What lens are you patiently waiting for?

[wickidwombat]

I would like to have a refresh of the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. Get rid of the push pull zoom and update the glass and I would be happy. I cant afford to get the new 200-400, beyond renting every time I want to use this focal length I'd like to own an affordable big zoom. Something under 3K. Is that doable or am I just better off buying the old 100-400

rumour came out a few months ago the new 100-400 f4-5.6L IS (notice f4)
wont be push pull and will be around $3000

[scottsdaleriots]

Right now it's two primes - the 50L or even the 50mm 1.4 (which is what I want but most likely canon are never gonna update it) and the 35L (apparently people have been waiting for this lens to be updated since 2009?)

Im interesting in the 24 IS or 28IS. But those ^ two I really want. An updated 85L that's weather sealed and better AF and faster focussing in low light over the non-L would be nice. I want a 17-40mm 2.8L. Or a cheaper and updated 17-55mm 2.8 ISmkii

[Positron]

EF 14-24 2.8L

This.

+1

+2

+3

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

    The sanely priced one!   Thanks, Canon!

Gary W.

[Positron]

Hey all,

    The sanely priced one!   Thanks, Canon!

Gary W.

I think the 17-40L and 70-200 f/4L, potentially among others, are incredibly good value already. I've yet to use a standard range zoom aside from the EF-S kit lens that felt like it was worth every penny.

[bycostello]

so much i'd like to buy... nothing i really need to but though...

[GND]

The EF 50mm f/1.4 II USM -- no IS!

Same here!

50/1.4 II USM, 72mm thread same as the 1.2L (light gatherer), weather sealed.

[funkboy]

ANY prime f/2 or faster with IS.  & at this point it's been so long that I mean any, from 14mm to 135mm, would make me happy.  These new f/2.8 wides are a step in the right direction & certainly the first non-macro non-L primes we've seen from Canon since 1995, but even Canon acknowledged that their primary purpose was as compact video lenses.  I've already got a 24-105 f/4L IS, why would I drop 90% of what I paid for it on a prime in the same focal length that's only one stop faster?

[stolpe]

EF 14-24 2.8L

This.

+1

+2

+3

+4

[Stu_bert]

EF 14-24 2.8L

This.

+1

+2

+3

+4

+5

[bonedaddy.p7]

Tokina 11-16 DX II ... I wish it was coming out the same time as the Nikon version, but oh well, I'll just bide my time.

[Daniel Flather]

ef 20mm f2.0L  (or f2.8 if f2.0 would ram up the price too much) no IS, and it better have awesome bokeh, I'm talking 200/2 quality here or 24/1.4ii.

[jrista]

EF 14-24 2.8L

This.

+1

+2

+3

+4

+5

+6

[thejoyofsobe]

the patented 35mm f/2.0 IS

[YellowJersey]

To be honest, I'm not waiting on any lenses. The two lenses I have (24-105 and 17-40) cover me just fine 99% of the time. The only situation I want to shoot for which I lack a really good lens is a long exposure of the Milky Way... and I'm not about to shell out for the 16-35 or 14mm 2.8 for just that. For my budget and my subject matter, I'm completely satisfied with what I've got.