Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.

[CanNotYet]

Joking aside, for me it's the 135L (1.8 or 2, either one, but with IS and even better optics) or the 14-24 2.8 that has little distortion and is very sharp.

Just curious, what's wrong with the current 135L? ???

Nothing... but modern coatings and possibly f/1.8 would be even better. I'd like IS in concept, but I don't think I'd like the price tag. The current one is a bargain at ~$1000; an updated one would lose some of it's charm if it's was twice that.

+1 on this

 

[Bruce Photography]

Depending upon price, I really would like a 400mm F4L IS to be the follow-on lens to the 400 5.6 so that the new version would have IS and could accomodate a 1.4 converter resulting in a lighter weight 500+ 5.6 lens. Yes I would like the 14-24 F2.8 but I use my Nikon with a converter for that which works out quite ok.

 

[Leejo]

What Lens do you desire to be made the most?

Many - but at a price that I can afford?
Would lova a 200-400 - but there is no way I can afford that one.
A new sealed 100-400 would be interesting - but at what price.
And when I step up to Full Frame many come into consideration.
Seeing as my 50mm 1.4 needs repairing due to broken focus - a more robust version of that would also not go amiss.

 

[AvTvM]

1) EF 100-400/f4.0-5.6 IS
turning zoom, IQ and build quality as good as the 70-200 / 2.8 L IS II
price approx. USD 2,200 - including tripod ring!

2) EF-F 50-150/2.8 L IS
IQ and build-quality as good as the 70-200 2.8 L IS II but as compact, light and black as the Sigma 50-150 / 2.8
price? USD 1,300

3) EF 16-35 /2.8 L IS
optically as good as the 24-70 II
price USD 1,500

4) EF 20/4.0 pancake
as compact, cheap and good as the 40/2.8 pancake
priced at 250 USD

5) EF 24-105/4.0 L IS II
IQ and build quality like the 24-70 II
priced at USD 1,000

 

[nda]

15mm f/2.8 Fisheye II (non-L)

 

[Hobby Shooter]

17-40/F4 USM II
21/anything USM
24-105/F4 USM IS II (one that doesn't have huge distortion at the wide end and isn't soft in the corners)

i.e a wide angle prime lens between 17mm and 22mm that doesn't suck because of field curvature, soft corners, etc, and doesn't have a curved front element like the 14-24 will.

For once I agree with you. As much as I like the 24-105 it has its shortcomings especially in the wide end.

A 17-40 /f4 would be great if they kept it inexpensive.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

15mm f/2.8 Fisheye II (non-L)

Yes, I kept my 15mm f/2.8 fisheye when the 8-15mm f/4 L fisheye zoom was released for three reasons:

1) DxO doesn't support the 8-15mm f/4. It was listed as to be supported, delayed again & again, until the lens was released, then it was dropped permanently from the list.

2) I use the 15mm f/2.8 in low light to capture a whole stage while standing right in front of it. One more aperture stop will always make for a cleaner image by shooting one ISO stop lower.

I've heard the the 8-15mm f/4 has better IQ. The lack of DxO support makes me wonder how true is that, as in maybe the distortion is so bad, DxO can't fix it, or something.

3) I'm not sure whether I'd find any use for focal lengths between 8 & 15. Actually, I'm considering selling my Sigma 8mm circular fisheye prime.

I'll be happy to see an EF 15mm f/2.8 II with better IQ.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

15mm f/2.8 Fisheye II (non-L)

Yes, I kept my 15mm f/2.8 fisheye when the 8-15mm f/4 L fisheye zoom was released for three reasons:

1) DxO doesn't support the 8-15mm f/4. It was listed as to be supported, delayed again & again, until the lens was released, then it was dropped permanently from the list.

2) I use the 15mm f/2.8 in low light to capture a whole stage while standing right in front of it. One more aperture stop will always make for a cleaner image by shooting one ISO stop lower.

I've heard the the 8-15mm f/4 has better IQ. The lack of DxO support makes me wonder how true is that, as in maybe the distortion is so bad, DxO can't fix it, or something.

3) I'm not sure whether I'd find any use for focal lengths between 8 & 15. Actually, I'm considering selling my Sigma 8mm circular fisheye prime.

I'll be happy to see an EF 15mm f/2.8 II with better IQ.

The Sigma 15mm f2.8 is a more regarded lens than the Canon counterpart and it's still available.
The Canon 8-15mm f4 L lens is very sweet and makes a great FX lens. Zoom bursts and zoom swirls will never be the same again! The zoom has slightly less CA, but it's still quite strong. I guess correcting a full frame 180 degree AOV is pretty difficult, but it can be defished with some pretty horrific drops in quality. I think the zoom is a tad sharper, but there is really very little between them. The zoom is more flexible and offers more options, but like all fisheye lenses....best used in moderation and infrequently. I like mine a lot, it's a lot of fun but it's not a lens I use often. In terms of distortion....it's a fisheye....yes it's a distorted view....it's supposed to be....lol!

 

[Loswr]

I'd like Sigma to add a 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 to their Art line.

Why would they add them to an Art Line when they are Standard Lenses?

Probably because when they took the 35mm from their standard line, and released it under their art line it went from "ok" to awesome.

True, but they've now taken the 30/1.4 DC from standard to Art, and apparently while the build improved, the IQ didn't.

So, they're at a little better than 1 for 2 at this point, suggesting that a 50mm Art lens might not be a slam dunk.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

15mm f/2.8 Fisheye II (non-L)

Yes, I kept my 15mm f/2.8 fisheye when the 8-15mm f/4 L fisheye zoom was released for three reasons:

<snip>

The Sigma 15mm f2.8 is a more regarded lens than the Canon counterpart and it's still available.

If my EF 15mm breaks down, I'll certainly replace it with the Sigma.

I guess correcting a full frame 180 degree AOV is pretty difficult, but it can be defished with some pretty horrific drops in quality.

Which is why this is not a high priority for me.

... but like all fisheye lenses....best used in moderation and infrequently. I like mine a lot, it's a lot of fun but it's not a lens I use often. In terms of distortion....it's a fisheye....yes it's a distorted view....it's supposed to be....lol!

I've learned that if I shoot with the camera leveled and pointed at the horizon, people like the wide effect without minding the distortion too much.

 

[RGF]

There are a few lenses I would like to see updates / added to Canon's lineup


Update the 180 macro - no need for IS, as I shoot mostly a tripod.
14-24 if up to Nikon IQ
200-400 w/ or w/o the 1.4
100-400 if IQ is top notch
400 f4 would be a nice

I could not afford all these but it would be nice to have choices

 

[RGF]

1) EF 100-400/f4.0-5.6 IS
turning zoom, IQ and build quality as good as the 70-200 / 2.8 L IS II
price approx. USD 2,200 - including tripod ring!

2) EF-F 50-150/2.8 L IS
IQ and build-quality as good as the 70-200 2.8 L IS II but as compact, light and black as the Sigma 50-150 / 2.8
price? USD 1,300

3) EF 16-35 /2.8 L IS
optically as good as the 24-70 II
price USD 1,500

4) EF 20/4.0 pancake
as compact, cheap and good as the 40/2.8 pancake
priced at 250 USD

5) EF 24-105/4.0 L IS II
IQ and build quality like the 24-70 II
priced at USD 1,000

If the returns to 150 to USD1 , maybe you'll see these prices. Until then you are 30-50% too lower (unfortunately)

 

[Deleted member 20471]

A 17-40/4L IS that is sharp corner to corner with low distortion the full zoom-range and all apertures.

 

[jthomson]

100-400 f4-5.6 IS II

400 5.6 IS

Give us telephoto goodness for the masses!

The masses aren't likely to have the $3,000+ needed to get the telephoto goodnes you are proposing.

 

[pharp]

One vote for a FF version of the 60mm macro, no IS, and doesn't have to be L

 

[hendrik-sg]

maybe a 6mm FF fisheye with 220° angle of view, as nikkon had decades ago.... a modestly sized 5.6 version would be enough... no montrus f2.8 version)

 

[viggen61]

The masses aren't likely to have the $3,000+ needed to get the telephoto goodnes you are proposing.

Oh, I don't know. Two and a half years ago, I blanched at the thought of $1,000+ lenses, now I own two. If a new 100-400 comes in at $2,500-$3,000 I'm sure there will be many takers, myself included. Particularly if it has 4-stop (or better) IS, and improved IQ.

Of course, there would be many more if the price were in the $2,000-$2,500 range...

Don't forget, Canon's next new option "up" from a hypothetical $3,000 100-400LII, the 300mm f/2.8L II, costs over $7,000...

 

[CANONisOK]

I want a lens that does not yet exist. I would like a 24-135 f1.4-f2.8 L with IS. Preferably less than 800 grams; black, not white; and using a 77mm filter.

That would be my perfect walkabout lens (the the perfect kit lens). The 24-105L is really nice, but I wish it were faster. I've finally come to appreciate the advantage of the faster lens with the 5D3 AF system.

I also like the idea of a modest-range walkaround lens. Longer reach than 70mm, but not going crazy like the 28-300mm to reduce distortion and keep size/weight reasonable. However, I think this one sabotages its chances in two key areas:

1) I'd be shocked to see a zoom with that kind of range open up to f1.4. Even f2.0 would probably be fantasy. Consider the 28-300mm which has f3.5-5.6, or the 28-135mm which also has f3.5-5.6. I think we'd be lucky to get f2.8-3.5 over a 24-135mm range. Throw in IS and there goes your weight criteria.

2) If they sold a great-quality lens in that range, we'd have no need to buy any other bright primes or even the 24-70mm f2.8 ii! The kings of marketing and product-differentiation would never allow it. That reasoning explains the good-but-not-great IQ of the 24-105mm.

But as long as we're dreaming... count me in for one also!

 

[1982chris911]

14-24mm F2.8 L or 12-24 F4.0L or whatever Zoom with 14mm or less on the short end

 

[yogi]

RLPhoto, what lens would you like to see? We know you usually prefer you primes. So what would you pick--a prime or zoom? (or at least it seems you prefer your primes )