Realistic wish lens
- Thread starter wickidwombat
- Start date
- Status
Whatever it is, it's f/2.0 or faster across the board and has IS & a sweet bokeh. If it's a zoom, I really don't need more than a 2x zoom range (unless it's a "standard" zoom trying to do wide & tele, but now we're dreaming). Short/fat is preferable to long/skinny.
Also, I very much like the idea of the integrated switchable 1.4x teleconverter as an alternative to mega-range variable-aperture zooms (I'm looking at you, 100-400L). The big lump on the side is less cool, but it beats schlepping a TC on & off by a long shot.
Also, I very much like the idea of the integrated switchable 1.4x teleconverter as an alternative to mega-range variable-aperture zooms (I'm looking at you, 100-400L). The big lump on the side is less cool, but it beats schlepping a TC on & off by a long shot.
Upvote
0
A 135 f/2 IS lens - f/2 is fast, but there are times I'd like to keep the ISO down a bit when I hand hold and would love to be able to shoot it at 1/30s or so. Jeff Ascough recently mentioned that he's swapped out the 135 for a 70-200 2.8 IS II for that very reason.
Upvote
0
I believe CANON "owes" us 3 new 400mm lenses:
1. A second version of the 400mm f/4 DO lens , even lighter (all II telephoto versions are), with better contrast although not more expensive
2. A 400mm f/5.6L IS
and
3. A new 100-400mm f/5.6L IS with the latest IS generation.
Am I asking too much? (Anyway I did not want to wait so I have just ordered the current 100-400mm)
1. A second version of the 400mm f/4 DO lens , even lighter (all II telephoto versions are), with better contrast although not more expensive
2. A 400mm f/5.6L IS
and
3. A new 100-400mm f/5.6L IS with the latest IS generation.
Am I asking too much? (Anyway I did not want to wait so I have just ordered the current 100-400mm)
Upvote
0
J
Jettatore
Guest
I've got my eye on telephoto, as that's what I don't have in my current kit.
70-200L IS II seems great to me, and I've seen the shots that can be had with it, and 2.8 is as slow as I can go for my needs as I like to shoot in available light, but.. My style doesn't really support having huge lenses. And with that focal range I would definitely need to be carrying two bodies for artistic consideration, both with lenses mounted (one of them being wide-angle), making the entire ordeal quite awkward. To further confuse this, I also would want to be able to go well beyond 200mm without fiddling around or impossibly carrying a third setup....
So something really quite unique that would even push APS-C through to more pro usage, like an L quality equivalent of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II that is shorter and lighter while at the same speed and IS rating *with a built in tele-extender!!!*. If it was done with pro-usage and pro-build quality in mind, it'd be worth it's weight in gold and wouldn't need to be designed around budget constraints. First L marked EF-S anyone?
70-200L IS II seems great to me, and I've seen the shots that can be had with it, and 2.8 is as slow as I can go for my needs as I like to shoot in available light, but.. My style doesn't really support having huge lenses. And with that focal range I would definitely need to be carrying two bodies for artistic consideration, both with lenses mounted (one of them being wide-angle), making the entire ordeal quite awkward. To further confuse this, I also would want to be able to go well beyond 200mm without fiddling around or impossibly carrying a third setup....
So something really quite unique that would even push APS-C through to more pro usage, like an L quality equivalent of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II that is shorter and lighter while at the same speed and IS rating *with a built in tele-extender!!!*. If it was done with pro-usage and pro-build quality in mind, it'd be worth it's weight in gold and wouldn't need to be designed around budget constraints. First L marked EF-S anyone?
Upvote
0
Rocky said:
Didn't they already, in the 60s? Or was that someone else...? (they've had a 50/1.0 EF-mount, and i'm pretty sure a 50/0.95 at some point).
But yeah, goes against the "realistic" specification either way.
Upvote
0
I think a 50/0.75 could be done quite small, since the front opening only needs to be 67mm. That's smaller than a 400/5.6. I think the problem will be that the extreme speed will be incredibly hard to correct optically so while you can optimise for few parameters, other areas will really suck.
On a similar note, in the past they did an EF 50mm f/1.0 which was later replaced by the f/1.2. If they were to have another go, could they do a f/1.0 much better now? The f/0.95 I think was a "TV lens".
On a similar note, in the past they did an EF 50mm f/1.0 which was later replaced by the f/1.2. If they were to have another go, could they do a f/1.0 much better now? The f/0.95 I think was a "TV lens".
Upvote
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed has the big list.
I think the one I was thinking of was the Rodenstock 50/0.75, it's been adapted to Leica M and micro 4/3, it covers the 4/3 image circle so might get as far as APS-C, but the flange distance is just too short to use on any DSLR. Bring on Canon Mirrorless!
I think the one I was thinking of was the Rodenstock 50/0.75, it's been adapted to Leica M and micro 4/3, it covers the 4/3 image circle so might get as far as APS-C, but the flange distance is just too short to use on any DSLR. Bring on Canon Mirrorless!
Upvote
0
I don't think it is asking too much for an APS-C version of the 24-105 f/4L. There are plenty of serious crop shooters out here who want HQ lens. Yes, someday I'll get a 5D3 but I'm not getting rid of my 7D.
I want a 15-65 f/4L IS USM! I want IS, weather resistant, constant aperture, and for heck sakes Canon, include the hood and case. Excellent IQ goes without saying. I'm even OK with an EF-S version but prefer EF of course. If this was a 2.8 constant lens that would be even better but I'd be thrilled with a f/4. Furthermore, I think the price (for an f/4) should be about what the 24-105 f/4L is.
Am I missing something? Is this too difficult or pricey to build?
I want a 15-65 f/4L IS USM! I want IS, weather resistant, constant aperture, and for heck sakes Canon, include the hood and case. Excellent IQ goes without saying. I'm even OK with an EF-S version but prefer EF of course. If this was a 2.8 constant lens that would be even better but I'd be thrilled with a f/4. Furthermore, I think the price (for an f/4) should be about what the 24-105 f/4L is.
Am I missing something? Is this too difficult or pricey to build?
Upvote
0
dr croubie said:
Yes, Canon made a 50mm f 0.95 for their range finder in the 60s. Leica is making a 50mm f 0.95 ($11,000) for their M series Range finder camera now. It is a lot easier to make a fast 50mm lens for the range finder camera than the for SLR. As far as I know, the fastest 50mm lens for SLR is f 1.2. 0.75 is more than another stop faster. it will be quite a challenge.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Deleted member 380853
- Lenses
