Realistic wish lens

[wickidwombat]

I love my 24-105 f4L IS its's fantastic, however If I could wish up a lens it would be a 24-105 f2.8L IS having the new IS from the 100mm macro I guess it would be a bit of a beast size and weight wise might need to go up to the 82mm filter size? I think its probably possible. It would probably cost a fortune too but thats ok i'd still buy it in a heartbeat
Is there any reason they couldn't make a lens like this?
I also wonder how big physically a lens like this would be? I'm guessing maybe a little bigger than the 70-200

what would be your wish lenses that you think they could realistically make?

[keithfullermusic]

My dream lens is a 7-800mm f/1.2 IS that weighs 1/4 pound and has perfect sharpness all over and cost $20 US.  If they can make a little robot that flies to mars and drives around doing science experiments there is NO reason why my dream lens can't happen.

[samueljay]

My dream lens is a 7-800mm f/1.2 IS that weighs 1/4 pound and has perfect sharpness all over and cost $20 US.  If they can make a little robot that flies to mars and drives around doing science experiments there is NO reason why my dream lens can't happen.

ahahahahaha

[Jamesy]

The 24-105 IS weighs in at 670g and the 24-70 (No IS) weighs 950g (a.k.a The Brick) so it stands to reason that a 24-105/2.8 IS would be well north of 1Kg - more likely 1.5Kg which is in the territory of a 70-200/2.8 IS. I too have thought a 24-105/2.8 IS would be one hell of a walk-around.

I presently have a 40D/17-55/2.8 IS combo and have been debating picking up a 5D2/24-105 kit. The loss of a stop of light is more than taken care of with the higher ISO capabilities. I could go the 24-70 route but like the idea of the reach on the 24-105 - purely as a walk-around.

I echo your wish for a 24-105/2.8 IS, provided it could be produced around 1Kg - but I don't think that is possible.

[keithfullermusic]

For me, I can't see myself buying an L lends under 2.8.  Not just in terms of light, but for the look of the shot.  I almost never shoot at f/4 or anywhere right around there.  Usually, I'm looking for maximum bokeh or mega-sharpness (around f/7-14 depending on the lens).  I always find shots around f/4-f/6ish to have a boring look.  Of course I don't mean all the time.  I'm sure there are plenty of amazing shots at that aperture, and I know I've taken some that I really like.

I just feel like L lenses are so effing expensive that they better be perfect, and f/4 is just not cutting it at that zoom range.  That is probably why they are always part of the nicer kit packages.  No one really wants to buy one, but it's nice enough to throw in and sweeten the 5D deal.

[dr croubie]

A zoom in any range that goes faster than f/2.8 would be nice. (even a f/2-f/3.5 variable would be ok)
As would a 'portrait zoom', like 40-150mm.
Combine those specs into a 40-150 f/2 the size/weight/price of a 70-200 f/2.8LISii and it'd sell well imho. Stick it on a 1DX and there's your killer wedding kit.

200-400 f/4 x1.4 is a bit of a dream of mine (although i doubt i'll ever afford one), it's in prototype just not released yet.

300-800 f/5.6 would be nice, slow to keep size/weight/price down enough (not like the Sigma grenade launcher), although it'll still probably end up in the ranges of the EF 800/5.6

Still, i'm hanging out for the EFs 11mm f/2 (patent exists), and/or EFs 28/30/35 f/1.4/1.6/1.8 (everyone else has one except Canon).

[EYEONE]

I heard a rumor that they made a 24-105mm f2.8 but it was the size and weight of a 70-200 f2.8 IS II. Which defeats the purpose a general purpose lens.

There are physical limits to constant aperture lenses.

[wickidwombat]

I heard a rumor that they made a 24-105mm f2.8 but it was the size and weight of a 70-200 f2.8 IS II. Which defeats the purpose a general purpose lens.

There are physical limits to constant aperture lenses.

if it was the size of the 70-200 f2.8 II I would be pretty happy 1.5kg lens is fine IMO for walkaround

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I love my 24-105 f4L IS its's fantastic, however If I could wish up a lens it would be a 24-105 f2.8L IS having the new IS from the 100mm macro I guess it would be a bit of a beast size and weight wise might need to go up to the 82mm filter size? I think its probably possible. It would probably cost a fortune too but thats ok i'd still buy it in a heartbeat
Is there any reason they couldn't make a lens like this?
I also wonder how big physically a lens like this would be? I'm guessing maybe a little bigger than the 70-200

what would be your wish lenses that you think they could realistically make?

It is definitely feasible, a similar lens already exists, so its not some far fetched dream.  See the Tamron 28-105mm f/2.8 here.  They are out of production, but you might find a used one for about $350 - $500.

I think that Canon believes that sales would not justify the cost of development and tooling.  Apparently, there was not a big enough market for Tamron to keep making them, but times have changed, so who knows.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=242&sort=7&cat=43&page=1

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tamron-SP-AF-Aspherical-LD-IF-28-105mm-f-2-8-Canon-/220825895836?pt=Camera_Lenses

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tamron-AF-Mt-SP-28-105mm-f-2-8-Lens-Canon-EOS-/230620950019

[AprilForever]

For me, 20-135 f4 L IS. Just a might wider, and a mudge longer than my 24-105... f2.8 would be nice, though not throughly necessary. I wouldnay mind the weight or size (I'm big...). Though I would be satisfied with f4...

Also, Canon 100-300 f4. Sigma once made one, and it was wonderful! Maybe make that 70-300 f4... make it EF-S and we'll call it a day!

And, I'll second that 11 f2 ,,, (maybe I just shutmeself up and go pony up for the tokina 11-16 2.8...)

And, a 50-150 f2 IS...

[J. McCabe]

The 24-105 IS weighs in at 670g and the 24-70 (No IS) weighs 950g (a.k.a The Brick) so it stands to reason that a 24-105/2.8 IS would be well north of 1Kg - more likely 1.5Kg which is in the territory of a 70-200/2.8 IS. I too have thought a 24-105/2.8 IS would be one hell of a walk-around.

Why is the 24-70mm f/2.8 so big & heavy ?

E.g. does it really need such a big front element ? 70mm / 2.8 is just 25mm, and it's front element is around 77mm.

[torger]

An "affordable" 500/5.6 IS, and a 400/5.6 IS, preferably with an APS-C body that can focus on f/8 so you can combine these with 1.4x teleconverter. That is a little bit more affordable bird photography for the amateurs.

And then new tilt-shift lenses, a 35 (new focal length for TS-E), 45 and 90 with the same fine movements and L treatment as the new TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 II to make still life photographers happy.

[torger]

Why is the 24-70mm f/2.8 so big & heavy ?

E.g. does it really need such a big front element ? 70mm / 2.8 is just 25mm, and it's front element is around 77mm.

The recent lens design article gives some leads:
http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/lens-genealogy/

Specific focal ranges require specific lens designs. The problem is the wide-angle end, lots of glass is required to support that with good quality.

[ianhar]

I once felt that walking around with 1ds attached with 70-200 f2.8 is is feasible. But by the end of the day my shoulder hurts and i never walk around with my 70-200 unless i really have to. Making a 24-105 f2.8 might be fun for awhile but you really dont want to walk around with your family carrying 3kg of gear on your shoulder everytime you are going out. It will lose its market as a general purpose lens. Unless they could make it for less than 1kg than it would be fine. Other than that 24-105 f2.8 surely be on my wishlist if it does happen

Another wish list would be 135 f1.4. Just like to see how will the image fair. Dont get me wrong the 135 f2.0 is amazing. I rented it out few times, but would like to see this excellent lens to go even further.

[Cetalis]

A 24-105 f/2.8 would be heavy and expensive, and if price and weight aren't an issue, neither is a second body with a 70-200 f/2.8.

Personally i'd like to see a 200-400 f/4-5.6 IS, 24-35 f/2, and a good 15-135 IS EFS USM,
Also, +1 on the 11mm f/2.
Edit: think it was mentioned somewhere that the 11 f/2 was for projectors, and come to think of it, an 11mm f/2.8+ is far more realistic...