What Lenses are missing from Canon's range

[mackguyver]

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.

I would keep my 2.8 IS II for low light wildlife shooting, but can completely understand - the f/4 IS is a brilliant lens. Even if it's a mere f/2, 135 IS, I'd be first in line to buy it.

 

[zlatko]

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

I agree with the above. Those would be very nice additions for EF-S cameras. I'd also like to see:

EF 85/1.8 IS

 

[surapon]

Just in my idea, Canon miss 8 mm F/ 2.8 Fish eye , Prime Lens---No, I do not need " L " lens, just similar to EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, but = 8 mm. prime
Surapon
PS. The Photos below = Bower 8 mm. F/ 3.5 Fish eye Lens( Made in Korea) = $ 299 US Dollars , at 3 years ago

 

[Random Orbits]

Just in my idea, Canon miss 8 mm F/ 2.8 Fish eye , Prime Lens---No, I do not need " L " lens, just similar to EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, but = 8 mm. prime
Surapon
PS. The Photos below = Bower 8 mm. F/ 3.5 Fish eye Lens( Made in Korea) = $ 299 US Dollars , at 3 years ago

I used to think that way until trying the 8-15. Love that you can get similar results with FF (15mm) and APS-C (8mm) with one lens.

 

[surapon]

Just in my idea, Canon miss 8 mm F/ 2.8 Fish eye , Prime Lens---No, I do not need " L " lens, just similar to EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, but = 8 mm. prime
Surapon
PS. The Photos below = Bower 8 mm. F/ 3.5 Fish eye Lens( Made in Korea) = $ 299 US Dollars , at 3 years ago

I used to think that way until trying the 8-15. Love that you can get similar results with FF (15mm) and APS-C (8mm) with one lens.

Dear Friend, Mr. Random Orbits---Thanks for your response.
Yes, I love Faster lens for the wide angle lens, for take the Photos in the dark of the night. For the day light are not matter, Because I try to use F 8.0 =90% of my ob any way.
Have a great day, Sir.
Surapon

 

[bholliman]

I'd like to see a new fast IS primes: 35, 50, 85 and 135mm. Especially the 50.

Of course a 100-400 II L would be awesome, but the price needs to be reasonable given the quality of the Tamron 150-600.

 

[Niranjan B Venkatesh]

EF 800 F/2.8 or F/4.0

 

[stefsan]

I'd like to see UWA lenses for both FF and APS-C that are

• fast
• sharp (even if wide open)
• and do not suffer from the beastly coma aberration that turns stars into wedge-shaped UFOs like the EF-S 10-22 does.

 

[stefsan]

… oh, and I forgot the EF 24-105L II with better IS, coatings and really good sealing 8)

 

[Antono Refa]

I'd like to see an ultra wide zoom to compete with the Sigma 12-24mm & Nikon 14-24mm, or rather as wide as the prior and high IQ as the later.

 

[PhotoCat]

85 f1.4, 85 f2.0 IS, 135 f2.0 IS, EF 50- 135 f2.8 portrait zoom.

 

[JonAustin]

Extenders equipped with a switch to flip them into / out of the optical path (like the built-in extender in the 200-400 f/4 L IS).

Sure, they'd be larger and more expensive than the current models, but the technology is now proven, at least with the 1.4x.

When I replaced my 70-200/2.8 L IS with the II version recently, I also sold my 1.4x II, which I'm not replacing. It's just too much hassle to insert and remove. For the extra reach, I'm hopeful for a 100-400 II this year, with reviews as glowing as the new 16-35/4.

 

[candyman]

24-105 f2.8 IS

That would be nice but too heavy and too big.
What about a 24-70 f/2.8 IS?

 

[StudentOfLight]

Don't know if anyone else has suggested something on these lines already:
EF 58mm f/1.2 L USM
EF 300-500mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM

 

[Antono Refa]

Extenders equipped with a switch to flip them into / out of the optical path (like the built-in extender in the 200-400 f/4 L IS).

Taking the optics out of an extender turns it into an extension tube, and the later has an effect on how far the lens attached to it can focus.

Don't know how Canon solved the issue with the EF 200-400mm, but I can only conclude it was tailored into this specific lens.

 

[JonAustin]

Taking the optics out of an extender turns it into an extension tube, and the later has an effect on how far the lens attached to it can focus.

Good point.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Extenders equipped with a switch to flip them into / out of the optical path (like the built-in extender in the 200-400 f/4 L IS).

Taking the optics out of an extender turns it into an extension tube, and the later has an effect on how far the lens attached to it can focus.

Don't know how Canon solved the issue with the EF 200-400mm, but I can only conclude it was tailored into this specific lens.

It's probably replaced by non-magnifying optics when the 1.4x extender is swung out.

 

[IsaacImage]

14-24 and I'll sell this shitty D810.

 

[Haydn1971]

With regards to the 12/14-24 idea, would people prefer f4 and greater sharpness or f2.8 and take a slight hit on absolute sharpness - I don't believe you can have both - personally, I'm holding out for 12-24 to replace my 16-35II, I'd take a hit on absolute sharpness for a f2.8 aparture.

 

[tron]

With regards to the 12/14-24 idea, would people prefer f4 and greater sharpness or f2.8 and take a slight hit on absolute sharpness - I don't believe you can have both - personally, I'm holding out for 12-24 to replace my 16-35II, I'd take a hit on absolute sharpness for a f2.8 aparture.

Can you please elaborate? (about absolute sharpness). Also I believe we can have both sharpness and 2.8 judging from 24-70 2.8 II lens.