New lens wish list for Canon (2011)

[noncho_iliev]

<p>Well...<br>

I want:<br>

EF-S 30 f1.8 - light and cheap.<br>

EF-S 12 f2.8 - missing wide EF-S prime<br>

EF-S 15-60 IS f4 - 15-85 is good, but I would charge last 25mm for constant f4.<br>

And something to replace old 100-400 IS... 120-360 IS F4 would be great.</p>

 

[david_deppen]

<p>EF 24 f2 USM<br>

EF 35 f2 USM</p>

[john_catapano2]

<p>600/5.6L IS - been asking for years!</p>

[dan_b.4]

<p>The 70-200mm f2.8 USM IS II is my first choice, for shooting sports events. Next choice is a 24mm f3.5 TS-E L II tilt-shift lens for architectural work.</p>

[boz]

Hmm a fixed focal length true wide for 1.6 crop- say a 10mm or 14mm, to

equate to a 16 or 21mm prime. But how much would such a lens cost?

[zafar1]

<p>Hey Canon. The dollar is so cheap, and yen so expensive. Move your factories over to USA. I dont need you to make new lenses, just make your existing lineup more affordable.</p>

[dan_b.4]

<p><em>"Hey Canon. The dollar is so cheap, and yen so expensive. Move your factories over to USA. I dont need you to make new lenses, just make your existing lineup more affordable."</em></p>

<p>For sure. I guess the silver lining to the rotten U.S. economy is that, if it gets much worse, the rest of the world will soon be outsourcing their jobs here.</p>

[tapani]

<p>200/2.8L IS. After the 400/5.6, the longest L tele without IS.</p>

<p>100-300/4L IS, possibly with built-in 1.4x extender. If they could make one about the same size and weight as the 100-400L, I'd jump for it at almost any price.</p>

 

[gooseberry]

<p>If only Canon had something like <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2163/AF-S-NIKKOR-14-24mm-f%252F2.8G-ED.html" target="_blank">14-24mm f/2.8</a> instead of 16-35...<br />...seriously, wouldn't it be a better match with both 24-70 and 24-105, the two most popular mid-range L zooms?<br />(From what I read, I seem to recall user feedback that Nikon's ultra-wide zoom also performs better; the edge sharpness of Canon's not-exactly-equivalent isn't impressive to be honest.)</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>There's no interest in a 14-24/2.8 here.<br>

Sure, it's a great lens, but it's a bulbous-front lens. For out to 17 or 16 mm, the ability to use a polarizer (for specular reflections from foliage and whathaveyou, not just skies) is significant. And Sigma has announced a new version of the 12-24 (which is already good for interiors (although mine's corners are poor at infinity)). For interiors, that extra 2 mm is real nice, but for "normal" things, I find 17mm to be pretty radical, so a 17-40/4.0 II with sharp corners would be on my 5D2 almost all the time. Were one to appear. Sigh. Until then, it's the Zeiss 21/2.8 for pictorial things, Sigma for fun things, Voightlander 40/2.0 for normal things. Notice that I'm shooting a Canon-free kit...</p>

 

[gooseberry]

<blockquote>

<p>David Littleboy wrote:<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=359171"><br /></a><em>There's no interest in a 14-24/2.8 here. Sure, it's a great lens, but it's a bulbous-front lens. For out to 17 or 16 mm, the ability to use a polarizer is significant.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>But doesn't <a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/12-24mm-f45-56-ex-dg-asp-hsm-sigma">Sigma's 12-24mm</a> sport just as bulbous front element? -- there's no way one could attach any screw-on filter to it (which I like to do for protection). It accepts rear type gelatin filters though, so guess you could polarize the light, but I don't like how polarizers work on ultra-wide angle lenses: in my experience with 17-35mm + CPL, always only part of the image in the frame is affected, thus creating weird transitions.</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>For normal to wide work, I really don't want bulbous*. And yes, you need to be careful with polarizers on wide lenses, but you want to be able to use one (not just skies). One goes fairly nuts worrying about scratching a bulbous front element, so you don't want a bulbous front element for everyday wide work. And bulbous front elements collect snow and rain...<br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/112742731/large">http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/112742731/large</a><br>

It's all how you work, of course. Here, I really like the 20 to 40mm range, and were there a better 17-40 lens, it'd be on the camera almost all the time.</p>

<p>*: The Sigma is bulbous, but it's also wider than the Nikon 14-24/2.8. So it gets a pass. As a special-use lens.</p>