Lenses that you want Canon to release next

[AvTvM]

... I think there's 3 lenses left on the 'fix-it' list
50mm (all 3)
...
So let's start with the 50mm

in case you missed it: EF 50/1.8 STM is available since 2015 ... it is small, light, optically fantastic and dirt-cheap.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-STM-Lens.aspx
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f18-stm.htm

But 50/1.4 replacement is long overdue. 50/1.2 is not worth the money, update not needed, what for? A really great f/1.4 is all it takes.

 

[Sabaki]

... I think there's 3 lenses left on the 'fix-it' list
50mm (all 3)
...
So let's start with the 50mm

in case you missed it: EF 50/1.8 STM is available since 2015 ... it is small, light, optically fantastic and dirt-cheap.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-STM-Lens.aspx
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f18-stm.htm

But 50/1.4 replacement is long overdue. 50/1.2 is not worth the money, update not needed, what for? A really great f/1.4 is all it takes.

Silly me! Forgot the STM f/1.8 was released

I'd still like to see a f/1.2, just for the fact that it could produce an image quality no other 50mm can.

Then of course there's the engineering aspect. If Canon can produce a substantially better f/1.2, it offers the blueprint for other focal lengths to go f/1.2

 

[timmy_650]

I would want a 16 or 17 f2.8 non L NO IS for under $600. Something kinda lighter that I would take hiking. I have a 24-70 2.8 So I don't need 16-35 (I want) but it would be nice to save the weight. I think it would pair really well with the new 24-105 for hiking.

I just picked up the 16-35 f4is and I am very impressed so far. This lens doesn't seem to add any weight to my 5d3 with a grip and I would think would be a great lens for hiking.

I agree. The thing it lacks in being able to be a good night lens.

 

[Zv]

I would want a 16 or 17 f2.8 non L NO IS for under $600. Something kinda lighter that I would take hiking. I have a 24-70 2.8 So I don't need 16-35 (I want) but it would be nice to save the weight. I think it would pair really well with the new 24-105 for hiking.

I just picked up the 16-35 f4is and I am very impressed so far. This lens doesn't seem to add any weight to my 5d3 with a grip and I would think would be a great lens for hiking.

I agree. The thing it lacks in being able to be a good night lens.

Well, that depends. If you consider the IS ability to shoot handheld at quite slow shutter speeds, I'd say it's a pretty good "night lens". When walking about in the evening it's nice to have the ability to shoot at narrow apertures to get a nice dof without going ridiculously high on ISO.

Or are you referring to astro/night landscape? In which case it may not be ideal (though still useable).

 

[TAW]

I love to see an update to the 28-300... A 24-200 would also be welcomed with open arms...

The ideas of starting to incorporate an extender into the long lenses (like on the 200-400) is also very appealing. If Canon could incorporate both a 1.4x and 2.x integrated in the same lens (two bulges?), I would be lobbying my wife fairly hard for my next Christmas present (I only need one kidney anyways!)

Have a GREAT day!
tom

 

[SkynetTX]

Nowdays everyone want to have lenses with as large aperture as possible ( f/1.2-f/2.8 ) But for macro photographers a true macro with the smallest aperture of f/40+ would be better if possible. Though such a small apeture would require very long exposure time it could increase the DOF pretty much. (I made one of my best photos with aperture f/32 and 8 sec exposure time so with the aperture f/40+ the exposure time could have been around 12-15 sec.)

 

[AvTvM]

Nowdays everyone want to have lenses with as large aperture as possible ( f/1.2-f/2.8 ) But for macro photographers a true macro with the smallest aperture of f/40+ would be better if possible. Though such a small apeture would require very long exposure time it could increase the DOF pretty much. (I made one of my best photos with aperture f/32 and 8 sec exposure time so with the aperture f/40+ the exposure time could have been around 12-15 sec.)

in principle yes. However, in practice you may want to consider "diffraction" and how it adversely affects image quality.

 

[j-nord]

Nowdays everyone want to have lenses with as large aperture as possible ( f/1.2-f/2.8 ) But for macro photographers a true macro with the smallest aperture of f/40+ would be better if possible. Though such a small apeture would require very long exposure time it could increase the DOF pretty much. (I made one of my best photos with aperture f/32 and 8 sec exposure time so with the aperture f/40+ the exposure time could have been around 12-15 sec.)

in principle yes. However, in practice you may want to consider "diffraction" and how it adversely affects image quality.

Yes and the modern method is focus stacking. If you can take a 15 second exposure then, you can take a bunch of shorter and sharper images instead. The net result is better with focus stacking.

 

[e_honda]

• For both worlds (FF + APS-C): EF 4.0 40-200 L IS USM+STM with superior quality, good close focus (1:5...1:4 at 200mm seems to be realistic) in a compact package e.g. like a smaller version of the EF 70-300 L - would be my "standard" lens

You realize that the 70-200 F4 IS L is already bigger than an unzoomed 70-300 L, right? A 40-200 F4 IS would be a good amount bigger than that. That's something that's just unlikely to happen.

 

[ScottyP]

300mm f/4 or f/3.5 DO lens. Compact telephoto.

 

[tron]

Okay! So in the last few years, Canon have given us a new 24-70 f/2.8, 100-400, 35, 16-35 & 24-105 so I think there's 3 lenses left on the 'fix-it' list

50mm (all 3)
85mm (both)
14mm (make it the Astro king please!)

So let's start with the 50mm

YEEEES! I agree with this (especially after the 4.5 stops vignetting of 16-35 2.8L III ...

 

[Lfitz]

a 200-600mm f/5.6 L IS USM, that is as sharp as the new Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 and about the same price. I am tired of my Nikon friends having a sharper long zoom than me. The Tamron and Sigma 200-600 does not compare in sharpness or speed.

 

[mitchel2002]

a 200-600mm f/5.6 L IS USM, that is as sharp as the new Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 and about the same price. I am tired of my Nikon friends having a sharper long zoom than me. The Tamron and Sigma 200-600 does not compare in sharpness or speed.

whats with the new tamron 150 600

 

[tron]

Hmmm I know it won't happen (especially after the latest CR3 info) but this is a wish thread so I will say it anyway:

EF 85mm f/1.2L IS ;D ;D ;D

 

[Jopa]

11-1200 (+1.4x integrated) f/1.0L IS under 3lbs and under $1000 please.

 

[tron]

11-1200 (+1.4x integrated) f/1.0L IS under 3lbs and under $1000 please.

How Tilt and shift (while keeping AF capabilities) plus macro too? ;D

 

[Jopa]

11-1200 (+1.4x integrated) f/1.0L IS under 3lbs and under $1000 please.

How Tilt and shift (while keeping AF capabilities) plus macro too? ;D

Works for me The macro should be 5:1 though.

 

[chrysoberyl]

How many posts are needed before Canon gives in and makes for each of us what we want?

Probably the number of times I would have to send in my 24L to get the coma fixed...snicker.

 

[AlanF]

a 200-600mm f/5.6 L IS USM, that is as sharp as the new Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 and about the same price. I am tired of my Nikon friends having a sharper long zoom than me. The Tamron and Sigma 200-600 does not compare in sharpness or speed.

The Nikon 200-500mm has mixed reviews. Many copies are soft above 350mm and some reviewers prefer a Sigma 150-600mm. A 200-600mm f/5.6 would be a heavy monster.

 

[slclick]

A really good Non L 50
An updated 200 2.8L
" " 300 f/4L
" " 400 f/5.6L