What’s a “realistic” lens that you’d like to see Canon make?

I'd like to see an RF 28-50 F/2.8 IS (possibly pancake style) zoom. This would be the ultimate street photographers lens. 2.8 is a tad "slow" but again it's for street so it doesn't have to be bright. Plus being bright would really up the size and weight which is a detriment to street--so don't say 24mm.. 28 would really keep the size, weight, and price down. Plus 28, 35mm, and 50mm are typical street photography lenghts. Come on Canon make this lens!
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,343
22,519
The front elements of these two will have the same size (500/5.6. 550/6.3). Both will need a 95mm filter size
Quite so. I would prefer the 550/6.3 as we would get up to 10% extra resolution. As I have written elsewhere, the loss of a 1/3rd stop can be compensated for by upping the iso if the light is poor and down resolving to the f/5.6 size. I'd buy either of them at a drop of a hat if Canon could keep the price down to that of the Nikon 500/5.6 PF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
The front elements of these two will have the same size (500/5.6. 550/6.3). Both will need a 95mm filter size
Yeah. Looking for the sweet spot of the most magnification in a sharp, lightweight prime that just hits the diffraction limit on an R5 with a 1.4X TC. Somewhere in this area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
17(20)-70/4L IS USM
I'd also like to 2nd this one! A single extra wide lens that reaches 70mm to avoid needing 24-70 when traveling light. Canon did a 17-70 patent but at a slower variable aperture. I think the 17-70mm f4 L IS USM would be a MAJOR seller for Canon!

In fact, I think a 17-70 would be in such demand that Canon could justify 2 versions of it which would both sell very well:
17-70mm f4 L IS USM $2000+ (highest quality possible, dual nano USM, and the one I'd buy)
17-70mm ~f5.6 $1000 (affordable with possibly higher max magnification and "good enough" quality)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

tron

CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,222
1,616
I'd also like to 2nd this one! A single extra wide lens that reaches 70mm to avoid needing 24-70 when traveling light. Canon did a 17-70 patent but at a slower variable aperture. I think the 17-70mm f4 L IS USM would be a MAJOR seller for Canon!

In fact, I think a 17-70 would be in such demand that Canon could justify 2 versions of it which would both sell very well:
17-70mm f4 L IS USM $2000+ (the highest quality possible, and the one I'd buy)
17-70mm ~f5.6 $1000 (affordable with possibly higher max magnification and "good enough" quality)
It could also be 17-70 3.5-5.6 L serving decently enough as an astrophoto lens (at 17mm f/3.5) for these cases where we really want to take only one travel lens (in addition to our birding lens of course ! :LOL: )
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
It could also be 17-70 3.5-5.6 L serving decently enough as an astrophoto lens (at 17mm f/3.5) for these cases where we really want to take only one travel lens (in addition to our birding lens of course ! :LOL: )
So far, all the lens companies have had difficulty make an L quality lens that is sharp over that entire zoom range. Probably possible in a non L f~3.5-5.6 lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
So far, all the lens companies have had difficulty make an L quality lens that is sharp over that entire zoom range. Probably possible in a non L f~3.5-5.6 lens.
I'd agree with that statement in general, but with this additional comment: Canon making a lens of full L quality would mean their best seals, materials, and best optical design they could do, which IMHO would be the best *anyone* could ever hope for, and thus I'd consider it a "real" L lens if the MSRP was $2K or more as I'm sure it would be "superb enough" for that difficult range. I'd be happy with either the fixed f4 or variable f3.5(or whatever)-5.6 as long as it's their best L version & quality possible.
 
Upvote 0
I'd agree with that statement in general, but with this additional comment: Canon making a lens of full L quality would mean their best seals, materials, and best optical design they could do, which IMHO would be the best *anyone* could ever hope for, and thus I'd consider it a "real" L lens if the MSRP was $2K or more as I'm sure it would be "superb enough" for that difficult range. I'd be happy with either the fixed f4 or variable f3.5(or whatever)-5.6 as long as it's their best L version & quality possible.
Interesting trade as a travel lens 1. One heavy beast with slightly compromised optics vs 2. Two light lenses with better optics over more limited zoom ranges: say 17-28 & 28-70mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
Interesting trade as a travel lens 1. One heavy beast with slightly compromised optics vs 2. Two light lenses with better optics over more limited zoom ranges: say 17-28 & 28-70mm.
Well, at f4 or so think a 17-70 L IS would be around 700g, which I wouldn't call a "heavy beast" - well "somewhat heavy" might be fair. ;) It would be interesting to see if that was true.

And at the moment there aren't two comparable lightweight zooms spanning 17 to 70 mm, and even if there were I've already got two RF f2.8 L zooms for that (although someone new might better enjoy a 15-35 f4 to go along with their 24-105 f4). But the whole point of the 17-70 is to just have 1 high quality but lighter weight lens doing it, which would be *huge* to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0