All the TS-E 90mm needs is the ability to rotate tilt/shift like Nikon PC-Es or the Canon 17mm TS-E and 24 TS-E.
The only reason to make this an "L" lens is to jack-up the price $600.00-$700.00! Putting a red stripe on this lens won't make it any sharper than it is now.
The more I use it, the more I find its limitations, my top 3 up for repair would be:
1. that tilt-shift thing, but I'd be baffled if canon does update the lens and doesn't bring the TS mech from the other new TS lenses
2. a degree or 2 more tilt would be REALLY helpful for product work.
3. Related to #2, a bit smaller MFD/higher magnification.
For #2 and #3, I feel like I'm always working at the far edge of what is possible, and I'd like to be able to go a little farther. For macroish work, the competing Nikon, the PC-E Micro 45mm can get as close as 1:2, where the Canon cuts out at 1:3. Closing that gap would really make my life easier.
In the realm of "never going to happen, why even worry about it" IS would be cool!
JSP
Yeah, I was asking for IS on the TS-Es. Actually, for a longer lens, I don't see why not. I'd put outlandish (but I've posted the idea here, figuring it wouldn't hurt to be hopeful...should email Canon about it) at a tilt-shift zoom.
About the limitations of the tilt-shift lenses, how do you feel about the limitation to infinity focus? I have been fighting (on a 1.6x crop body) with the limited range you can throw the plane of focus around in before I read an
article on LL which cites the limitation to infinity focus as being the cause of some of the trouble. It strikes me as correct. Obviously, focusing past infinity is bad in some situations, but hell, it's not like I trust infinity focus on Canon lenses anyway (even manual ones like the TS-E 17mm).
Apparently Canon's year of the lenses is year of the niche expensive lenses.
These are always the kind that get me excited, though I've finally come down from my perch to realize that I need a standard zoom, which I'll be getting this year instead of a macro. Probably a tilt-shift would be next actually, as 1/3 life size is still much better than what I've been dealing with lately. It would fit nicely in my own purchasing schedule if the other lenses came out a bit later when I can afford them.
I'm hoping I don't get boned badly by a 24-70mm update in the coming year, but if they do, I'm sure I can trade up and not take too big a hit. Of course, I'm always happy to see updates to popular lenses, even if the update will come at an inconvenient time.
I've been less interested in the 50mm f/1.4 recently because it's not sharp at f/1.4 (or close to it - as usual you have to get two stops down to be sharp, which feels like cycling that wheel forever in Aperture Priority, in 1/3 stop mode), and the field of view changes a bit as well. No macro capability whatsoever - even the TS-E 17mm focuses closer, by 200mm, for virtually the same maximum magnification (.14x for the 17 vs. .15x for the 50)! A useful lens but I'll have to see how well the 24-70mm f/2.8 replaces it for indoors and outdoors functions.
Edit: Ought to mention I've spent some minutes comparing various reviews of the 17-55mm with those of the 24-70mm...I think I've seen enough, looks like the 17-55mm has the edge. IS and sharpness over red ring and weather sealing (and better distortion but worse CA, ever so slightly).
