Lenses that you want Canon to release next
- Thread starter Fatfaso
- Start date
RGF said:
Difficult to speculate on price, but when one considers that the 400 mm DO II sells for $6899 vs $6099 for 300 mm f2.8 (13% price increase), the 600 mm f4 DO might go for 13% more than the current 600 mm lens, which would be ~$13K. Of course, this is purely speculation. Canon might even price the DO lens similar to the current L II lenses to make it more competitive.
Upvote
0
Why not an EF 50-105 f/2.0 L IS USM (or maybe even 1.8) with stellar optics, targeted at portrait-, wedding- and fashion- photographers. Perhaps it would also attract indoor sports shooters and street photographers.
Please Canon, think a little outside the box and present something new and innovative.
Please Canon, think a little outside the box and present something new and innovative.
Upvote
0
abbebus said:
My dream is a new version of 24-105:
EF 24-105 F/1.8 L IS USM with the highest possible optical performance using latest Canon optical technologies so that optical quality would be even better than EF 24-70 F/2.8L USM II and also faster AF.
I would not hesitate to buy such one immediately when it becomes available
Upvote
0
Okay, this is pretty petty, but I'd like to see a 24-70 F/2.8 L go back to a 77mm thread size. I don't have many filters, but almost all of my lenses (the one's I'd use the filters on) are 77mm. Price you pay for progress I guess. 
Same goes for a 16-35 F/2.8. Both lenses used to have 77mm threads.
Same goes for a 16-35 F/2.8. Both lenses used to have 77mm threads.
Upvote
0
Lots of different options. A few that would catch my eye:
1. Something similar to the Sigma 20 f/1.4
2. A 70-300 f/4 IS DO L. Get up the a 77 mm or, more likely, 82 mm thread, if more is needed, then stay at max f/5.6. But hopefully shorter than the current 70-300 L. More the zoom ring back to where it should be
3. F/2 zooms.
1. Something similar to the Sigma 20 f/1.4
2. A 70-300 f/4 IS DO L. Get up the a 77 mm or, more likely, 82 mm thread, if more is needed, then stay at max f/5.6. But hopefully shorter than the current 70-300 L. More the zoom ring back to where it should be
3. F/2 zooms.
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
Why should it be the size of 400/2.8 and cost of 12k ?
Should not be significantly heavier and bigger than EF 85 f/1.2L II.
And maybe 30-40% longer than 24-70 f/2.8L II.
Just use of latest Canon advances in optical technologies: blue spectrum refractive optic, fluorite elements, new coating, better weather sealing , faster and more precise focusing etc.
Would not hesitate to buy such one immediately even if it would cost 4-5k.
This could be extremely universal solution for many situations, especially combined with coming 1DX II which I hope will have at least 1 stop better high ISO than 1DX or better even 1 stop better than Sony a7s and a7rII which are both better than 1DX at high ISO. Currently with a7rII and Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 I can do handheld shots at very low light with quality significantly better than using 1DX. No need for using tripod any more. A7rII IBIS helps a lot.
1DX II with such new 24-105 f/1.8L IS USM could change game back in favour of Canon.
Upvote
0
Neutral said:
Because it would be ENORMOUS, and very hard to make good optically.
Wrong.
The 85/1.2 is a telephoto design. A 24-105 has to be a retrofocus design.
As yourself why a 24-105/4 has to have 77mm filter threads which is already bigger than an 85/1.2. In fact, the 24-105 at f/4 is bigger than the 85/1.2:
85/1.2: 3.6" x 3.3" 36oz 72mm threads
24-105 3.3" x 4.2" 36oz 77mm threads
Now, make it f/1.8 instead of f/4. It'll have to be at least 3/4" bigger in diameter just to accommodate the larger entrance pupil at the wide end. And it's going to have to be longer and heavier to accommodate the elements to correct it.
Let's compare to a couple things that already exist:
Sigma 18-35/1.8 for crop: 3.07 x 4.76" 28.5oz
Sigma 24-35/2 for FF: 3.4 x 4.8" 33.2oz
You're basically asking for the Sigma 24-35 to have its focal length tripled while also making it faster by half a stop and keep it about the same size. That's entirely unrealistic.
Let's do a little math:
Triple focal length = triple aperture. Cost goes up with aperture cubed: $1k becomes $9k
Half a stop faster. Cost goes up with f-stop squared: $20k
Canon multiplier compared to Sigma: 2.5 = $50k
Okay, I doubt it would be that expensive, but I'm sure it would be more than $10k, and while it probably wouldn't be the size of the 400/2.8, it would be closer to the 200/2.
Upvote
0
Lee Jay said:
Good math )
Personally do not mind size of 200/2 for such 24-105f/1.8L IS USM lens.
OK, could agree on f/2 or even f/2.2 to make it a bit smaller and more affordable.
Even for f/2 or f/2.2 this would be very exclusive lens with no competitors on the market for very long time. Would be dream for many photographers.
Would be also less people complaining about Canon lack of innovation )
High, difficult goals and their implementations are important contributors to success.
Upvote
0
I would vote for:
1. EF-S 15-45 f/2.8 IS USM (perhaps even as L)
2. TS-E 100 f/4 macro
1: as a replacement for the EF-S 17-55 with a focal length range more closely matching 24-70 and with updated IS and better build quality (and some weather sealing).
2: Tilt is more important than shift on this one. This would allow to do sharp macro photos of flat objects while shooting at some angle not perpendicular to the surface. Should be 1:1 macro.
1. EF-S 15-45 f/2.8 IS USM (perhaps even as L)
2. TS-E 100 f/4 macro
1: as a replacement for the EF-S 17-55 with a focal length range more closely matching 24-70 and with updated IS and better build quality (and some weather sealing).
2: Tilt is more important than shift on this one. This would allow to do sharp macro photos of flat objects while shooting at some angle not perpendicular to the surface. Should be 1:1 macro.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
