Lenses that you want Canon to release next

[eml58]

Hail Mary, But Canon aren't that dense I think, who would buy a Canon Lens between 15 & 135 ?? if the Zeiss Lenses AF on a Canon Body, exception being the TSE lenses.

Hmmmm, just a thought here, but maybe people who don't have unlimited amounts of disposable income? People who can't afford to drop $4-6k on every single lens?

Your right of course, my humble apology, I should have been more specific.

If Zeiss had Lenses that AF on a Canon body, Canon would certainly loose some of their Lens Market to the Zeiss option, in particular to those People who are prepared to pay for that extra IQ the Zeiss Lenses generally provide, albeit at a sizeable cost increase.

This is the area that Sigma with their Art Series Lenses are putting a lot of Dollars & effort into, improved IQ at a reasonable price comparison to Canon, Zeiss tend to work on the best possible IQ, but at a price.

 

[Random Orbits]

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

I think he's saying that he would like to see lenses like the 50 and 85 get the same makeover/upgrade as the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS.

 

[zlatko]

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

I think he's saying that he would like to see lenses like the 50 and 85 get the same makeover/upgrade as the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS.

I agree. The new 24, 28 and 35 with IS are good lenses. I'd like to see the same updates for the 50 and 85.

And one more I'd really like to see for EF-S cameras: EF-S 40-135/2.8 IS ... this would the be EF-S version of the big but heavy 70-200/2.8L IS.

 

[TAF]

I would like an EF 20-150/f2.8 L IS USM

 

[Lee Jay]

70-400/4-5.6L IS
15-28/2.8 fisheye
24-85/2.8L IS

 

[Mitch.Conner]

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).

Don't get me wrong, I'm really not trying to bash Canon or anything, and the recent efforts towards filling in its comparatively deficient UWA offerings is great, I just hope that it doesn't end here for a chunk of time. I too would be thrilled to see a 16-35 f/2.8 iii. If it has IS too it would be amazing (and probably expensive, but I know at least I'd be willing to pay for something like that, I imagine there are others who would too). A slightly wider fast zoom such as the one hinted at earlier this year (http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/canon-working-on-faster-f2-8-ultra-wide-zoom-cr2/) would also be welcome.

As for Canon doing market research and finding that people would rather have f/4 than f/2.8, I don't know. Anything is possible I guess.

As for the patent issue, I doubt that's the problem, but I'm certainly not in a position to say with any degree of certainty that it isn't playing a role. While I've been studying patent law for some time and am hoping to soon practice IP law with a concentration in patent litigation, I'm certainly no patent prosecutor nor am I an optical engineer.

Rather than continue to speculate though, let's wait and see if this new lens is real in the end. If it turns out that it is AND that a high MP camera is set to be announced alongside it, it would lend credibility to the rumor about a new fast ultra wide zoom and it'll come down to probably buying the 16-35 f/4 IS to hold me over until the faster lens is released.

 

[Helios68]

As a wildlife photography newcomer I would love to hesitate between the following new lenses:
-EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
-EF 300mm f/4L IS II
-EF 400mm f/5.6L IS
-EF 500mm f/5.6L IS

For more allround use: EF 18-105 f/4L IS

And the world would be perfect if pricing was affordable (max 2000€).
I know I am quite a dreamer

 

[bholliman]

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.

+1 A 400 f/5.6 IS would be next on my wish list if available. If not, I may buy a venerable but excellent 400 f/5.6 anyway.

 

[Photographer-at-Large]

Instead of EF 135mm f/2.0 L IS,
I wish Canon would release EF 75-150mm f/2.0 L IS

Instead of TS-E 45mm f/2.8L II,
I wish Canon would release TS-E 35-70mm f/2.8 L

Instead of TS-E 90mm f/2.8L II,
I wish Canon would release TS-E 70-140mm f/2.8 L

 

[StudentOfLight]

Primes:
EF 16mm f/2 with no coma
EF 35mm f/1.4 L II USM (or 43.3mm f/1.618 )
TS-E 60mm f/2.8 L
TS-E 135mm f/3.5 L (Macro 1:1)

Zooms:
EF 11-24mm f/4 USM
EF 35-85mm f/2 IS USM
EF 100-300mm f/4 L USM (1.4xTC)
EF 500mm f/5.6 L IS USM

 

[Lee Jay]

EF 100-300mm f/4 L USM (1.4xTC)
EF 500mm f/5.6 L IS USM

Let me ask you a question. I've thought about this before.

What if the 100-300/4 were a 100-350/4 or, conversely, the 500/5.6 were a 350/4? 350/4+1.4xTC = 500/5.6, and the new optics Canon has been putting out take teleconverters really, really well.

 

[knoxtown]

For the love of God, a new 20mm!!!!!!! i love the lens but it was released in 1992... I think it deserves to be put down and replaced with an L version.

 

[jheez]

I think from a business standpoint, Canon should release a good 50mm prime. It's the weakest spot in their lens lineup. I probably won't buy it, as I don't really shoot 50mm.

The lenses I have dreams of:
85mm f1.8 IS
135mm f2 IS (and if we can't get that....200 f2.8 IS). I'm sick of carrying around my 70-200 2.8. A 135 f2 IS would sell extremely well IMO. Almost every wedding photographer I know would buy one.

Might be a cool possibility:
150mm f2.8 IS macro

 

[Helios68]

For the love of God, a new 20mm!!!!!!! i love the lens but it was released in 1992... I think it deserves to be put down and replaced with an L version.

+1
A new 20mm with large aperture why not:
-EF mount and not EF-S
-Aperture 1.8 or 2
-USM or even STM
-L or not L?
-Fair price

It would be really useful for architecture and low light conditions in general. I have been looking for one these last month but I'm still waiting for a new release from Canon.

 

[Helios68]

EF 500mm f/5.6 L IS USM

+1

It would also be a good one. And better if it could work fine with the tele 1.4x mounted behind. The new 7D mkII should be also to AF with this setup, I think. With good light condition it would bring to a nice 700 f/8. Not to bad for birds maybe !

 

[StudentOfLight]

EF 100-300mm f/4 L USM (1.4xTC)
EF 500mm f/5.6 L IS USM

Let me ask you a question. I've thought about this before.

What if the 100-300/4 were a 100-350/4 or, conversely, the 500/5.6 were a 350/4? 350/4+1.4xTC = 500/5.6, and the new optics Canon has been putting out take teleconverters really, really well.

Yes either would be good.

The reason I separated it into two fantasy lenses was 100-300/4 for larger wildlife but with the convenience and dust-avoidance of a built-in TC. I thought 350/4 might bring it too close to the 200-400/4 and also would make it heavier (maybe as much as 30% heavier...).

I'd like to see a 500/5.6 IS to displace the ageing but still good 400/5.6. As a prime it could hopefully be less expensive, lighter and offer fewer IQ compromises than third party zooms in this range. In my mind a lens to take on Tamron and Sigma in the "reach-on-a-budget" fight. (e.g. 150-600mm)

 

[Mitch.Conner]

I'm going to narrow my previous post down to the two I want to see most:

1. 24-70 f/2.8L IS
2. 16-35 f/2.8L IS

Along with the existing 70-200 f/2.8 IS II that would be the holy trinity for me to have in my bag always.

 

[Khalai]

I'm going to narrow my previous post down to the two I want to see most:

1. 24-70 f/2.8L IS
2. 16-35 f/2.8L IS

Along with the existing 70-200 f/2.8 IS II that would be the holy trinity for me to have in my bag always.

While I would certainly appreciated the 24-70/2.8L IS USM lens, I'd be worried about price tag, considering what I have to shell out for its non-IS version :-\

 

[davidcl0nel]

While I would certainly appreciated the 24-70/2.8L IS USM lens, I'd be worried about price tag, considering what I have to shell out for its non-IS version :-\

Usual the double, isn't? So a small amount of ~4K...

 

[Antono Refa]

EF 14-24mm USM f/2.8 - would welcome wider long side, and would settle for f/4.

EF 16-35mm f/2.8 III USM - I'd rather have improved IQ over IS, but wouldn't object to having both, if the price is right.