mvgals Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I'd really love a 1.6x crop wide angle lens that's more lightweight... i.e. 14mm or so, but made for a canon 1.6x crop sensor, hince lighter... -mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mihir_shah Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 i am happy with the current lineup of the lenses as long as canon makes all of them cheaper by minimum 50%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I'll second Anthony Hick's "31mm f2 with ring USM", as a 1.6 crop "standard" lens. The 35mm f2.0 is close, but has clunky focus and soft corners, and translates to around 56mm on film camera. It would be nice to have an exact 1.6 crop equivalent to the 50mm f 1.4 (8 blade aperture, usm, metal construction, decent corner-to-corner sharpness), apart from some compromise on max aperture, to keep the price reasonable, and the weight/length down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delwyn_ching Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 All excellent suggestions, can we have all of the above? (Hint to Canon) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
even Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 An L-series 50 would definitely be nice, as well as a 100-400 Mk II.Oh, and perhaps an IS macro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terence_tong1 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Since 17-40 is like the new 'standard' zoom, why not build on it like they build on the 24(28)-70 range? -10-17 f/3.5-4.5 (Probably in EF-s like the 10-22) -17-40 f2.8L (Of course) -40-125 f/4L IS (start here, then move to f/2.8 later) Also, as someone had mentioned, pls, optimized or update all AFD lens to USM including the EF135mm SF. Oh, preferablly all in the same filter size 77/67mmish TT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourfa Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 how big would a 500mm f2.8 be? I'll take a compact, high end 18mm-20mm f4 that's sharper than the zooms and the current 20mm f2.8 other than that I'm pretty happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 A 10-1000 f/1.2L to weight no more than 3lbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_munch Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I VERY much like the idea of a 17/2.8, or something along the lines of the response from Tom S. Even a 20/1.8 USM would be very much appreciated, but I'm not intersted in an EF-S version (I'm a 10D owner, too). And because this is a "wish," let's make it L-build quality without the L-price. --tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 How about a Makowski Katoptaron design 600 f/5.6 IS USM? The Katoptaron is unique in the world of mirror lenses - it shows normal bokeh because the plastic disc that holds the front mirror is absent in its design. It's pretty small, too. http://www.macrolenses.de/ml_detail_sl.php?ObjektiveNr=292 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbizarro Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 1. Another vote for the 70-200 L f/4 IS. I would buy it today. 2. A new 50mm compact macro, updated with ring USM, and no extension while focusing (just like the 100 macro USM). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan_thomas1 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 For croppers, a 17-50 f/2.8L (but not ef-s mount!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 <p><i>how big would a 500mm f2.8 be?</i></p> Not sure, but I'd love to find out! ;-) Seriously, though... I can't imagine it would be larger than the 600mm lens, but if you're looking at reaching out to something that far away, I don't think size is very frequently a concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 A 500/2.8 would not be that big a problem to design and build, however it would be quite large. With the various hoods it would be longer than the 600/4 and way bigger diameter and way heavier glass. The built in hood and additional hood would make it that much more cumbersome. Just think of the 400/2.8 on steroids, lots of them. I could spend 20 minutes guesstimating the sizes but what's the point one can always go and get a tiny 400/2.8 instead. The 500 would weigh at least 16 pounds. Perhaps it would have to be a DO design to make sense...that makes it about $20,000 USD including the IS. Now a 600/2.8 what a monster that would be! Or a 400/2, that's the one I would want. Of course to keep up appearances it would have to be a 400/1.8...what was I thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 NO! NO MORE LENSES! I CAN'T AFFORD ANY MORE LENSES! but maybe a non-push pull 100-400/5.6L-IS would be nice. And no. . .a 70-200/4L-IS is not on my list, because it will undoubtedly carry a $1300 price tag. But a 200-400/4L-IS at about $1000 would be sweet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ethan_kuefner1 Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 I really wish that Canon would expand the 70-200 range to 300mm, if possible. IS on the f/4 version would be nice too. 70-300mm f/4 IS would be a great lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majid Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 a 50mm f/1.2L with ring USM and the same level of coma correction as the old Noct-Nikkor, or a 50mm f/1.4L with the same refinements as the Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. An ultra-compact 35mm f/2L USM. I sold my old 35mm f/2 and got the f/1.4L, but something lighter and more discreet would be welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 <p> <i>Its a shame the existing 28/1.8 isn't more up to scratch. </i> </p> <p> Take a closer look at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html">PZ</a> and <a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/index.htm">WC</a> and compare 24/1.4 and 28/1.8 results.</p> <p> Happy shooting, <br> Yakim. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pto189 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 10-24 f/4L IS and 100-300 f/4L IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astcell Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Bring back the 200/1.8 and add IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_hicks Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Yakim - thanks for that Castleman link, I'd not seen that one before. Not sure what the value of a comparison with the 24/1.4 is though, cos I'm after a 28mm (or preferably 30/31mm) lens, not a 24mm. I would really like to believe that the 28/1.8 is the answer, but I just can't bring myself to invest in a lens that has been described as having "hefty" CA and "substantially worse borders" - especially when it was tested on a 1.6x crop body! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawngibson Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 20mm f/1.4L USM 24-75 f/2.8L IS USM 16-35 f/2.8L IS USM ANYTHING wide that doesn't suck (20mm on a crop is only a standard lens if you are a Leica fan...). Shawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian deichert Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 EF 15mm f/2.8L fisheye. Or at least give the existing fisheye a little better quality build, more than a 5-blade aperture, and better AF. My old Minolta 16mm Fish Eye Rokkor-X was/is a quality lens compared to the budget primes and zooms of its time; I can't for the life of me imagine why Canon gave what I consider to be a specialty lens such consumer-grade construction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry h. Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Important: All of the following should have a 58mm filter size. Reasonable size is imperative to me. And they should all be sharp in the corners, even at the cost of slightly lower center resolution. EF-S 15mm/2.8 USM rectilinear lens (I'd even take f/3.5 or f/4 to keep the size and cost down. Equivalent to a 24mm on a 1.6x crop body. Oh yeah, it should have a useful DOF scale. Hell, I'd even take an mf lens for a useful DOF scale.) EF 24mm/2 USM (I'd even take an EF-S lens to keep it small, but it won't happen as Canon already makes three 24mm primes.) EF 35mm/1.8 USM (My 30+ year old Minolta MC Rokkor 35mm/1.8 is a lot sharper than the current EF 35mm/2.) EF-S 50-125mm/2.8 IS USM (Equivalent to an 80-200/2.8 on full frame. Would mate perfectly with the new 17-55/2.8. And Canon better make this before Tokina eats their lunch with their upcoming lens.) I think all of these are reasonable possibilities. But, again, they would need to be relatively small (58mm filter size) and sharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekkie Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I wish the EOS 85mm f/1.2L that just came out was 77mm in size so I wouldn't have to buy all new filters for it since every other lens I have is 77mm not 72mm. Not like I'm in a hurry to buy it, but you know, one day. 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