Lenses that you want Canon to release next

[sagittariansrock]

Some long lists, but the question is how many of these will you buy. At least within a year of release?
Let's have some realistic lists.
Which lenses you want Canon to produce and you will pre-order if they do?
I'll start:
85/1.4
135 IS
20/1.8
(Not if they are all released simultaneously, I won't have the dough for that )

 

[sagittariansrock]

A version of the 70-300 IS USM lens that isn't rubbish and doesn't cost over $1000.

And I'd like some low calorie ribeye steak, too.

It is far from out of the question. A full frame 70-300 STM has been rumoured (I think I remember a patent), and would be a logical follow up to the 24-105 STM.If it has a non rotating filter and good IQ (as recent STM lenses for EF-S), it will only lack the USM, external appearance and high price of the 70-300L.

Logic says that it will come, but only if willing to sacrifice USM for the silent but slower STM. I would have settled for that instead of stretching to the wonderful L, if the existing non-L USM had not been so dissapointing in so many ways.

I had waited for that lens for a long time following logic, and still am. But I am less than hopeful. Canon has tiered it such that people are forced to buy the more expensive lens if they want quality or go bust. The non-L has so many issues- ergonomics, no true ring USM, few aperture blades, rotating front element. It was just a difficult lens to love.
...
Your idea about an STM makes sense. But having used STM lenses, I don't think I'd want one if I am shooting birds or sports- it's just too slow. So even if it comes out, I'd not benefit from it.

The Tamron 70-300 is easier to love than the Canon and roughly the same price.

Maybe Tamron or Sigma will produce a competitor to the 70-300L that's < $1000 and has equivalent or better IQ.

Agree with both statements.
I had the 70-300 Tammy and it was a lot better than the Canon in handling (non-rotating FE, manual focus override, better build), was about 20% cheaper, and about the same in IQ.
But considering the fact that Canon is around 1.1K with discounts and street prices, I think the market will be tough for a third party lens, especially given the L zoom's reputation.

 

[tcmatthews]

I would like to see a new

• 100-400L
• 135 f2 IS L
• 180L IS Macro
• New 50mm

All of the Canon 50 mm need updating. I included the dates for just how old those lens are.

• 50L is great but a real specialty has some focusing issues out of my price range anyway.
• 50 1.4 USM (1992) needs fixing prone to breakage.
• 50 1.8 II (1990) is POS focus motor noisy slow, coatings suck, not sharp enough for my taste until stopped down to 2.8.
• 50 macro (1987) is archaic.

Personalty I think they need to release a new 50mm F1.8 STM to keep it cheep and a new 50mm F1.4 IS L.
I would not mind seeing an updated 50mm Macro.

I may just buy the Sigma 50 ART tired of waiting.

 

[gregorywood]

I'd like to see updated version of the non-L primes (50mm/85mm) done like the 24mm/28mm/35mm. I'd also like a fixed aperture 70-300mm zoom - f/4 would do nicely. Lastly, an update to the prime fisheye would be a great addition.

I think all of those would be great sellers if the prices weren't too terribly high. I'd buy all four.

 

[chromophore]

Lenses that I think Canon has the capability to produce in the near future:

1. EF 35/1.4L II USM. This would be an update to the existing 35/1.4L, to offer better corner performance with less astigmatism and coma.

2. EF 14-24/2.8L USM. A competitor to Nikon's version. But I believe Canon will not offer f/2.8 in this focal length range.

3. EF 100-400/3.5-5.6L IS USM. This would be a faster-aperture @ 100mm update of the current lens, with overall improvements. Zoom ring instead of push-pull design. It could end up being a DO lens, though.

4. TS-E 45/2.8L and TS-E 90/2.8L. It is said that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The existing designs are stellar lenses; but it seems only natural that the rest of the TS-E lineup should see L upgrades, with modern coatings, more flexible movements, and improved optics.

5. EF 50/1.4L USM. They should be feeling the pressure from Sigma's 50/1.4 Art. This design would discontinue the 50/1.2L, which is a portrait specialty lens with relatively poor corners and low contrast wide open.

Now for the lenses I *personally* fantasize about seeing Canon make, but doubt they can or will:

6. EF 50/1.0L II USM. The revival of 50mm f/1.0 would dovetail with the strategy of introducing a 50/1.4L. Here, Canon can use advancements in lens design and manufacturing that have occurred since the original 50/1.0L was produced. This lens would appeal to portrait photographers and those who prize a unique look over corner-to-corner sharpness.

7. EF 85/1.8 "Petzval" USM. Here, deliberate astigmatism and field curvature is introduced with heavy vignetting for a lens that combines a distinctive bokeh with modern autofocus technology. This lens could be made very, very cheaply--easily under $300, as it does not need to correct for these aberrations.

8. EF 300/1.8L USM. Canon has designed and patented it, at least on paper. It would be a beast, but without a doubt, there would be nothing remotely comparable in the 135mm format world.

9. Anything faster than f/2 with IS. No such lens exists in the EF lineup. Most likely, the first such lens would be a design in the normal focal length range.

 

[Jim Saunders]

Lenses that I think Canon has the capability to produce in the near future:

Now for the lenses I *personally* fantasize about seeing Canon make, but doubt they can or will:

8. EF 300/1.8L USM. Canon has designed and patented it, at least on paper. It would be a beast, but without a doubt, there would be nothing remotely comparable in the 135mm format world.

Your first four seem probable. #8 not so much, but I guarantee you I'd rent the hell out of one if it ever happened!

Jim

 

[vulie504]

16-35 f2.8 iii

 

[Hjalmarg1]

135L II
85L III redesign, similar to the 50 1.0 > 1.2 redesign

+1 135 II (or the 135 1.8L IS Mk I

+1 85L III (with fully internal focusing and no more focus by wire)

35L II

+1 All of the above and new 50mm lenses (50mm f1.2L II and/or 50mm f1.8 IS)

 

[Zv]

50mm / 85mm prime updates to the IS versions would be very welcome. The fifty is long long long overdue IMO. I'm not feelin the large and expensive Sigma. I want something the size of the EF 50mm 1.4 that's same price as the 35IS.

Anything wide would also be nice such as a 14-24mm, though it might be out of my price range. I guess the 16-35 f/4L IS is filling the ultra wide needs for the time being so I doubt we'll see another ultra wide zoom anytime soon.

Some more EF-M lenses like a few primes in the short tele range would be cool too.

Lenses I'd like to see released but not likely to buy -

35LII
50LII
100-400LII
TS 45 and 90 updates.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

2. EF 14-24/2.8L USM. A competitor to Nikon's version. But I believe Canon will not offer f/2.8 in this focal length range.

I personally feel should Canon not offer f/2.8, it's not really a true competitor. The rumor was that this new wider zoom would cost $2800, so without at least f/2.8, Canon would be asking that we pay significantly more than the excellent Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 for a slower Canon version.

I very much hope you're wrong. If Canon wants to offer an f/4 or so, then I'd prefer to see two offerings by Canon just like Nikon's f/4 12-24 and f/2.8 14-24.

 

[e17paul]

I'd like to see updated version of the non-L primes (50mm/85mm) done like the 24mm/28mm/35mm. I'd also like a fixed aperture 70-300mm zoom - f/4 would do nicely. Lastly, an update to the prime fisheye would be a great addition.

I think all of those would be great sellers if the prices weren't too terribly high. I'd buy all four.

...and 20mm too, or maybe a fraction wider. I'm still keeping an old Vivitar 19-35 for those occasions wgere the 24 IS just isnt wide enough.

 

[Random Orbits]

2. EF 14-24/2.8L USM. A competitor to Nikon's version. But I believe Canon will not offer f/2.8 in this focal length range.

I personally feel should Canon not offer f/2.8, it's not really a true competitor. The rumor was that this new wider zoom would cost $2800, so without at least f/2.8, Canon would be asking that we pay significantly more than the excellent Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 for a slower Canon version.

I very much hope you're wrong. If Canon wants to offer an f/4 or so, then I'd prefer to see two offerings by Canon just like Nikon's f/4 12-24 and f/2.8 14-24.

If the rumored Canon zoom starts at 11mm, then it is a different league than what Nikon has no matter the aperture. Nikon's 12-24mm f/4 is for APS-C only, so the angle of view isn't as wide 11mm, and there is a big difference between 11mm and 24mm.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

2. EF 14-24/2.8L USM. A competitor to Nikon's version. But I believe Canon will not offer f/2.8 in this focal length range.

I personally feel should Canon not offer f/2.8, it's not really a true competitor. The rumor was that this new wider zoom would cost $2800, so without at least f/2.8, Canon would be asking that we pay significantly more than the excellent Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 for a slower Canon version.

I very much hope you're wrong. If Canon wants to offer an f/4 or so, then I'd prefer to see two offerings by Canon just like Nikon's f/4 12-24 and f/2.8 14-24.

If the rumored Canon zoom starts at 11mm, then it is a different league than what Nikon has no matter the aperture. Nikon's 12-24mm f/4 is for APS-C only, so the angle of view isn't as wide 11mm, and there is a big difference between 11mm and 24mm.

I can't argue with any of that. My only real point was that if this lens is real, Canon will continue to have no fast and sharp (compared to the new 16-35 f/4) ultra wide zoom, which is a shame.

 

[Random Orbits]

I can't argue with any of that. My only real point was that if this lens is real, Canon will continue to have no fast and sharp (compared to the new 16-35 f/4) ultra wide zoom, which is a shame.

And before this year, Canon had nothing that was sharp wide open in the ultrazoom category at all. Now we have the 16-35 f/4 IS and, if the rumor is true, a 11-24 f/4 might appear soon. Perhaps Canon can't figure out a way to design a good 14-24 f/2.8 w/o infringing on Nikon's patents, or maybe it did market research and found that people would rather have a 11-24 f/4 rather than a 14-24 f/2.8. I'd prefer that Canon update the 16-35 f/2.8 II rather than a 14-24 f/2.8 anyway. The extra FL on the long end saves on a lot of lens-changes and makes the 16-35 much more versatile (and easily filterable).

 

[meli]

8. EF 300/1.8L USM. Canon has designed and patented it, at least on paper. It would be a beast, but without a doubt, there would be nothing remotely comparable in the 135mm format world.

Well, there was.., Nikon had a 300/2 back in the 80s

 

[20Dave]

I would like to see a new

• 100-400L
• 135 f2 IS L
• 180L IS Macro
• New 50mm

You listed the two lenses that I am on the lookout for (100-400L II and a 180L macro with IS). I have the 400L prime and really like it, but I would love IS. If a 100-400L comes out at north of $3000 US, then I'd consider either a 300 2.8 or a 500 instead, but would most likely buy none of the above at those prices. I think that the 180 macro is a pipe dream and would (again) be ridiculously expensive if/when it does come out. I'm seriously looking at the Sigma 150 and 180 macros.

EDIT: I would add a 400L 5.6 prime with IS to my wish list, which I would buy over a new 100-400L II if it was two out of {lighter/sharper/cheaper} than the zoom.

 

[Tanispyre]

I want a work over of the normal to short telephoto lenses with is, like the 24, 28, and 30 is.

 

[zlatko]

These with upgraded optics over the version I originals:
EF 20/2.8 II
EF 28/1.8 II or 28/2.0
EF 50/1.4 II

These with IS added:
EF 50/1.8 IS or 50/2.0 IS (with upgraded optics over 50/1.8 nifty fifty)
EF 85/1.8 IS
EF 135/2L IS *the lens I would most like to see!*

These for APS-C cameras:
EF-S 22/1.4
EF-S 32/1.4
EF-S 54/1.8 IS
EF-S 85/1.8 IS
EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS II (with upgraded build quality over the original)

 

[Jim Saunders]

I want a work over of the normal to short telephoto lenses with is, like the 24, 28, and 30 is.

Maybe I get you wrong (or incompletely) but what is missing for you from the 16-35 f/4?

Jim

 

[Runnerguy]

I just want the 100-400L II when I need to go lite