this I'm waiting for the Zeiss ZE 21mm f/2.8 Distagon. A 3x zoom somewhere between the 24-70 and the 70-210mm would be great. Perhaps 50-150mm f/4L. Of course 2.8 would be even better. No IS -- I'd want to keep it under $1500 and keep the weight down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_wang10 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 200-500 f/2.8 IS weighing about the same as the 400 f/2.8 IS and length not longer than the 600 f/4 IS. No DO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjb Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Affordable 15mm 2.8 or 85 1,8 SF :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funtak Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 If they could fix 24 -105mm/f2.8 at a Canon G10 body, I would never need no other camera... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kari v Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 "E. R. Averitt: How about a 1.0x or a 1.2x tele converter, with built in IS?" Hmm... Interesting idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_oxford Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 well, the optics in the teleconverter might kill the optical quality of the lens unless these converters are optimized for specific lenses... of course, not all lenses can have this and work at peak performance... that said, the idea definitely holds water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 20-120mm f/2 for full frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now