What Lenses are missing from Canon's range

[Haydn1971]

The 24-70mm range is "easier" to get right, the extremes of 12-14mm are less easy to engineer, thus more likely to be a compromise solution.

 

[DRR]

Not my first choice for missing lens but I could use a 12-24 to replace my 16-35. My preference would be f/2.8 at the expense of absolute sharpness. IMO if you need that level of sharpness - you'd already be using primes and MF.

 

[Loswr]

Not my first choice for missing lens but I could use a 12-24 to replace my 16-35. My preference would be f/2.8 at the expense of absolute sharpness. IMO if you need that level of sharpness - you'd already be using primes and MF.

There's a rather substantial difference in IQ between images from my 24-70/2.8 II and my 16-35/2.8 II. Reviews suggest the 16-35/4 IS approaches the 24-70 II in sharpness and has very low CA. For my shooting needs, I'm willing to trade the stop of light for a substantial gain in sharpness. Time to say goodbye to the 16-35/2.8 and hello to the 16-35/4.

 

[Haydn1971]

Out of interest Neuro, do you have the 8-15mm ?

 

[Perio]

Maybe something like 50-150mm f2.8 to cover 50, 70, 85, 100 and 135mm. Although it may be that 70-200mm is more appropriate for most people.

 

[Loswr]

Out of interest Neuro, do you have the 8-15mm ?

Nope...I have no real desire for a fisheye lens.

 

[wtlloyd]

No doubt, to be announced in August.

Canon EF 135mm f/1.8L IS

 

[dgatwood]

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.

I'm pretty sure you could have both in that range, but it would weigh as much as a big white, and you wouldn't be able to fit any other lenses in your camera bag.

But in all seriousness, f/2.8. I can always stop down if sharpness is critical, with the exception of last-second "ooh, neat" shots, but nothing can make a slow lens faster (other than cranking the ISO).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

A LOT of primes, 10mm,11mm,12mm,13mm,18mm,19mm,20mm,21mm,22mm,23mm,25mm,26mm,27mm,29mm,30mm,31mm,32mm,33mm,34mm,36mm,37mm,38mm,39mm,41mm,42mm, etc. etc.

 

[Chris Jankowski]

EF 800 F/2.8 or F/4.0

You are a real troll.

I'd suggest that you be a little more realistic.
You would need a self-propelled tracked howitzer chassis to move the 800/F2.8 around and provide a stable base for it. Depending on quality it could weigh between 200 and 400 kgs and may cost between $2,000,000 and $4,000,000, however, the self-propelled tracked howitzer chassis is not included.

Note that similar lenses were made, albeit not F2.8:

1.
Leica APO-Telyt-R 1:5.6/1600mm - note - *only* F5.6
Price: $2,000,000, weight 60kg

http://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/leica-most-expensive-lens

2.
Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 1700 mm F4 - note - *only* F4
Price: undisclosed - probably ~5,000,000, weight 256kg.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3865393209/zeiss1700f4

Would you like to purchase both? I can facilitate it for a quite reasonable 10% commission

 

[Haydn1971]

Would be interesting to see if the flip in 1.4x extender gets rolled out on any other lenses, 300mm f4 IS with 1.4x perhaps ?

 

[markwilliams279]

Image stabilization is missing

Next, EF-S 55-250IS can go with small (APS-C) sensor Canon cameras. It is not for larger sensors (EOS 5D, EOS 1D(s) series), APS-C DSLRs such as the EOS D30, D60 and 10D.

 

[steliosk]

lens missing?

NEW 1.2 and 1.4 glasses
24mm
35mm
50mm
85mm

24-120 f/4
28-135 replacement

14-24 a MUST

a 12mm prime would be nice too
Sigma's 12-24 is a nice toy but way too soft in term of sharpness

 

[Ophthaltographer]

150mm f/2.8 IS macro

400mm f/5.6 IS

 

[Hannes]

EF-S prime in the range 20-24mm
EF-S 50-150 f2.8 IS
200mm f2.8 IS
100-300 f4 IS
A replacement to the 22-55mm would be nice, it is a very handy focal range. 20-50 f4 IS would be ideal and would make a killer holiday lens

 

[DRR]

EF-S prime in the range 20-24mm

Why not just use the EF 35mm or the EF 40mm?

 

[Haydn1971]

Why not just use the EF 35mm or the EF 40mm?

Because that wouldn't give the required 20-24mm the OP desires ?

Think you may have got your crop factors the wrong way around. ;-)

 

[bseitz234]

EF-S prime in the range 20-24mm
EF-S 50-150 f2.8 IS
200mm f2.8 IS
100-300 f4 IS
A replacement to the 22-55mm would be nice, it is a very handy focal range. 20-50 f4 IS would be ideal and would make a killer holiday lens

Oh how I would love an EF-S 22mm 1.4. Or even 1.8. That would be awesome. I just can't justify the cost of the 24L, but if there were an EF-S version for $500 or $600 I'd be all over it.

 

[sagittariansrock]

EF-S prime in the range 20-24mm
EF-S 50-150 f2.8 IS
200mm f2.8 IS
100-300 f4 IS
A replacement to the 22-55mm would be nice, it is a very handy focal range. 20-50 f4 IS would be ideal and would make a killer holiday lens

Oh how I would love an EF-S 22mm 1.4. Or even 1.8. That would be awesome. I just can't justify the cost of the 24L, but if there were an EF-S version for $500 or $600 I'd be all over it.

I lusted after a fast lens in that range for APS-C for a long time, and the 24L was too expensive for what it offered. So I decided to go full frame. I have the 35/1.4, but even the 35/2 will give you better angle of view and depth of field than a 22/1.4.