Lenses that you want Canon to release next

[mb66energy]

EF 40-200 4.0 L IS USM (replacement for my 70-200 4.0 L USM)
EF 50 1.4 IS USM with compact outline and 1:3 close focus capability (with good IQ from f/4.0 on for close distances)
Both lenses with brilliant contrast and flare resistance.

With my 100mm Macro and a 16-35 it would make a great 2-Body-2-Lens-Combo ... depending on the needs.

 

[jeffa4444]

There are a few aging sirens in Canon range and one of those is the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM.
This lens could do with a increase in maximum aperture to f2.8 and image stablisation to the same level as the EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM.
The EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM is a steller lens as both a macro and a regular 100mm where its a great portrait lens. The disadvantage is subject distance at 1:1 macro to light small subjects this is where the 180mm wins out by why no image stabiliser and if we can have an EF 200mm f2.8LII USM lens the f2.8 must be doable on the 180MM.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

There are a few aging sirens in Canon range and one of those is the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM.
This lens could do with a increase in maximum aperture to f2.8 and image stablisation to the same level as the EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM.
The EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM is a steller lens as both a macro and a regular 100mm where its a great portrait lens. The disadvantage is subject distance at 1:1 macro to light small subjects this is where the 180mm wins out by why no image stabiliser and if we can have an EF 200mm f2.8LII USM lens the f2.8 must be doable on the 180MM.

If you fancy a 180mm F2.8 have a look at the Sigma 180 - lovely lens but a bit of a monster for practical purposes! Now if Canon were brave enough to make a 180/200 mm F5.6/F8 Macro then I would be in the queue! For Macro F8 gives very little depth of field (so we don't need F2.8!) plus the lens would be MUCH smaller, lighter and cheaper with a filter size of around 40mm or less it would be very slim and easy to handle. Canon already make some very good, fairly cheap, fast general purpose lenses at around these focal lengths so lets have a proper (dedicated/practical) 180/200 F5.6/F8 Macro! IS - no thanks, but many like it.

 

[scyrene]

There are a few aging sirens in Canon range and one of those is the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM.
This lens could do with a increase in maximum aperture to f2.8 and image stablisation to the same level as the EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM.
The EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM is a steller lens as both a macro and a regular 100mm where its a great portrait lens. The disadvantage is subject distance at 1:1 macro to light small subjects this is where the 180mm wins out by why no image stabiliser and if we can have an EF 200mm f2.8LII USM lens the f2.8 must be doable on the 180MM.

If you fancy a 180mm F2.8 have a look at the Sigma 180 - lovely lens but a bit of a monster for practical purposes! Now if Canon were brave enough to make a 180/200 mm F5.6/F8 Macro then I would be in the queue! For Macro F8 gives very little depth of field (so we don't need F2.8!) plus the lens would be MUCH smaller, lighter and cheaper with a filter size of around 40mm or less it would be very slim and easy to handle. Canon already make some very good, fairly cheap, fast general purpose lenses at around these focal lengths so lets have a proper (dedicated/practical) 180/200 F5.6/F8 Macro! IS - no thanks, but many like it.

Of course, an f/8 lens wouldn't autofocus on most bodies...

 

[sjprg]

A 24mm F2.8 with the blue optics like the new 35mm.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Of course, an f/8 lens wouldn't autofocus on most bodies...
[/quote]

Didn't even think of that as I don't use AF for macro. Perhaps a nice small 5.6 then?

 

[Ozarker]

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.

A Canon 14-24mm f/2.8L IS USM would be so nice. I'm very happy with my Tamron 15-30mm, but it just seems weird having the overlap into my 24-70mm. I know, I'm strange in that sense.

If it performed as well as the Tamron I'd bite. If Canon came out with a 24-70 with IS I'd take that too.

Here's the thing: Make them all f/2L. The 135 f/2L isn't huge so why not? If it had to be a really large and heavy lens because it is a zoom lens I'd still take it.

Wouldn't a 14-24 f/2L IS, 24-70 f/2L IS, and a 70-200 f/2L IS be a sweet combo? I can only dream. I wouldn't care about weight or size.

Of course, then I'd have to come up with more $$$$ and it would destroy the idea that I am almost done buying lenses.

 

[scyrene]

Of course, an f/8 lens wouldn't autofocus on most bodies...

Didn't even think of that as I don't use AF for macro. Perhaps a nice small 5.6 then?
[/quote]

Could work! I'd still want an f/2.8 180-200ish though, for big insects and suchlike. As for AF-MF, do you use the 100L macro? The AF can be a lifesaver with moving subjects/handholding in less than ideal circumstances.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

To scyrene.

I use the standard Canon 100 F2.8 Macro - can't fault it.

The 100-400 Mk2 looks interesting for larger insects with a magnification of 0.31 and a decent working distance, haven't had the opportunity to try one properly yet.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

I would love to see a stabilized F/2 85mm prime. With modern optics of course.

 

[jblake]

Maybe a 100-400 IS STM or a 250-500 IS STM and a IS STM macro in the 50mm to 100mm range.

 

[JMZawodny]

Interesting question. I'd like to see Canon do an f/2.8 500mm DO. That would be an exciting and tempting lens for what I do.

 

[d]

Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8L BR - updated version of the 90 TS-E, adding the red ring, blue goo, and the ability to rotate tilt/shift mechanisms relative to each other, as with the 17mm TS-E/24mm TS-E II.

Canon EF 100mm f/1.8L IS USM - updated 100mm f/2 USM, whether sealed, 1/3 stop wider, and added IS. This will bump the size up a bit, but if it were around 135/f2 dimensions I'd be happy.


d.

 

[martti]

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.

Sigma came out with the 20mm f/1.4...
The same thing with a high-quality 50mm.
Why does it have to be Canon?

 

[TheJock]

A 500mm L f5.6 priced about the same as the 400mmL f5.6, or even with IS at double the price of the 400mmL.

 

[RobertG.]

An updated TS-E 45mm or 50mm f2 lens.

 

[scyrene]

A 500mm L f5.6 priced about the same as the 400mmL f5.6, or even with IS at double the price of the 400mmL.

You want them to add 25% on the focal length for free?

 

[9VIII]

A 500mm L f5.6 priced about the same as the 400mmL f5.6, or even with IS at double the price of the 400mmL.

You want them to add 25% on the focal length for free?

He didn't mention IQ, I'm sure they would have no technical problems pumping out a cheap 500mm lens.

If the could get a high quality 500f5.6 out for less than $4,000 I would be ecstatic.

 

[Bennymiata]

I want the mythical triple 1 lens.

1-1000mm f1.0.

 

[Don Haines]

I want the mythical triple 1 lens.

1-1000mm f1.0.

it costs 1 billion and weighs 1000 Kilos, delivery in 100 years