Missing lenses ...

[phule]

<<is a decent performing 50mm equivalent lens for 1.6 crop really too much to ask for? A 30mm f2 USM please. .>>

 

Aside from the lack of USM, what's wrong with the 35mm f/2?

[alan_simpson]

A 200~400 f/4L IS USM (with separate focus and zoom rings).

[e._r._averitt]

Maybe a EF S 35-135f2.8 IS or a 50-135f2.8 IS, for 1.6x Cameras.

[anthony_hicks]

<i>"Aside from the lack of USM, what's wrong with the 35mm f/2?"</i>

<p>

The 35/2 seems decent enough, but at 56mm equivalent its a little too long. But isn't the lack of USM enough of a reason for an update in itself? USM has been with us now for 18 years, and the large majority of Canon lenses have had it for ages - with the glaring omission of the 24/2.8, 28/2.8 and 35/2. Add to this the fact that the 28/1.8 doesn't perform as well as it should do, and you have a range of wideangle primes that are badly in need of an update, IMHO far more deserving of attention than yet another zoom lens.

[phule]

<<The 35/2 seems decent enough, but at 56mm equivalent its a little too long.>>

 

Just lean back a few inches...

[alan_myers]

First of all, Canon should re-establish an overall philosophy like they applied to their FD-N or FD "New" lenses back in the late 1970s and on into the 1980s:

 

Maintain high build quality; continue to offer excellence in optics; provide silky smooth manual focus mechanisms; and - especially - keep size and weight to a minimum.

 

Folks... Back then an FD-N 50/1.2 used a 52mm filter. In fact, I think all the 50mm lenses did. So did FD-N 24/2, 35/2, 85/1.8, 100/2, 100/2.8 and 100/4 macros, 135/2.8 & 135/3.5, 200/4 and more! Now obviously an AF lenses needs a bit more room to work. But let's get real. The EF lens line seems to keep getting a little bigger and heavier with each subsequent generation. That's gotta stop sometime. All types of newer electronics have gotten dramatically more space efficient in recent years, and that should carry over into the electronic AF and aperture actuators of Canon's EF lenses. And surely they could eliminate the plasticky build and sloppy feeling focus/zoom rings of the mid-quality EF lenses, too. Some of the L-Series focus and zoom controls could actually use some improved focus/zoom ring feel too, although overall L-Series lens build quality is pretty darned nice.

 

 

 

- Things Canon definitely should do in their lens line, IMHO:

 

EF "17/3.5 or 17/4 USM" (Especially important now w/1.6X, 1.3X D-SLRs, but needs to be FF compatible, too.)

 

EF-S "12-24/4 USM"

 

EF "20mm Tilt-Shift" (Needed w/1.6X, 1.3X D-SLRs, but would be great if FF compatible, too.)

 

EF "24/2 USM"

 

EF 35/2 "II, USM"

 

EF-S "35/2.8 Macro" (Especially needed for 1.6X cameras)

 

EF "35mm Tilt-Shift" (Canon used to make one!)

 

EF 50/1.4 "II" (Update it to ring-type USM, primarily)

 

EF "50/2 Macro USM" (Full 1:1 macro & speed improvement)

 

EF "75mm Tilt-Shift"

 

EF 135/2 "III I.S."

 

EF 200/2.8 "III I.S."

 

EF 200/1.8 "II I.S."

 

EF 400/5.6 "I.S."

 

 

 

 

- Things they might want to consider seriously, IMHO:

 

EF "100-300/4 I.S." (Yeah, it would be pricey.)

 

EF "200-400/4 I.S." (Yep, it would be even more pricey, and big.)

 

EF "500/5.6 and/or 600/5.6 I.S." (I agree, interesting ideas!)

 

EF "800/5.6 I.S." (Canon used to make an 800/5.6.)

 

EF 1200/5.6 "I.S." (Good grief! At the price they ask, the 1200mm should at the very least have I.S.! Don't build it for me, though. I've got other plans for any spare $76,000 I find lying around.)

 

"1.4X I.S. and/or 2X I.S." (Hmmm, I agree, more interesting ideas, if feasible.)

 

 

 

 

- "Keepers" they shouldn't fool around with too much, IMHO:

 

14/2.8 II, 20/2.8, 24/1.4, 24/3.5 TS, 28/1.8, 35/1.4, 45/2.8 TS, 50/1.8 II, EF-S 60/2.8 Mac, 65 MP-E, 85/1.8, 85/1.2 II, 100/2.8 Mac, 100/2, 135/2.8 SF, 180/3.5 Mac, 300/2.8 IS, 400/2.8 IS, 500/4 IS, 600/4 IS, 10-22 EF-S, 16-35/2.8 II, 17-40/4, 24-70/2.8, 24-105/4 IS, 70-200s (all four), 1.4X II, 2X II. There are probably others I'm forgetting, and I'm not personally familiar with all the lenses in the line-up to comment, anyway.

 

 

 

- Things they can probably skip, IMHO:

 

- Any macro I.S. (it's virtually ineffective at macro distances on the Nikkor, why would it work any better on a Canon macro lens?)

 

- Do-it-all lenses... 18-300s etc... are mostly ridiculous. They don't do anything very well. So why bother?!

 

- Camera body I.S. Lens-based is more effective, plus you can see it working in the viewfinder. I.S. is of little value to me on wide and normal lenses, anyway. In the camera, IMHO it would be just one more thing to go wrong (ranking right up there with dust shaking).

 

 

 

Other than that, the Canon EF/EF-S lens system is pretty much perfect ;-)

[fourfa]

"Do-it-all lenses... 18-300s etc... are mostly ridiculous. They don't do anything very well..."

 

except sell lenses (and the bodies that attach to them...)

 

I have a number of friends who bought D80s and D40s to go with their 18-200VR Nikkors. might have bought Canons (I offered to let them borrow gear from me if they did) but it was the lens they wanted. This lens is better than you may think.

[robin_sibson1]

A TS-E-S lens comparable with the TS-E 24 would need to have a focal length of 15mm. I just don't see Canon doing that, especially since for a whole variety of reasons TS lenses are more comfortable to use on FF bodies. The lack of a medium-wide-angle TS lens is certainly a gap, and some users have plugged it by having an FD 35mm TS lens re-mounted for EF, one of probably rather few sensible ways of recycling FD glass for use on EOS bodies. There are two other possibilities, one of which is to use the TS24 on a 1.6-factor body (OK for shift work, but it's difficult enough to judge the effects of tilt even on a FF body), and the other, which works better than you have any right to expect, is to put the TS24 on an Extender 1.4x on a FF body.

[anthony_hicks]

<i>"Just lean back a few inches..."</i>

<p>

LOL! If only it was that simple... :o)

[phule]

<<LOL! If only it was that simple... :o)>>

 

Have you compared images from 50mm and 56mm?

[sidaths]

How about a reverse teleconverter for APSC cameras that can be applied to EF lenses? i.e. a 1/1.6x (0.625x) converter? This would remove one of the advantages of FF.

 

Unfortunately this will almost certainly require the addition of more glass unlike, for example, extension tubes.

[jim_larson1]

Folks; sorry to break the news: but consumer primes are dead.

 

The last one we saw was the 60/EF-S Macro-> am more than a few people thought "What is the point of this lens?" The only primes being brought out now are revised boutique "L" primes that Canon can charge $2000+ for (oh my word!)

 

The 100-400/IS is a nice lens. . but I didn't buy one specifically because of the trombone design. That really could use an update!

 

But the real story is that I think Canon is being pushed by the "IS in body" wave. Hence the $200 18-55/IS and 55-200/IS. Note 28-135/IS is only $200 when bought with the 40D (sold for $400 seperately) Look for all the popular canon lenses to get IS in the near future and non-IS lenses to fade into the hall of fame.

 

(now someone please tell me why the 70-200/IS lenses carry a $600 price premium over the non-IS versions? -> Clearly "because they can" is the answer)

[anthony_hicks]

<i>"Have you compared images from 50mm and 56mm?"</i>

<p>

Maybe the difference isn't important for you. For me, to achieve the same coverage in the viewfinder between these two focal lengths would often mean moving a fair bit further back than the "few inches" you suggest, and that isn't always possible for me. I would rather use a 28mm and do a slight crop where necessary, than use a lens that is a little too long and end up not being able to fit in everything I need to include in the shot.

<p>

The 35/2 is a good lens... by the standards of 20 years ago. As has already been pointed out above, it needs "better build, focus mechanism, sharpness in the corners, and more blades to the aperture for improved bokeh". The bottom line is still that Canon's affordable wideangle primes are very average by modern standards.

<p>

Maybe Jim is right and consumer primes are dead. I hope not.

[andrew robertson]

"Maybe the difference isn't important for you. For me, to achieve the same coverage in the

viewfinder between these two focal lengths would often mean moving a fair bit further

back than the "few inches" you suggest, and that isn't always possible for me."

 

Come on, now. We're talking about a very VERY small difference in picture angle, here.

And the amount that you would have to move back would only be a few inches, at infinity!

Closer than infinity you would have to move back even less.

 

Let's not wish for all kinds of weird focal lengths so that, after crop factor is calculated in,

the new lenses are 'identical' to our old ones in terms of FOV. That just seems silly.

 

Here's an idea for a new lens lineup: Small, sharp prime lenses, f/2.5 or faster, across the

board like Pentax is doing! Make 'em weather sealed and USM.

[phule]

<<For me, to achieve the same coverage in the viewfinder between these two focal lengths would often mean moving a fair bit further back than the "few inches" you suggest, and that isn't always possible for me.>>

 

 

Andrew's response to this is spot on, nothing more needs to be said.

[jim_larson1]

Well. . .I got the 24/2.8; 35/2 and 50/1.8 before I started buying zooms.

 

I thought I needed the 35/2 to fill the gap between the 24/2.8 and 50/1.8. Nah. . .not really. While nice to have, I found that carrying all three lenses not worth the hassle and would often settle for just two. (one in pocket, one on camera).

 

I couldn't imagine having both a 50 and a 45. The 60/2.8 Macro holds no appeal for me.

[les]

"Back in the 1920's the Tennessee state legislature passed a law which made pi equal to 3.00"

 

John, this is an Internet prank with looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong white beard...

[robin_sibson1]

"Come on, now. We're talking about a very VERY small difference in picture angle, here. And the amount that you would have to move back would only be a few inches, at infinity! Closer than infinity you would have to move back even less."

 

Er, no, Andrew. Try changing the field of view for a star shot by climbing a step-ladder. The amount of movement required is small only when the subject is close. I do agree, however, that the difference between 50mm and 56mm is not usually an issue, although in the days when many standard lenses were 55mm or even 58mm people did complain that they would rather have the slightly greater coverage of the 50mm, which is already a bit longer than the image diagonal.

 

Jim, for many years I had an F-1 with 24mm, 50mm, 100mm, and 200mm lenses, and the gap that I found hard to live with was that between 24mm and 50mm. I never got round to plugging it, but I do take quite a lot of shots now in the 30mm to 40mm range on FF, or the equivalent on 1.6-factor.

[anthony_hicks]

<i>"Come on, now. We're talking about a very VERY small difference in picture angle, here. And the amount that you would have to move back would only be a few inches, at infinity!"</i>

<p>

No Andrew, its NOT just a few inches at infinity. Try it. I find it amusing that you and Rob automatically assume that my personal requirements for a "standard" lens are the same as what yours would be - obviously they aren't.

<p>

<i>"Let's not wish for all kinds of weird focal lengths so that, after crop factor is calculated in, the new lenses are 'identical' to our old ones in terms of FOV."</i>

<p>

I am not necessarily after an "identical" match for my old 50mm. The 28/1.8 would be the obvious choice for me... but I like my pictures sharp at the edges as well as in the centre, and don't always have the luxury of stopping down to f8 to do it. The Sigma 30/1.4 isn't any better in this respect.

<p>

<i>"Here's an idea for a new lens lineup: Small, sharp prime lenses, f/2.5 or faster, across the board like Pentax is doing! Make 'em weather sealed and USM."</i>

<p>

Now that I do agree with! But alas it probably won't happen :o)

[andrew robertson]

I'm glad somebody finds this amusing besides me.

 

I'm not aware of your personal requirements for a standard lens. Nobody is, as you

haven't stated them! But, there's always a great solution to all your gripes about 1.6x crop

lenses - GET A 5D!

 

Otherwise, you may have to tolerate a few degrees of picture angle difference. But, one

may ask, what would stop you from wishing for (say) a 47mm lens full frame, or 62mm,

etc?

 

I realized that I had to adapt a bit when I changed formats from 35mm to 1.6x crop. I will

have to re-adapt when I acquire a full frame.

[anthony_hicks]

<i>"I'm not aware of your personal requirements for a standard lens. Nobody is, as you haven't stated them!"</i>

<p>

Simple. IMHO they are quite modest really, compared to all the weird and wonderful zoom lens suggestions you always get in threads like this. I'd love a lens that would be suitable as a 'standard' on 1.6x cameras, of modern build quality standards, with USM, a maximum aperture of at least f2, and which is sharp across the frame. Going by the number of times similar requests crop up (excuse the pun) on here, I'm not exactly the only one looking for this.

<p>

A 35mm lens is too long for me *personally* because I use my 400D side by side with a Pentax 645Nii and 75mm lens, which is roughly equivalent to a 28mm, and it makes things a very great deal easier for me if the FOV on the two cameras match.

<p>

<i>"But, there's always a great solution to all your gripes about 1.6x crop lenses - GET A 5D!"</i>

<p>

I'd love to! Just the small matter of 1500GBP to find first. I'm not sure what you mean about "all my gripes about 1.6x crop lenses"? Canon makes some great 1.6x crop lenses. My point has always been that Canon's range of affordable FF wideangle primes stand out as desperately in need of an update.

<p>

<i>"But, one may ask, what would stop you from wishing for (say) a 47mm lens full frame, or 62mm, etc?"</i>

<p>

As I said before, I am not necessarily after an "identical" match for my old 50mm. The 28/1.8 would be ideal - if it wasnt mediocre away from the centre.

[andrew robertson]

All wide angles are less than perfect away from their centers, unless you are willing to

spend thousands.