bvukich said:
I just realized I've been desensitized by recent "L" pricing. $1400 would be much more appropriate pricing.
Upvote
0
- Status
I just realized I've been desensitized by recent "L" pricing. $1400 would be much more appropriate pricing.
I'd like to see:
35-70mm f/2 L IS USM or just a new 35mm f/2 USM
135mm f/2 L IS USM
200mm f/4 L IS USM Macro
500mm f/5.6 L IS USM
realistically, with everything that's dropping already for 2011, I doubt we'll see anything else before 2012.
honestly, I'd hope that canon doesn't release all of these anytime soon, because I wouldn't be able to afford it. maybe if they released one of each of these over the next four years ...
35-70mm f/2 L IS USM or just a new 35mm f/2 USM
135mm f/2 L IS USM
200mm f/4 L IS USM Macro
500mm f/5.6 L IS USM
realistically, with everything that's dropping already for 2011, I doubt we'll see anything else before 2012.
honestly, I'd hope that canon doesn't release all of these anytime soon, because I wouldn't be able to afford it. maybe if they released one of each of these over the next four years ...
Upvote
0
S
Son of Daguerre
Guest
EF 100-400mm Æ’/4.5-5.6L IS II USM with twist-zoom.
I know the 200-400 has just been announced but my muscles can't handle that one - or so I think.
I know the 200-400 has just been announced but my muscles can't handle that one - or so I think.
Upvote
0
Son of Daguerre said:
My Pocketbook is not heavy enough either. I place my bet on the price at MSRP of $9500 USD.
Upvote
0
C
craigkg
Guest
Well, my guess is that the 200-400mm f/4 obliterates the chances of a 100-300mm f/4 or a 135-400mm f/4-5. While I frequently use the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L, I'm not a fan of the push-pull design and it just isn't bright enough, but a 200-400mm f/4 is just going to be too far out of my price range. I wish there was a supertelephoto zoom between them.
I also wish for a more affordable stabilized supertelephoto prime. I'd settle for a non-DO 400mm f/4 or 500mm f/5 or f/5.6. The price jump between the 300mm f/4 & 400mm f/5.6 class and the 300mm f/2.8 & 400mm f/4 class is just too great. I'm not going to spend $4000+ for a big white prime or zoom, but if they offered something in the $1800-2500 range better than the current $1200-1600 offerings, I'd be interested.
In the realm of shorter glass, I'd like a 14-24mm f/4L. I want a nice quality super wide for landscape work. Since it will be on a tripod mostly and I have to hike with it, I don't need or want f/2.8 or IS on it. Plus, not being f/2.8 on something that wide increases the chances one could put a neutral grad or other filter on it even if it has to be a 100mm wide rectangular filter.
I expect we'll see replacements for the 45mm TS-E and 90mm TS-E sometime relatively soon. I've thought about pulling the trigger on the current 45mm a few times, but I'll likely wait to see what improvements are made to see if the new version is worth the $600+ price premium the new version will likely have.
As an other poster said, I've given up on them ever updating the non-L primes for digital. Several of them are over 20 years old and just don't have the resolution for digital. I already have a couple of alt lenses (one prime and one zoom) that despite their age do work well (the C/Y 35-70mm f/3.4 on a 5D2 is just magic). Canon needs to remember that not all of us want to shoot at ISO eleventy billion with an f/0.7 image stabilized zoom with a high zoom ratio. I know landscape photographers are not a huge market compared to the general market, but there is something to be said for smaller, lighter, excellent quality slower primes.
I also wish for a more affordable stabilized supertelephoto prime. I'd settle for a non-DO 400mm f/4 or 500mm f/5 or f/5.6. The price jump between the 300mm f/4 & 400mm f/5.6 class and the 300mm f/2.8 & 400mm f/4 class is just too great. I'm not going to spend $4000+ for a big white prime or zoom, but if they offered something in the $1800-2500 range better than the current $1200-1600 offerings, I'd be interested.
In the realm of shorter glass, I'd like a 14-24mm f/4L. I want a nice quality super wide for landscape work. Since it will be on a tripod mostly and I have to hike with it, I don't need or want f/2.8 or IS on it. Plus, not being f/2.8 on something that wide increases the chances one could put a neutral grad or other filter on it even if it has to be a 100mm wide rectangular filter.
I expect we'll see replacements for the 45mm TS-E and 90mm TS-E sometime relatively soon. I've thought about pulling the trigger on the current 45mm a few times, but I'll likely wait to see what improvements are made to see if the new version is worth the $600+ price premium the new version will likely have.
As an other poster said, I've given up on them ever updating the non-L primes for digital. Several of them are over 20 years old and just don't have the resolution for digital. I already have a couple of alt lenses (one prime and one zoom) that despite their age do work well (the C/Y 35-70mm f/3.4 on a 5D2 is just magic). Canon needs to remember that not all of us want to shoot at ISO eleventy billion with an f/0.7 image stabilized zoom with a high zoom ratio. I know landscape photographers are not a huge market compared to the general market, but there is something to be said for smaller, lighter, excellent quality slower primes.
Upvote
0
K
KWSW
Guest
Mine:
EF 24-70L F/2.8 IS USM but I guess not going to happen since the patent is for what looks to be a 24-70 f/2.8L USM II
50 f/1.4 USM II that uses a proper USM motor (IIRC the current one uses a micro motor or some sort) and is as sharp as the sigma wide open
EF-S 35 f/1.8 USM like the nikon counter part as I dun think I will be upgrading from my 7D anytime soon. Or rather I can't justify the cost of a 1DmkIV
EF 24-70L F/2.8 IS USM but I guess not going to happen since the patent is for what looks to be a 24-70 f/2.8L USM II
50 f/1.4 USM II that uses a proper USM motor (IIRC the current one uses a micro motor or some sort) and is as sharp as the sigma wide open
EF-S 35 f/1.8 USM like the nikon counter part as I dun think I will be upgrading from my 7D anytime soon. Or rather I can't justify the cost of a 1DmkIV
Upvote
0
Lenses I will most probably upgrade to in the near future:
EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L (Though I'm still holding out for the IS or at least the II version... holding my breath... turning blue, here, Canon! Hello!!???)
Lenses I would love to see:
EF 35mm f/1.2L USM
EF 24mm f/1.2L USM
The above poster said that "there is something to be said for smaller, lighter, excellent quality slower primes." To each his own, but I'll take a bigger, heavier, tack sharp quality, super fast prime any day!
EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L (Though I'm still holding out for the IS or at least the II version... holding my breath... turning blue, here, Canon! Hello!!???)
Lenses I would love to see:
EF 35mm f/1.2L USM
EF 24mm f/1.2L USM
The above poster said that "there is something to be said for smaller, lighter, excellent quality slower primes." To each his own, but I'll take a bigger, heavier, tack sharp quality, super fast prime any day!
Upvote
0
G
gawainz
Guest
If you ask me, as a 5D user....
EF 35mm f1.4L II
EF 135mm f1.8L IS
And... for APS-C user
EF-S 30mm f1.4 (or f1.8)
EF-S 21mm f2
EF-S 15mm f2.8
And... a wild dream
A standard f2.8 Pancake!
Too good to be true...
EF 35mm f1.4L II
EF 135mm f1.8L IS
And... for APS-C user
EF-S 30mm f1.4 (or f1.8)
EF-S 21mm f2
EF-S 15mm f2.8
And... a wild dream
A standard f2.8 Pancake!
Too good to be true...
Upvote
0
R
RichFisher
Guest
In order of drooling (200-400 and new 500 F4 II are the top of my list)
24-70 F2.8 - don't care about IS, I want it to be sharp - just as sharp as the 70-200 F2.8 II
180 or 200 F4 macro with Tilt shift
TS/E 45, 90, 135 (or similar). TS are great for pans.
Zoom extender (1-1.4). This may be technical very difficult, not impossible, to produce
1.7 extender - when 1.4 is not enough and 2.0 is too much
Other things I want:
- Canon to buy Hassy and get the price of bodies down. 40 MP MF body at $10K. Price of lens reduced by 25-33%. They can not add many more MP to 35mm sensors without getting into (1) serious S/N issues and (2) reaching diffraction limits of lens.
- 1:3 Pan camera (35mm or larger sensor). If 35mm size sensor, adaptor to use Hassy Xpan lens. Manual focus okay. 6x17 size sensor would great, but the price would be over $50K
Enough. I just spent my entire photo budget for the next 5 years.
;D
24-70 F2.8 - don't care about IS, I want it to be sharp - just as sharp as the 70-200 F2.8 II
180 or 200 F4 macro with Tilt shift
TS/E 45, 90, 135 (or similar). TS are great for pans.
Zoom extender (1-1.4). This may be technical very difficult, not impossible, to produce
1.7 extender - when 1.4 is not enough and 2.0 is too much
Other things I want:
- Canon to buy Hassy and get the price of bodies down. 40 MP MF body at $10K. Price of lens reduced by 25-33%. They can not add many more MP to 35mm sensors without getting into (1) serious S/N issues and (2) reaching diffraction limits of lens.
- 1:3 Pan camera (35mm or larger sensor). If 35mm size sensor, adaptor to use Hassy Xpan lens. Manual focus okay. 6x17 size sensor would great, but the price would be over $50K
Enough. I just spent my entire photo budget for the next 5 years.
;D
Upvote
0
RichFisher said:
Yes the new big whites look stunning. I'm not sure that I would ever choose a 500mm f4 and a 200-400mm f4. They are too close for the cash. I'd prolly have to jump for a 200-400 f4 and a 600 f4. But a 300 2.8 with both extenders is mighty tempting instead....and a lot cheaper ;-)
My 24-70L is already prime lens sharp, so I guess it varies with copy to copy. My 2nd photographer's copy is just as sharp too. I'm only really interested if Canon adds a cool IS unit, otherwise my current copy is doing just fine.
I'd be all over a 200mm f4 Hybrid IS Macro L.....
I already have a 135L and a 45 TS-e there's not going to be enough in new versions to tempt me.
I've always thought that a 1.6x TC made sense in the Canon world. Perfectly match a 1.6 cropper on a FF.
I'm currently very happy with my 7D and 5DII's although I'd need to play with a 5DIII to seriously tempt me ;-)
Upvote
0
Shipping Product wish list:
- 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L
- 24-105 f/4 L
Wish Canon would release:
- 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II (given the 70-300 L and 200-400 L announcements, I don't think the 100-400 will see an update soon, if ever)
- EFS 15-85 f/2.8 IS USM
And affordable primes - it also appears these won't see any updates in our lifetimes either
- EF 50 1.4 II
- EF 35 f/2.0 II
- EF-S 30 f/1.4 - like the Sigma only Canon
- 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L
- 24-105 f/4 L
Wish Canon would release:
- 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II (given the 70-300 L and 200-400 L announcements, I don't think the 100-400 will see an update soon, if ever)
- EFS 15-85 f/2.8 IS USM
And affordable primes - it also appears these won't see any updates in our lifetimes either
- EF 50 1.4 II
- EF 35 f/2.0 II
- EF-S 30 f/1.4 - like the Sigma only Canon
Upvote
0
T
takoman46
Guest
I'm hoping that Canon will update the 100-400... 
But for existing lenses:
24mm f1.4/L II
85mm f1.2/L II
Still undecided about the 17-40 f4/L or the 16-35 f2.8/L (Leaning towards the 17-40 due to price point and I don't think I would make much use of the f2.8 on the wide range of the zoom)
But for existing lenses:
24mm f1.4/L II
85mm f1.2/L II
Still undecided about the 17-40 f4/L or the 16-35 f2.8/L (Leaning towards the 17-40 due to price point and I don't think I would make much use of the f2.8 on the wide range of the zoom)
Upvote
0
Just for fun, anyone here like a focal reducer? Yup, the opposite of a extender/teleconverter. Reduces focal length and increases effective aperture. You will run out of image circle at some point, so this would only be useful to shrink EF lenses to EF-S image circle really.
Upvote
0
J
jamied
Guest
EF-s 10-[17-22] f/4 (and in a compact/sturdy body). I would never carry the current 10-22 into the backcountry..
my other prayer was answered when they announced the 200-400 4
an update to the 20mm 2.8 USM, or make the 24mm non-L a USM lens..
my other prayer was answered when they announced the 200-400 4
an update to the 20mm 2.8 USM, or make the 24mm non-L a USM lens..
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
