What’s a “realistic” lens that you’d like to see Canon make?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Well if they can’t make a 14mm FF lens that is filterable (via reasonable methods) then a 10mm one is fantasy.
Upvote
0
Perhaps my first choice would be a 200-600/5.6-6.3 fixed length, then a 100--300/4. Quality level good enough for 45-83 MP would be real nice too. Also, I'd like to see an astro lens, but my preference would be a 20 mm lens. F1.2 would be great but if a 1.4 or 1.8 lens could be significantly more compact that would be worth considering also.
Upvote
0
RF 70-135mm f/2L for $3k USD or less. Then I would just need to be realistic and drool while I save the money.
Upvote
0
I echo the desire for long macro lenses. An RF refresh of the MPE-65 seems unlikely in the near future; it's such a specialty lens, and must not sell well. It doesn't even have that great of a reputation in the macro/micro community.
A RF version of the TS-E 17mm f/4 L would be great.
Has anyone compiled a list of RF patents? Not all patents become products, but any are possible.
And of course, lots more cheap to mid-range primes.
A RF version of the TS-E 17mm f/4 L would be great.
Has anyone compiled a list of RF patents? Not all patents become products, but any are possible.
And of course, lots more cheap to mid-range primes.
Upvote
0
A RF 200-500 f5.6 or RF 200‐600 5.6 would be amazing. With Canon's current line up, I'm probably just going to get the 2x extender instead of the RF 100-500.
Upvote
0
Canon is the only remaining mainstream lens manufacturer without a reasonable 50mm lens that belongs to the 21st century, which is quite astonishingly ridiculous when you think about it (even Pentax has got one). All of their 50s bar the €2300 RF 1.2 are either yet another version of the decades old double gauss or barely evolved from it, with all that entails in regards to IQ (ie they're terrible by 2020 standards), and all of them with appalling AF.
Personally I'd like Canon to chase a level of ambition as high as Nikon tried (and not fully successfully so) to reach with the 50mm 1.8 Z, without IS (as IBIS is coming and I'd rather have Canon put it all in IQ), and without the Nikon's issues with onion rings / manufacturing problems, and I'd happily pay between €450 and €700 for it, but I'm rather expecting Canon to target a lower level of ambition with such specs unfortunately.
I would have thought such a reasonable, practical lens likely to end up in lots of hands and as a result quite a bit more likely to produce interesting pictures, a priority, at least more so than lenses designed to enable Canon's marketing department to trumpet the size of Canon's engineering appendage, but what do I know ?
Personally I'd like Canon to chase a level of ambition as high as Nikon tried (and not fully successfully so) to reach with the 50mm 1.8 Z, without IS (as IBIS is coming and I'd rather have Canon put it all in IQ), and without the Nikon's issues with onion rings / manufacturing problems, and I'd happily pay between €450 and €700 for it, but I'm rather expecting Canon to target a lower level of ambition with such specs unfortunately.
I would have thought such a reasonable, practical lens likely to end up in lots of hands and as a result quite a bit more likely to produce interesting pictures, a priority, at least more so than lenses designed to enable Canon's marketing department to trumpet the size of Canon's engineering appendage, but what do I know ?
Upvote
0
A long time ago, they had a 28-300mm L lens. I'd like to see a redux of that in the RF mount. Maybe stop it at 200mm and speed up the focal ratio. I think the old one was F4-6.3 or something. For a general walking around type guy like me that would be the one lens to rule them all.
Upvote
0
I think the top priority for "realistic lenses" Are :
-120-300mm f2.8 with built in TC 2.0 (would be a must have lens for sport and safari)
-a sharp, perfect-zero distortion, minimum vignetting, comma and CA, 17mm f2
-50mm f0.95 (come on canon, we all know you can do this)
-400-800mm f5.6-7.1 for bird lovers like me
-120-300mm f2.8 with built in TC 2.0 (would be a must have lens for sport and safari)
-a sharp, perfect-zero distortion, minimum vignetting, comma and CA, 17mm f2
-50mm f0.95 (come on canon, we all know you can do this)
-400-800mm f5.6-7.1 for bird lovers like me
Upvote
0
What I would most like to see is a 70-280 f:2.8 (at all focal lengths), with a built-in 1.4 (which would also perform well with external converters). I would think this is well within the realm of possible, as there's already both the 200-400 and 100-400 lenses in the EF mount to draw up for for design and construction.
While this might not be a best-seller, I'm sure Canon could find plenty of buyers in the sports and wildlife ranks. I just returned a few weeks back from a month-long trip to Africa where this could have been taken the place of three lenses I'd brought.
While this might not be a best-seller, I'm sure Canon could find plenty of buyers in the sports and wildlife ranks. I just returned a few weeks back from a month-long trip to Africa where this could have been taken the place of three lenses I'd brought.
Upvote
0
It's been a while since we've last heard about dslr lenses. What I'd like to see is an EF-S 60mm f/2.8 IS(!) USM Macro for APS-C and an EF 200-500 mm f/5.6 for FullFrame DSLRs.
Upvote
0
What do we call the MP-E? Manual focus? Fixed focus variable magnification? I want to see an MP-E variable magnification but with autofocus, to take advantage of the focus bracketing and auto-stacking that's just starting to enter Canon mirrorless. For me 5X isn't needed, but ½X to 3X or 4X, with autofocus, would be great. I'd still use manual focus for most single frames, but would love to add more stacking in camera. To really hijack the thread, doesn't need IS, not super helpful for macro..or is it?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
