What Lenses are missing from Canon's range

[mrsfotografie]

As described in the looking for big whites thread...

The problem with Canon updating the 400mm F5.6 is that currently it pretty much equals sharpness of all the other big white primes and 200-400mm at 400mm F5.6, its much smaller, lighter and 1/10th the price of many. With high ISO capabilities of the new gen of cameras high ISO you can get away with F5.6 its also useful when you need a little more DOF on FF. If they made a new one with weather sealing and IS it would reduce sales of the bigger whites even more. But then again would probably cost 200% more.

Same reason I'm guessing there is no 400mm F4 IS non DO because it would be smaller and lighter than the F2.8 and probably considerably cheaper, again with high ISO is F2.8 needed especially with the weight trade off. Only other reason for the F2.8 is for use with tele converters, that you can have a 800mm F5.6 or a 640 F4.

Grrrrr... Marketing.

 

[mrzero]

Canon could add a non-tank like 28-300 similar in price and quality to the Nikon 28-300 as well as the Nikon 18-300. I use the 18-300 on my D7100 and that has replaced by for my event camera which was a 60D with 18-200. I've been surprised just how good the 18-300 and D7100 combo is. They have been a joy to use.

Agreed. I'd like to see the 28-300L remade along the lines of the 70-300L - compact, twist zoom, light, great IS. It would be great to have a full-frame all-in-one with L quality that didn't break your neck for hiking, kids sports, etc. Although if they're gonna list it at $3k, don't bother.

 

[Bob Howland]

Canon could add a non-tank like 28-300 similar in price and quality to the Nikon 28-300 as well as the Nikon 18-300. I use the 18-300 on my D7100 and that has replaced by for my event camera which was a 60D with 18-200. I've been surprised just how good the 18-300 and D7100 combo is. They have been a joy to use.

Agreed. I'd like to see the 28-300L remade along the lines of the 70-300L - compact, twist zoom, light, great IS. It would be great to have a full-frame all-in-one with L quality that didn't break your neck for hiking, kids sports, etc. Although if they're gonna list it at $3k, don't bother.

+1, and maybe an L-quality 28-200 f/2.8-4.5. From what i understand, the 28-300's are popular with paparazzi taking red carpet shots at premieres and award ceremonies. My guess is that 200mm would suffice on the long end.

 

[seamonster]

200-500mm 5.6 (IS USM of course) please. And make it cost the same as the 70-300L.

For those who came from 70-300mm lenses on APS-C bodies we are used to the ~480mm equivalent so a 200-400mm isn't enough. The Tamron 150-600mm is the only one they need to be concerned with beating and even that lens isn't the best at 600mm so Canon making theirs stop at 500mm will be sufficient if it is better at 5.6 than the Tamron is at f8.

 

[RGF]

if you are talking focal length very little

If you are talking about quality and F4

Then killer UWA such as Nikon 14-24. I consider the 70-200 F2.8 II to be a killer lens

Killer 100-400, current model is okay at best

How about a 400 F4 non-DO but IS.
Also a 400 F5.6 IS and 300 F4 IS

I dream about a extender that either a zoom (1.0 to 1.7) or discrete - imagine an extender with 3 positions - 1.0 (none), 1.4 and 1.7

How about 1.7 extender

Lots of lens need to be updated, 180 macro (perhaps TS-E).


Overall, a few holes when you look at focal length and aperture combined but major challenge is quality of some of the L lenses are simply as good as many of us expect.

 

[geonix]

So far, all lenses I missed from Canon's range I found in Tamron's or Sigma's range.
Good example: Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di VC USD.

I would like to see a 200-600mm f5.6 tough, or an updated version of the 400mm f5.6 with IS.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

EF 200mm F4 MACRO or so... EF 300mm F5.6 MACRO
EF 28-200mm F4 IS
EF 24-85mm F4 IS
EF 35-70mm F2 (Sigma will do it someday)

EF-S 15-50mm F2.8 IS
EF-S 18-70mm F2.8 IS
EF-S 50-150mm F2.8 IS
EF-S 15mm F2
EF-S 22mm F1.8
EF-S 30mm F1.4

 

[c.d.embrey]

Both Canon and Nikon need primes for their crop-cameras (APS-C/DX).

I'd like to see these EF-S lenses:
1) An ultra-wide, non-fisheye, 8.75mm = 14mm FF, or a 10mm = 16mm FF.
2) A wide 14mm = 22mm FF.
3) A long wide 17mm = 27mm FF or 18mm = 29mm FF.
4) A 22mm = 35mm FF

Why not just use an EF-S 10-22mm you ask. Because it's big/bulky and doesn't open up to f/1.8

I'm not interested in impressing people with the size of my zoom. I'd rather disappear into the background with a small camera (SL1 maybe) and a small/light prime.

 

[Besisika]

Canon EF 135mm f/1.8L IS

+1

 

[Click]

One more vote for the 14-24 f/2.8 and the 135 f1.8 IS

 

[mrzero]

Canon could add a non-tank like 28-300 similar in price and quality to the Nikon 28-300 as well as the Nikon 18-300. I use the 18-300 on my D7100 and that has replaced by for my event camera which was a 60D with 18-200. I've been surprised just how good the 18-300 and D7100 combo is. They have been a joy to use.

Agreed. I'd like to see the 28-300L remade along the lines of the 70-300L - compact, twist zoom, light, great IS. It would be great to have a full-frame all-in-one with L quality that didn't break your neck for hiking, kids sports, etc. Although if they're gonna list it at $3k, don't bother.

+1, and maybe an L-quality 28-200 f/2.8-4.5. From what i understand, the 28-300's are popular with paparazzi taking red carpet shots at premieres and award ceremonies. My guess is that 200mm would suffice on the long end.

I would accept 200 on the long end but you can always hope for more! If they did a 28-300L remake, though, it would be harder to justify alongside the 70-300L unless there was a significant variant in terms of cost or focal length. I'd even be happy with a quality non-L 28-200 or 28-300 with current technology.

 

[Sabaki]

So a good few of the latest Canon zooms are said to have prime like IQ. I would then say that the next primes should be phenomenal bokeh beasts with fast AF.

Canon 50mm f/1.2 IS
Canon 135 f1.8 IS
Canon 85mm f/1.2 IS

 

[StudentOfLight]

EF-S 22mm f/2.8 Pancake
EF-S 35mm f/1.8 STM
EF-S 85mm f/1.8 STM
EF 100mm f/1.4 USM
EF 200mm f/4 L IS macro (1:1)
EF 35-85mm f/1.8 L USM
EF 100-300mm f/4 L IS USM (1.4xInt)

 

[Lee Jay]

By far the biggest hole is a lens between the sub $2,000ish 100-400 / 400/5.6 / 300/4 etc. and the over $7,000 300/2.8.

That hole is absolutely gaping, and only filled by third parties with lenses like the Sigma 120-300/2.8.

 

[lo lite]

Whilst we all have some idea in our heads about what might get replaced next, we all have some idea of 50/85mm IS lenses, a 35mm f1.4 II L or 100-400L - but what realistically is missing from Canon's EF range at the moment ?

Here's my thoughts on omissions that could realistically be made - as to them being economic, that's a whole different story ;-)
- A fast wide, Nikon style like a 12/14-24mm f2.8
- A premium medium zoom, perhaps 20-135mm f4.0 IS to replace the 24-105L
- An affordable 500mm - f5.6 with IS for £2000 ?
- An EF pancake zoom, covering something like 20-50mm ?

Over to you... What's missing ?

+1 for a EF 12-24mm f/2.8L, a good EF 20-135mm f/4.0L IS would be great too.

And then I have a special wish, but I doubt any manufacturer is ever going to make it, I even don't know if this would be doable at all: a full frame 20mm with f/1.4 and a close focusing range of 19mm or even less with great bokeh. I have a CZJ Flektogon 20mm f/2.8 which is focusing up to 19mm so at least this part is doable. But I guess this is just a pipe dream …

 

[sagittariansrock]

Need to have: 85/1.4 (but no one else mentioned it, so I suppose Canon has little market for it...
Want to have: 135/1.8-2 IS (that will essentially lock my 70-200 II to non-travel use)
Would be nice to have: 12orwhatever-24/2.8

I am not sure any of these will come out this year though...

 

[Eagle Eye]

Being a landscape guy, I'm loving the 16-35 f/4 right now, but I'd like to see some love for 85mm, my favorite prime focal length, incorporated into the zoom lineup though. For me, the 16-35mm f/4, a 24-85mm f/4, and a 70-200mm f/4 with a focal length marker for 85mm (which I plan to manually add to my existing model), along with an EF 1.5x would be an ideal kit. Full coverage 16-300mm, with two overlapping focal lengths between each zoom. Plus easier math on the tele-extender front; I didn't get into photography to think about numbers, dammit. The 24-85mm would be optional kit for a lot of shoots, particularly with a 50mm f/2.8 pancake in the bag. I imagine they went with 40mm because it makes for a similarly useful lens on full frame and APS-C, at 50mm, APS-C crop pushes it a little too much towards telephoto. I think the the 24-85mm is a possible replacement to the 24-70 f/4 in 5-10 years. I doubt the extenders are going to change and I also doubt we'll see another 50mm added to the lineup. Anyone have insight into why 85mm gets no love in the zooms? I don't have a mark for it on my 24-105 or my 70-200.

 

[sanj]

24-105 f2.8 IS

 

[GMCPhotographics]

One more vote for the 14-24 f/2.8 and the 135 f1.8 IS

I would rather a 12-24mm f2.8 and a 135 f1.8 LIS. A 14-24mm is only 2mm wider than a 16-35 and looses a major focal point at the long end.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Need to have: 85/1.4 (but no one else mentioned it, so I suppose Canon has little market for it...
Want to have: 135/1.8-2 IS (that will essentially lock my 70-200 II to non-travel use)
Would be nice to have: 12orwhatever-24/2.8

I am not sure any of these will come out this year though...

If canon releases a 135 f1.8 LIS, I would get one and swap out my 70-200 f2.8 LIS II for an f4. I would use the prime for the dark stuff and the f4 for the bright stuff. I wouldn't need to lug the big 2.8 about anymore.