Reading mode: Light Dark

How about a 50-100 / 2L IS?

Go to last post
J

joe mama

Forum Pro
Messages
12,623
Reaction score
3
Location
US
Just wondering. Would a super fast 2x zoom with IS be desirable? I imagine the optics could be near or equal to that of a prime with only 2x zoom, it's just that it would a lot bigger and more expensive. But how much bigger?

What about other ultra fast 2x zooms? A 15-30 / 2L IS, for example? Obviously, It would have to be bigger than a 16-35 / 2.8L, despite the smaller range, but would there even be a market for such a lens?

I, myself, don't even know. I mean, I'm sure I'd prefer a 15-30 / 2L IS over the 16-35 / 2.8L (and I love the 16-35 / 2.8L on my 5D!), assuming the size and weight didn't get out of hand.

But if Canon made a 50 / 1.2L, and considering how great my 100 / 2 is (extremely sharp, small, fast, and light), then would I even use a fast zoom or just use the primes as I always do? I mean, you wouldn't use a fast 2x zoom as a walkaround lens, would you? Maybe I would, though.

Just playing, though. It's not like it would ever happen. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 
joe mama said:
joe mama wrote:
Just wondering. Would a super fast 2x zoom with IS be desirable?
I imagine the optics could be near or equal to that of a prime with
only 2x zoom, it's just that it would a lot bigger and more
expensive. But how much bigger?
Click to expand...
I would love a 70-135 f2 non IS for indoor sports. I use the 85 1.8 and
135 f2 now but would love an ultra fast zoom for the flexibility. Of
course, if I had another 1D2 body maybe it wouldn't matter. Nice to
dream anyway.

--
Gregory Greene
http://wildcats.unh.edu/
 
Gregory Greene said:
I would love a 70-135 f2 non IS for indoor sports. I use the 85 1.8
and 135 f2 now but would love an ultra fast zoom for the flexibility.
Of course, if I had another 1D2 body maybe it wouldn't matter. Nice
to dream anyway.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hear what you're saying. Considering the cost of such a lens, it might be better just to have two primes on two bodies!

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 
You'll need one thing for sure.

A wheelbarrow, to a) bring the money, and b) to haul the lens around.

Cheaper and lighter to wait for high ISO performance improvements, and get a few fast primes in the meantime.
 
Henning W said:
You'll need one thing for sure: A wheelbarrow, to a) bring the money,
Click to expand...
Probably! : )

and b) to haul the lens around.

You think it would weigh more than three pounds?
Henning W said:
Cheaper and lighter to wait for high ISO performance improvements,
and get a few fast primes in the meantime.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that ISO is near the limits. Maybe just near the limits with current technology, but I get the feeling that technology is not the limiting factor anymore.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 
Gordon S Walker said:
If Canon built every conceivable lens/aperture combo in L format,
every lens would be made to order.
Click to expand...
Not every conceivable combo, just some useful ones. But, like I said, just talking out loud for fun -- I don't see it ever happening. : )
Gordon S Walker said:
Just be happy with what's available..
Click to expand...
Oh, no way. I mean, I know the 50-100 / 2L IS is just a fantasy, but there's some real glass that I need .

1) 50 / 1.2L -- 'cause the 50 / 1.4 sucks (I know, I've owned three -- all the same). In all truth, I'd be happy with a 50 / 1.4 that was as good as the 85 / 1.8 or 100 / 2. But, I'd be even happier with a 50 / 1.2L, presuming, of course, AF speed as good as the aforementioned primes.

2) 200 / 2.8L IS macro. I know that this would be a big and heavy lens, not to mention expensive. If the size is too much, then make it 150mm. I bet that lens would be extremely popular.

If I had just those two lenses, then, yeah, I could be happy with what's available. But I'd still like to see IS macro versions of all the primes. Not that I'd buy them all, mind you, but it would be nice to see them. Nonetheless, the only two I "need" are the ones mentioned above.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 
joe mama said:
1) 50 / 1.2L -- 'cause the 50 / 1.4 sucks (I know, I've owned
three -- all the same). In all truth, I'd be happy with a 50 / 1.4
that was as good as the 85 / 1.8 or 100 / 2. But, I'd be even
happier with a 50 / 1.2L, presuming, of course, AF speed as good as
the aforementioned primes.

2) 200 / 2.8L IS macro. I know that this would be a big and heavy
lens, not to mention expensive. If the size is too much, then make
it 150mm. I bet that lens would be extremely popular.
Click to expand...
I think the general concensus is that a 50 f1.2L would be a great lens and as for the macro, the 150mm IS would also be a good addition to the range. I wonder why Canon don't do an IS macro lens. Useful it would be, yes.

--
It's an L of a life, this photography lark

http://gordon-walker.fotopic.net/
 
joe mama said:
Just wondering. Would a super fast 2x zoom with IS be desirable?
I imagine the optics could be near or equal to that of a prime with
only 2x zoom, it's just that it would a lot bigger and more
expensive. But how much bigger?

What about other ultra fast 2x zooms? A 15-30 / 2L IS, for
example? Obviously, It would have to be bigger than a 16-35 /
2.8L, despite the smaller range, but would there even be a market
for such a lens?

I, myself, don't even know. I mean, I'm sure I'd prefer a 15-30 /
2L IS over the 16-35 / 2.8L (and I love the 16-35 / 2.8L on my
5D!), assuming the size and weight didn't get out of hand.

But if Canon made a 50 / 1.2L, and considering how great my 100 / 2
is (extremely sharp, small, fast, and light), then would I even use
a fast zoom or just use the primes as I always do? I mean, you
wouldn't use a fast 2x zoom as a walkaround lens, would you? Maybe
I would, though.

Just playing, though. It's not like it would ever happen. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my
photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other
than editing in these forums, please ask.
Click to expand...
--
Jürgen aus Boden, Schweden.
 
Jurgen Larssson said:
joe mama said:
Just wondering. Would a super fast 2x zoom with IS be desirable?
I imagine the optics could be near or equal to that of a prime with
only 2x zoom, it's just that it would a lot bigger and more
expensive. But how much bigger?

What about other ultra fast 2x zooms? A 15-30 / 2L IS, for
example? Obviously, It would have to be bigger than a 16-35 /
2.8L, despite the smaller range, but would there even be a market
for such a lens?

I, myself, don't even know. I mean, I'm sure I'd prefer a 15-30 /
2L IS over the 16-35 / 2.8L (and I love the 16-35 / 2.8L on my
5D!), assuming the size and weight didn't get out of hand.

But if Canon made a 50 / 1.2L, and considering how great my 100 / 2
is (extremely sharp, small, fast, and light), then would I even use
a fast zoom or just use the primes as I always do? I mean, you
wouldn't use a fast 2x zoom as a walkaround lens, would you? Maybe
I would, though.

Just playing, though. It's not like it would ever happen. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my
photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other
than editing in these forums, please ask.
Click to expand...
--
Jürgen aus Boden, Schweden.
Click to expand...
--
Jürgen aus Boden, Schweden.
 
For me a fast f/2.8 or f/2 lens with a focal length of 35/40 - 120/135 mm (the wider the range the better) would be more useful for photographing people at events with a full frame camera.

Except for the lack of DOF control I found the 28-75mm range to be very useful on APS-C although I often wished it could be longer but rarely wished it could be wider.

Of course I would love a very high quality 24-135mm f/2.8L IS lens. If the optics really were very high quality, I would be prepared to pay a lot for it. And while I'm dreaming about that I can also dream about a 24-135mm f/2L IS.
joe mama said:
Just wondering. Would a super fast 2x zoom with IS be desirable?
I imagine the optics could be near or equal to that of a prime with
only 2x zoom, it's just that it would a lot bigger and more
expensive. But how much bigger?

What about other ultra fast 2x zooms? A 15-30 / 2L IS, for
example? Obviously, It would have to be bigger than a 16-35 /
2.8L, despite the smaller range, but would there even be a market
for such a lens?

I, myself, don't even know. I mean, I'm sure I'd prefer a 15-30 /
2L IS over the 16-35 / 2.8L (and I love the 16-35 / 2.8L on my
5D!), assuming the size and weight didn't get out of hand.

But if Canon made a 50 / 1.2L, and considering how great my 100 / 2
is (extremely sharp, small, fast, and light), then would I even use
a fast zoom or just use the primes as I always do? I mean, you
wouldn't use a fast 2x zoom as a walkaround lens, would you? Maybe
I would, though.

Just playing, though. It's not like it would ever happen. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my
photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other
than editing in these forums, please ask.
Click to expand...
--
GMT
 
Henning W said:
You'll need one thing for sure.

A wheelbarrow, to a) bring the money, and b) to haul the lens around.
Click to expand...
No. A 2/50-100L IS wouldnt be bigger or heavier than the 2,8/70-200L IS. The 70-200 can be paid, and its transportable.

Size (diameter) with telephoto lenses is primarily determined by focal length and aperture. 200:2,8=71,43. 100:2=50. However, zoom factor x2 is not enough, IMO a zoom, that remains a telephoto zoom lens should have at least x3. A 17-40L is a different story, that from superwideangle to normal.

--
Stupid is as stupid does - Forrest Gump
 
Gordon S Walker said:
Gordon S Walker wrote:
I think the general concensus is that a 50 f1.2L would be a great
lens and as for the macro, the 150mm IS would also be a good
addition to the range. I wonder why Canon don't do an IS macro
lens. Useful it would be, yes.
Click to expand...
Would IS really help with macro shots? From my limited experience
with handheld macro its the distance to subject that is the tricky part
because your DOF is so wafer thin. As far as I know the current IS
mechanism will not help in this regard.

--
Gregory Greene
http://wildcats.unh.edu/
 
Gregory Greene said:
Gregory Greene said:
Gordon S Walker wrote:
I think the general concensus is that a 50 f1.2L would be a great
lens and as for the macro, the 150mm IS would also be a good
addition to the range. I wonder why Canon don't do an IS macro
lens. Useful it would be, yes.
Click to expand...
Would IS really help with macro shots? From my limited experience
with handheld macro its the distance to subject that is the tricky
part
because your DOF is so wafer thin. As far as I know the current IS
mechanism will not help in this regard.

--
Gregory Greene
http://wildcats.unh.edu/
Click to expand...
--
Jürgen aus Boden, Schweden.
 
An f/2 would be big but I think that an f/2.8 that started at 35mm or 40mm would be quite manageable.

Tamron have/had a 28-105 f/2.8 that wasn't too big.

The thing is that I don't think that the focal length range you originally suggested would be that useful. I just don’t see many takers for such a lens (which would be expensive) when they could use a 50mm f/1.4, a 85mm f/1.8 and a 100 f/2 instead (some people could probably work quite happily with just two out of the three).
joe mama said:
Way too big, in fact. I was thinking that reducing the range could
make the size feasible.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my
photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other
than editing in these forums, please ask.
Click to expand...
--
GMT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top