If Canon could make one lens that they don't offer now, what would it be?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by photohns, Nov 9, 2008.

  1. What one lens do you wish Canon would make that they don't now?
     
  2. A 14-24 that's as sharp wide open as the Nikon!

    http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1122/cat/13
     
  3. 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.

    For myself, it has to be EF 400mm f/5.6L IS USM. I like the lightweight/small size of this lens, I can handhold it all day long and with a 1.6x body this lens becomes 640 so IS would make it even sexier.
     
  4. EF 24-70 f/2.8 IS USM
     
  5. sbp

    sbp

    EF 24-105 f/2.8L IS USM. One stop faster would make the current 24-105 a perfect general use lens, IMHO. Then i could
    sell my 24-70 f/2.8 and buy other goodies...
     
  6. Any fast prime with IS... and make it available to mortals, 200/2 IS doesn't count.
     
  7. For me its an easy choice. Forget all those exotic zooms, lets have an affordable standard lens for 1.6 crop that is sharp across the frame. Something that is not too fast and heavy, and not just sharp in the centre. A brand new 30mm f2 would be ideal. Failing that, a 28/1.8 mark II that is up to the standards of other Canon primes like the 85/1.8.
     
  8. EF30-90 f2 macro for under $1600, EF400 f4 IS for under $3500, 100-300 f4 DO at $1500, $699 if you trade in your old 70-300DO :)
     
  9. 200-400 f4L IS
     
  10. I'd like to see a perfectly corrected and reasonably small 35-70/4L. And a new 50/1.8 with USM and decent build, perhaps paired with an upgrade of the 28/1.8. And how about an EF-S 15-50/4? I doubt any one of these will ever be made.
     
  11. I'd take a 24mm prime that was the equivalent of (and updated version of) 35mm f/2.
     
  12. EF 400mm f/5.6L USM *** IS ***
     
  13. I agree with Mike if it is an EF lens not an EFS
     
  14. 24mm f/2 non-L USM/FTM lens that uses 58mm accessories (WITH THE HOOD INCLUDED, DAMMIT!).

    Michael J Hoffman
     
  15. I would love a 70-300 F/4 IS L with USM ring focusing.....for my auto racing needs it would be perfecto!
     
  16. 28-135mm L IS USM
     
  17. A Mark II of the EF-S 17-85mm IS that corrected its optical warts (barrel distortion, CA) while maintaining functionality. Better still, a EF version of the same lens that would also fit on FF bodies as well as crop (it would serve for a ultrawide to portrait lens on the 5D, say.).
     
  18. 50mm f1.4 USM IS.
     
  19. 50-150 f/2.8 IS :) I have asked for this before. This is the perfect portrait range, but nobody makes for FF.
     
  20. 50mm/ 85mm f0.95
     
  21. 100 mm macro IS
     
  22. Another vote for 50-150 F2.8 IS (of course it would have to be USM).
     
  23. I've been looking wistfully at the Nikon 16-85 VR wondering why Canon can't upgrade the 17-85 IS the way they did
    such a fine job replacing the 75-300 IS with the 70-300 IS (non-DO). It's so frustrating to see them update the 1.2 and
    1.4 lenses and charge huge sums for them while putting out cheap plastic crap for budget concious amatuers.
    "Let them eat cake" comes to mind.
     
  24. 8mm f5.6 circular fisheye for full frame
     
  25. I should add in-body IS. I know it's not a lens but it would make all those nice cheap primes new again.
     
  26. 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.
     
  27. 500 5.6 IS

    or, second choice, add IS to the 400 5.6
     
  28. 100-400 f2.8 IS

    Now THAT would be impressive
     
  29. Dream on guys.
     
  30. In body IS.
     
  31. You guys are so reasonable. How about a 17-300mm f4L IS?!?!
     
  32. "You guys are so reasonable. How about a 17-300mm f4L IS?!?!"

    2.0 would be more unreasonable. Add mp3 player.

    Dream on.
     
  33. 16-70mm f/2.8 IS, probably impossible
     
  34. 150 mm f/2.8 macro IS
     
  35. 35/2.0 USM
     
  36. "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
     
  37. 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
     
  38. As stated a couple of times further up: 50-150 f/2.8 IS USM. (Oh, and sharp wide open, please.)
     
  39. How about a 1.0x or a 1.2x tele converter, with built in IS?
     
  40. EF 17-55 2.8 L
     
  41. 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.
     
  42. 85 1.4 L
    17-70 f/4 L IS
    70-300 f/4 L IS
     
  43. 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.
     
  44. 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.
     
  45. 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!
     
  46. Affordable 15mm 2.8 or 85 1,8 SF :)
     
  47. If they could fix 24 -105mm/f2.8 at a Canon G10 body, I would never need no other camera...
     
  48. "E. R. Averitt: How about a 1.0x or a 1.2x tele converter, with built in IS?"

    Hmm... Interesting idea.
     
  49. 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.
     
  50. 20-120mm f/2 for full frame.
     
  51. EF 20/2 USM, thank you.
     
  52. An EF-S 15-75mm f/4 IS L
     
  53. A high quality EF-S 14-70mm f/4 IS. (makes a nice 2 lens combo with the 70-200)

    Regards, Matthijs.
     
  54. EF 30/1.4 USM so that you do not have to resort to a third party lens, if you want a normal lens for a 1,6 crop body.
     
  55. 50mm f1.4 USM IS
    I'd preorder that one, almost regardless of price! And as said by Alan Rockwood, make it up -to-par with Sigma's lens.
    A similar lens for crop cameras, like the Sigma 30mm, would be my second vote. Especially with IS!
     
  56. a 10-600 f/1.0 that weighs two ounces and is sharp as a tack
     
  57. 28/1.8 (IS) USM for low-light work, and a stabilized macro lens would be interesting as well.
     
  58. ^^ I forgot to say, a 28/1.8 that's optically better ...
     
  59. EF 17-105L 2.8 IS USM, this would solve everything for me and many others! No more questions between the 24-70 and the 24-105, also reaching 17mm for crop sensor users that hesitate to get the 17-55 due to its lack of "L" build.

    Excuse me, I'm drooling...
     
  60. a 10-600 f/1.0 that weighs two ounces and is sharp as a tack

    You forgot about IS and USM.
     
  61. 50mm/ 85mm f0.95 - Benjamin Hicks
    <br>Physically impossible, but hey :)
    <p>Mine would be a 24-105 f/2.8L IS
     
  62. I second the 35mm/2.0. That would be beautiful on a digital.
    Or they could go for a 50 EF-S..
     
  63. Having owned long ago the very good Canon FL-P 38mm f/2.8 for my Canon Pellix-QL, I'd like a EF 43mm f/2.0 L full-frame
    lens. The FL-P was a pancake lens. I'd like a very high-quality lens with the same viewing angle as the human eye to
    render a normal perspective. IS would be a welcome feature.
     
  64. 18mm f4 ala Zies at 77mm
     
  65. High quality affordable zoom for compact sensor, like EF-S 15-70 f4 IS (Same equivalent range and optical quality as 24-105 F4L IS, best if cheaper, target price 700$/€)

    Portrait/macro prime with IS beetween the range 85/135, for example EF 100 F2 IS or EF 85 F1.8 IS (target price between 400 and 500 €/$)
     
  66. I'd love a well built moderately fast prime in the 28-50 range. Either a top notch 50/1.4 (L or non L, maybe with IS) or a
    really nicely built 35/2, or even a new 28/1.8 or 28/1.4. I have both the 50/1.4 and 28/1.8. I realize the 35/1.4 is about 80%
    of what I'm asking for, but a better option at 28 or 50 (that's not the huge 50/1.2) would be great.

    The build quality of the 28/1.8 is a nice target. The optics could be upgraded a bit, but in reality, whenever I think about
    dumping it and getting the 24/1.4 or the 35/1.4, I realize for my kind of shooting, the 28/1.8 is good enough and I like the
    focal length more. Hence the desire for a nicer 50/1.4 with better build and that's better wide open. IS would be cool.
     
  67. 50 1.4 with build and focus speed & accuracy similar to 100 2.0.
     
  68. Tim, I am with you. I don't want to use a big expensive prime like the 35 1.4. I would love a 20 or 24 1.8 or 1.4 that has
    USM but is not L and in the size range of the 50 1.4 or 28 1.8. I think the small size is what makes a prime so much fun to
    use.
     
  69. I use the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the 28-75mm f/2.8 quite a bit and find myself switching back and forth too often. The 28mm range is not wide enough on one of them and 50mm is not quite long enough on the other. An EF-S 17-70mm f/2.8 would be great. I have often been temped by the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 for this reason but also want to keep my wider f/2.8 constant aperture throughout the full zoon range. With the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS on a second body, I would be well setup for fast action at variable focal lengths. I suppose I should add that I currently use a 40D and am looking at adding a second one or a 50D in the next few months if my budget does not get decimated by the economy.

    Sometimes I wish my budget and the laws of physics could keep up with my imagination!
     
  70. A real 50mm f/1.4 -- like Tom said, otherwise their lineup is perfect (I don't care for I.S. or slow lenses).
     
  71. EF 14mm f/5.6 L for ~ $750 .
     
  72. Having owned long ago the very good Canon FL-P 38mm f/2.8 for my Canon Pellix-QL, I'd like an EF43mm f/2.0 L full-frame
    lens. The FL-P was a pancake lens. I'd like a very high-quality lens with the same viewing angle as the human eye to
    render a normal perspective. IS would be a welcome feature.
     
  73. I would love a compact pancake lens, the closest I have found is the 28 f2.8 as it behaves on my APS-C camera. Nice compact light well made, not to mention cheap and decent image quality.

    The 28 2.8 is not a pancake in the sense of either the nikon or pentax mould or even on a full frame. If canon made such a model... 43-45mm.

    They should also resurrect the 50MM f1.8 Mk1.

    Minolta used to make a VFC lens where the user could control the field of curvature for effect or for fidelity, that would be a nice feature.
     
  74. TS-E 2.8/20mm L
     
  75. 13mm f2,8 EF-S with at least the same optical performance of the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f2,8. They should make it MF and not more than 800-1000$. That's really the only lens I'm missing for my system.
     
  76. a 24-70 f2.8 that actually focuses reliably
     
  77. 18-200mm f/2.8.

    Then I'll switch to Canon
     
  78. In dream land, 12-600 mm f2 IS. However that would be the size of a small house.
    Id love to see more 2.8's with IS. On a full frame 28-300 f2.8 with IS would be ideal if they could keep it sharp.
     
  79. A 10-1000 f1.0 USM IS (five stop IS). I guess this would have fluid lens elements that are similar to that in the human
    eye; all that would happen is that a magnetic or electrical field changes the shape and thickness of the lens
    elements to confer perfect focus and change focal length. Could be done in a two oz. package.
     
  80. I'm a Nikonian, and here's the deal... I bet for every lens you wish Canon would make, we Nikonians could make a list of
    five we wish Nikon would make.

    I'm not switching, but you guys have it great. F4 zooms in particular...
     
  81. 24-135 F2.8 IS L, or 50-150 F3.5 macro IS L for FF sensors. Those could be practially possible in price and size/weight. 8-600mm f2.8 is nice but I dont' think it's realistic.
     
  82. I second 200-400mm f4 L IS USM at least as sharp as, if not more sharper than, the popular and much sought after nikon counterpart . Better lighter and less expensive as well. This is an attainable target!
     
  83. Ok, taking a big risk here.....

    I would like to see Canon ship all of their existing lenses right from the factory - without needing to be sent back for calibration right out of the box! If they did that, I think we'd all be very happy. :)

    That said.....Canon has done a great job in providing a good selection. I shoot both Canon and Nikon. Nikon needs more fast primes. Given my experience with Canon lenses out of the box, I'd go completely Nikon if they could do that. But until then it's hard to beat a fast Canon prime like the 35 1.4 or 24 1.4. I use them a lot and they have been the most reliable of my Canon lenses. I'd sure like to see what Nikon could do to top those!
     
  84. It would be a failed attempt to match Nikon 12-24mm. Thats the lens canon desperately needs.
     
  85. I posted my wish for a 50mm f0.95 before I knew they made one for the Canon 7. So it's not physically impossible, Mark
    Anthony Kathurima.
     
  86. Well I guess it's theoretically f0.95
     
  87. Since it's a wish, I'd like to see at 8-1200mm f0.5L USM IS, that also had tilt shift capability and came with a mounting
    adapter to fit EOS, FD, and Nikon cameras. ;-)
     
  88. A 200-500mm L lens, plus a 50mm f2 Leica copy with 8 aperture blades and super sharp lenses to outresolve any 50mm in their lineup.
     
  89. Make an update to the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM and the EF 50m f/1.4 USM
     
  90. An 85mm f1.2L mkIII that focuses as fast as other Canon primes. The mkII focuses SLOW!
     
  91. Yes, an equivalent of Nikon’s 14–24 would be great.
    “TS-E 2.8/20mm L”
    Why not make that a TS-E 4/18mm L?
    I used to have a Plaubel Proshift and loved it
     
  92. As for a new lens, I would also like to see a 200-400 f/4L IS USM that was optically better than the Nikon. It would of course be nice if said lens was less expensive than the Nikon, but only if optical quality was maintained.
    As to revising/reviving old lenses. I agree with Steve Crist that a new 85 f/1.2L with fast autofocusing would be great. I have shot a fair number of indoor sports where a wide aperture is required and a 1.2 would be great. On the same note of indoor sports a 50mm f/.95 would also be great. Not really sure what kind of DOF one would have with this lens, but it would make some impossible shots more possible indoors.
     
  93. Since Canon has so many crop bodies out there.

    EFS 15-70 f/2.8 IS USM or upgrade the EFS 17-85 to EFS 17-85 f/2.8 IS USM
     
  94. For FF a cheap 50/1.2 that slightly undercorrects spherical aberration for nice bokeh.

    For APS-C a USM 30/1.4 as above and that doesn't worry itself too much about vignetting in order to keep the weight down (unlike the rather-too-large Sigma beast).

    The FF 50/1.2 would also cover the APS-C portrait people.
     
  95. it

    it

    20-200mm/1.8 IS macro
     
  96. 35/1.4 IS
     
  97. EF-S (and EF) prime lenses with built-in IS. It's my main reason for abandoning Canon and switching over to Pentax.... I love Canon's lens line-up, but fast primes plus image stabilization is pure magic!
     
  98. A 14-14mm F2.8 as good a Nikon and a 35mm F2 USM
     
  99. how about a 70-200 f/2.8 L that is not white but black (with a red stripe) and has a macro like the 24-70.
     
  100. A super wide zoom for full frame cameras. I just had to by the Sigma 12-24, but have no complaints yet.
     
  101. 200-400 f4 IS...
     
  102. I second the F4 200mm-400 L-IS.....

    But I'd really like an f2.8 35mm-150mm L-IS
     
  103. 135mm f/1.4L IS. But a tad lighter and cheaper than the 200mm f/2L IS, please. (and much faster AF than the 85mm f/1.2L)
     
  104. Since Canon has so many crop bodies (many more than full frame) should focuses its attention on EF-S lenses or
    at least at lenses that could be useful on both bodies. Full frame has many standard zoom, many more than APS-C,
    so I think canon should fill the gap. Here’s a comparison:

    EF-S........................................EF

    17-55 2.8 IS.............................. 24-70 2.8 L

    18-55 3.5/5.6 IS.........................24-85 3.5/4.5

    17-85 4/5.6 IS............................28-135 3.5/5.6 IS

    18-200 3.5/5.6 IS.......................28-300 3.5/5.6 IS

    ................................................28-105 4/5.6

    ................................................28-200 3.5/5.6

    .................................................24-105 4L IS

    There’s the evident lack of EF-S zooms starting from an equivalent range of 24mm, there’s only 1 high quality
    lens, the 17-55 2.8 IS, since the 28-135 should perform better than 17-85 which is poor at the wide range. I
    think next lens should be the equivalent of 24-105 4L IS. I think the following should agree with me, if not so
    I’m sorry!

    JDM von Weinberg -> A Mark II of the EF-S 17-85mm IS

    Ben Quinn -> 16-70mm f/2.8 IS

    Tommy DiGiovanni -> EF 17-55 2.8 L

    Ronald Smith -> EF-S 15-75mm f/4 IS L

    Matthijs ClaessenE -> F-S 14-70mm f/4 IS

    Andreas Braunlich -> F-S 17-70mm f/2.8

    Tony Law -> EFS 15-70 f/2.8 IS USM
     
  105. 600 f/5.6L IS
     
  106. Paolo De Faveri , Nov 10, 2008; 02:12 p.m.

    13mm f2,8 EF-S with at least the same optical performance of the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f2,8. They should make it MF and not more than 800-1000$. That's really the only lens I'm missing for my system.

    Ebay selling a new zeiss distagon 21mm at $2500 and even an used at $1500, I don't know how you come up with the price $800 for a lens to match zeiss quality, interesting wish.
     
  107. 1) EF-S 16-55 f3.5-4.5 USM IS for under $400. If they can sell the EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM for about $230 then
    surely adding their new low cost IS and producing and EF-S version (whioch has less glass) should be doable for
    $400.

    2) The EF-S 55-250 f4-5.6 IS updated with ring USM and a metal mount. I'd gladly pay $100 more for such a lens.

    3) A 70-200 f4 L IS that wasn't a ripoff. I could buy a Pentax K200D with in built IS for the price difference between
    the non-IS and the IS version of 70-200 f4 lens. What is Canon trying to tell us? Switch to another system?

    4) EF 35 f2 USM.

    5) EF 28 f1.8 USM (or f2) that is sharp in the corners.

    6) EF-S 30 f1.8 built like the 50 f1.8 and for the same price.
     
  108. 400 f/5.6 with IS priced under $US1600.00

    and, I'll add my votes to updated (improved) 50 f/1.4 (ring USM + IS) and 28 f/1.8 (USM + IS + improved optics)

    Cheers! Jay
     
  109. Anson, ebay listing is simply too much expensive. The Contax version of that lens is so rare and people is so crazy about that lens that the price became a totally nonsense. That's as simple as that. Zeiss is going to release a new version of the 21 mm Distagon with EF mount at a street price of 1399 $ (check their website). We will see then how the ebay listings will drop down once the new version will be available at that price.
    So it's not a nonsense wishing to have an EF-S equivalent costing around 1000$.
     
  110. a PANCAKE EF-S 30mm F2 or 1.8 (and then a slimmer 55D to match!).
     
  111. Wow -- the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f2.8 mentioned 3 times (~3% of posts). Good thing it will be available in EOS
    mount in a couple of months. Why does Canon make best-in-class freakishly great optics in the long end (200mm
    f/2L IS!) and leave the short end wide open (pun intended) for competition?
     
  112. Zeiss is going to release a new version of the 21 mm Distagon with EF mount at a street price of 1399 $

    if canon is going to release the same quality 21mm as zeiss, it going to cost more than a MF lens with the add on USM, IS technology. It will still over $1399, I dont' work for canon, but you get what you paid for : - ) $1000 is unlikey they will make enough profit. To end user like me, I wish the have a 21mm f2.8 IS USM for $200...it's not going to happen.
     
  113. Anson,
    in fact I also stated that I want it MF. Honestly, USM AF and IS on a 13mm lens is totally a nonsense.
    I do believe 1000 $ for a MF 13mm EF-S lens would be a fair price.
     
  114. "Why does Canon make best-in-class freakishly great optics in the long end (200mm f/2L IS!) and leave the short end wide open (pun intended) for competition?"
    Exactly. It is one of life's great mysteries!
     
  115. I would like to see 2 lenses

    400mm F5.6 L IS

    20mm F2.8 L IS
     
  116. It is not a lens that I would really want now if it came out because I am using 1D series cameras. But what would be great for the aps-c sensor users a 1.6x but reversed. So basically a 1.6 divider in a sense. So in theory it would make a 300mm f4 a 300mm f2.8 at full aps-c frame. 300 divided by 1.6 times 1.6 crop. In theory it would work to make a 300mm f4 into a f2.8 for aps-c but I am not sure how well they could make the optics for the IQ or if it would even really work to sctually make a lens faster. Any one have thoughts on this?
     
  117. EF not EF-S of the following:

    1. EF 10-25mm F4 IS,

    2. EF 20-110mm F2.8 IS,

    3. EF 100-300mm F2.8 IS.
     
  118. EF 200-500 f/4L IS or 200-400mm f/4L IS USM
     
  119. I wish 400mm f6.7 (or even 7.1) lens or 500mm f8 lens - normal lens, not a mirror lens.
    The lens should be half the weight and price of 400mm f5.6 L lens.
    The lens should be as good as 400mm 5.6L wide open.
    I think the lens manufacturers have still not realised that now we can bump ISO on DSLRs and such long focal lenghts does not have big impact on maximum possible apertures that can be used. i.e. 500mm f8 can give quite good isolation of telephoto subjects.
     
  120. I don't know--maybe their first SHARP one!? That would be a change...
     
  121. 15mm 1.4.

    ...for us 20/30/40/50D users that want something similar to the 24mm 1.4.

    and, maybe a 30mm 1.4 to compete with Sigma's version of the same, which can only be a good thing for us.

    Basically, more fast lenses for cropped sensors.
     
  122. Maybe stretch out that 15mm to an 15-70 mm F/2.8 with all the trimmings IS, "L" etc.
    effective 24-112 mm on the crop cameras, and have a hood come with the lens.
    Wow! What a novel idea! And as long as we are in fantasy land, have the price be around
    the 17-40mm range.
     
  123. Marc Radema, 19-11-2008
    A mild wide-angle with tilt and shift possibilities - not necessarily autofocus.
    For architecture, but also macro where you want both the flower and the stalk sharp, for instance.
     
  124. Something affordable!
     

Share This Page