My dream Canon lens

A 200-400mm f/4 IS would be nice. And not totally unrealistic.

Ludvig

If the upcoming 50mm f/1.2 had image stabilization, I'd like it even more.

If Nikon can make one, why not Canon?

--
Roentarre - just an amateur (canon + pentax)
http://www.pbase.com/roentarre

Canon 24/1.4 35/1.4 50/1.4 85/1.2 100/2.8macro 135/2 300/4IS 16-35/2.8 70-200/2.8 FE15/2.8 MP-1x5/2.8 EX550
Pentax FA77/1.8, 14/2.8
Sigma 20/1.8 30/1.4 150/2.8 macro
tokina 12-24/4

That would be 10-400mm f1.0 IS USM. And make it the size of 35mm f2. Wont need to take it off the cam.

But realistically I hope we have a
12- 50mm f2.8- 4.0 IS
17- 200 f3.5- 5.6 IS

--

My thoughts exactly!

Although I wouldn't mind going down to 24mm.

Francesco said:

--

Francesco Gallarotti
-----------------------------
photo portfolio: http://www.greenteaphoto.com
photo gallery: http://www.gallarotti.net/px
blog: http://www.gallarotti.net

Click to expand...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
EOS 30D ~ 50 1.8 II / 17 - 40L / 70 - 300 IS USM

--
Gregory A. Jackson

200 1.8 and 400 2.8. While I like the idea of a 50 1.2, I haven't seen any posted images that convince me...

I think Artie mentioned in his book, "Art of bird photograpghy".

--
Bobby

http://bobbyz.smugmug.com

Earlier version was without the IS.

--
Bobby

http://bobbyz.smugmug.com

70-200 L f2.8 IS
300 L f4 IS
300 L f2.8 IS

gostek said:

To be short- I shoot wildlife and dream of Canon EF 600/f5.6 IS
with some better DO technology to make it 'light'. It's never gonna
happen, though. What's your dream?

Click to expand...

--
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN, 30D and SD700IS)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d

(. .)

--
Andrew D

Oh, and only about $100 - but I would pay $400-500 for it.

--
Frank from Phoenix
Canon1DMk2,1D,Oly5060 and lots of typos

Frank from AZ wrote:

200-400/2.8L? It'd be big, heavy and expensive. I couldn't see Canon producing a lens which would compete with its 400/2.8L IS.

A 200-400/4 is more likely. Nikon offers one.

J.

--
I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. --- einstein

http://rdphotog.smugmug.com

JAP said:

Frank from AZ wrote:

200-400/2.8L? It'd be big, heavy and expensive. I couldn't see
Canon producing a lens which would compete with its 400/2.8L IS.

Click to expand...

First, Canon can make it about the same size as its 400 2.8L and for about the same price. Sigma's 120-300mm EX 2.8 weighs in at 91.7 oz while the Sigma 300 EX 2.8 prime weighs in slightly less at 84.6 oz. They both cost about the same. If Sigma can do it, I am sure Canon can too.

I think the zoom users are different than the prime users, zooms are just so much more versatile when shooting events where you have to get each participant and they are moving around a playing field. The incremental (and surprisingly small) difference wide open is a small sacrifice for the ability to zoom and get everyone. But for the perfectionist who is focused on getting the perfect shot and has the luxury of concentrating on a handful of star players (i.e. magazine sport shooters) the prime would be the way to go.

Xenedis said:

A 200-400/4 is more likely. Nikon offers one.

Click to expand...

I have almost a 200-400 F4 when I put a 1.4x converter on my Sigma 120-300mm F2.8. But I could use the extra fstop at the further reaches when dusk sets in or I am shooting under the field lights. Currently I am saving for a 400 f2.8 but if either Sigma or Canon came out with a 200-400 f2.8 zoom, I'd find a way to get it quicker given the type of shooting I do.

Xenedis said:

J.

Click to expand...

--
Frank from Phoenix
Canon1DMk2,1D,Oly5060 and lots of typos

--
.