New lens wish list for Canon (2011)

[spipaw]

<p>I agree with Michael, I also own the 35 L and to me, it is flawless. I've had it in light rain, dusty conditions and the like. It has never let me down. I will however, take a 24-70 2.8 L with IS any day.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>Yes really. It doesn't have weather sealing, and I have suffered moisture ingress on lenses without it. Image quality? For the current range of cameras it is very good but I expect my next camera to have well over 30mp, maybe even 40mp, I want it to be as good on those as it is on current gear. Isn't the 35, along with the 135, the last two L primes that are on MkI series? (Apart from the comparatively new 50 of course)</p>

<p> The 50 f1.4 has a 50 f1.2 L. The 28-300 is an eccentric 10x zoom but still a vast improvement on the 35-350 it replaced. The 100-400 has the Nikon beating 200-400 f4 or the 70-300 L. The 180 macro is, I agree, a dinosaur, the 100IS L macro really showed where that line is going. I still think we'll see a 35 L MkII before too much longer, and certainly before many on your wishlist, needed or not.</p>

[thomas_abbott1]

<blockquote>

<p>An updated 35 mm f/1.4 (maybe with IS)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is really no need for IS on fast primes. The 35L is incredibly light as it is. </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Why do people say there is no need for things? Thomas, that you don't want or need IS in a 35mm prime is up to you and your usage, but to say there is no need is silly. Manufacturers are putting IS in ever shorter lenses, many sub 20mm zooms now have it, why could somebody not find that a desirable feature in a 35mm prime?</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I have no idea why anyone would need an update to the 35L. Thing is great as it is.<br>

And where does the info come from that a MK2 version is on it's way?</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Regarding the 35 f/1.4 update:</p>

<p><strong>IS</strong> - Granted, f/1.4 is very fast, but there are times when one might prefer to shoot at f/5.6 - f/11 rather than wide open. IS would be invaluable for wedding, street, candid, sports, and event shooting as well as any other circumstance where handholding would be useful (travel, documentary, etc.).</p>

<p><strong>Image Quality</strong> - What can I say? Since I began using the recently updated 100 mm 1:2.8L IS macro lens, my standards have changed. Plus the next batch of sensors is going to demand performance on a par with the latest Rodenstock Digital lenses.</p>

<p><strong>Weather Sealing</strong> - A popular request. Canon should respond.</p>

 

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I will also get the MkII 45 TS-E, I have the 17 and it has had a dramatic effect on some of my image taking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A TS-E 45 II would most likely be very popular with the stitching crowd. It could be a very nice video lens, as well. Not to mention that it would nicely mimic the angle of view of the Schneider 150 in my 4x5 kit.</p>

[lalon_karim]

<p >I want this one!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Arie Vandervelden <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Apr 03, 2011; 05:53 p.m.</p>

 

<p>"EF-S 50-135/2.8 IS with ring-USM for $600-700."</p>

 

 

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>I'd gladly pay gobs of money for either of the following:<br>

17-40/4.0 II (with sharp corners at f/5.6 and less distortion (IS would be nice))<br>

35-105/2.8 IS (that competes with primes and weighs less than the 24-70 and 24-105)<br>

As I've said before: the 40/2.0 pancake lens is significantly sharper than the Canon 35/2.0 at f stops wider than f/8. Also, it has AF confirm, so it's not all that much slower than a fully AF lens. And it's way more compact than the Canon 35/2.0 with hoods on both. With both in your hand, the 40/2.0 feels as though it weighs about twice as much as the Canon, even though they are roughly the same weight, since the 40/2.0 is all metal solid contstruction.</p>

 

[maderik]

<blockquote>

<p>[scott wrote] For the current range of cameras it is very good but I expect my next camera to have well over 30mp, maybe even 40mp, I want it to be as good on those as it is on current gear.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Every </em>lens will be just as good or better on a 40mp sensor as it will on a 21mp sensor: lens performance doesn't change just because the sensor has a higher sampling rate. Now if you plan on using a new 40mp camera to make larger prints (or greater crops), then you may need better lenses (and better vibration control and better focus and ...). Remember, system resolution is something like 1/Rsystem = 1/Rlens + 1/Rsensor and you are just increasing the last term. So for the <em>same size</em> print, the results will be the same or better.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>I'd like to see:</p>

<p>1. An autofocus Mirror lens like the <a href="http://pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=1010&camera=none&perpage=30&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&iso_min=none&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3">Sony 500/8</a>. With IS added because the Sony has it in the body.<br>

Why: because mirrors are small. And I know about the ugly bokeh but that's avoidable if you know what you're doing.<br>

2. Ef-s 30/1.4 (or anything between 24 and 30)<br>

3. An update to the 50/1.4 that's a little more sturdy.</p>

<p> </p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>My personal list, in that order:</p>

<ol>

<li>100-400 Mk II</li>

<li>24-70 f/2.8 IS</li>

<li>14-24 f/2.8 or f/4.0 IS</li>

<li>35 f/1.4 IS</li>

</ol>

<p>Among what other suggested I like the idea of a 50-135 f/2.8 IS, also EF-S 30 and, more in general, some fast and cheap EF-S primes (even if I don't see it happening)</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>10-300 f1.2 IS Macro</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Well, it did say <em>wish </em>list, right? :)<br>

1. 24-135 f/2.8L IS<br>

2. EF 17-50 f/2L<br>

3. 70-300 f/2.8L IS (in black)</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Dear Mark Anthony,</p>

<p>If the laws of (lens) physics hold up I don't think you'll want to carry those.<br>

They'll be huge and heavy.</p>

<p>(-:</p>

<p>Matthijs.</p>

[oscar_van_der_velde]

<p>My bets are a 16-40mm f/4L IS, introduced as kit lens for the 5D mkIII.<br /> I wish a third party would make tilt-shift alternatives that cost under €1000.<br>

I like the idea of a 40mm f/2 pancake with autofocus as Canon's cheapest lens instead of the EF 50mm f/1.8 II or EF 35mm f/2.</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>Wait! Are we betting, or wishing/dreaming? :-)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Erik,</p>

<p>You don't need to be making bigger prints to get the benefit of better lenses and more MP, just crop. I find, using primes, that I sometimes don't want to change lenses but see different framing, anticipating the crop works well, stand back and get the perspective you want and use a fraction the info you captured. I often use a 300 when I should be using a 400 and I will rarely do lens changes at weddings in the midst of shooting, in both cases I rely on cropping. </p>

[travismcgee]

<p>A <em>sharp</em> 24-105 f/4 IS. Others may disagree, but the current model is way too soft.<br>

Add IS to the 24-70 f/2.8, even if it raises the price a bunch.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I have no idea why anyone would need an update to the 35L. Thing is great as it is.

 

Agree with Ian. I'm so happy with mine, it's essentially the only lens I use. I would not sell mine and then

pay extra for IS, weather sealing, a MKII badge, etc.

[david_huff1]

<p>A 24-70 L IS with a 1Ds Mark IV is all I would ask for. (Am completely satisfied with the rest of the line-up.)</p>

[tdigi]

<blockquote>

<p>A <em>sharp</em> 24-105 f/4 IS. Others may disagree, but the current model is way too soft.<br />Add IS to the 24-70 f/2.8, even if it raises the price a bunch.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My money is something in this range to be next, maybe a 24-135 F4IS or updated 24-70 or whatever just because it will be a big seller. IMO both of these lenses are excellent the way they are, my 24-105 was a bit soft until I had it calibrated and then it was very sharp. The 24-70 is excellent, the only way I would upgrade is if they can make it lighter.</p>

<p> </p>

[symple]

<p>TS-E 90L - nine bladed 'round' aperture and tilt/shift relationship like 17 TS-E.</p>

[JamesFarabaugh]

<p>I'm with Bob - rather than add more options, I'd like prices to come down on what's already available. I wish lenses were like electronics - every time a new model comes out the older models see a price drop.<br>

I suppose an IS ultra-wide would be a nice addition. Is there a reason none of the wide angle lenses are IS?</p>

[jim_ducey]

<p>It would be nice to have a wide angle with IS say a 10- 24MM and a choice of macro lens with IS a bit less expensive than the present one.<br>

Jim</p>