Future Canon Lenses around the corner..?

Could we see Canon possibly making a EF200-400 F/4 DO IS Zoom..? This would be top priority on my wish list.

rtw

F1.2 primes at 8mm, 9mm,10mm, all the way to 2000mm

hah. in all honesty though, there isn't really any lens that i see missing from the lineup... i've got a wide zoom (18-55IS), a couple of primes (28/1.8, 50/1.8II), a telephoto zoom (70-200 f/4L), and an ultra wide (10-22). i even have a novelty lens (90mm f/2.8 pentacon-six lens on a tilt-axis adapter). really the only lens that's missing is a dedicated macro...

so if they came out with a 60mm f/2.8 macro II and it lowered the price of the original 60mm f/2.8, i'd be all down for that!

an 18- 100mm lens might interest me, but for the time being i am more than satisfied with the 18-55IS

I wouldn't - even if I could afford it. I doubt many others will either. But that's what it will cost.

Hopefully we've seen the last of the DO experiment.

x00-400 F4's have been discussed to death here.

LensWizard said:

Could we see Canon possibly making a EF200-400 F/4 DO IS Zoom..? This
would be top priority on my wish list.

rtw

Click to expand...

--
Some cool cats that can use your help
http://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org

Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word.

Well for me I DO NOT want to see the end of the DO Concept as I love my EF400 F/4DO Lens. Those whom bash it for the most part cant afford to buy it anyways.. I myself would pay 10k for a 200-400 f/4 DO Zoom by Canon..

rtw

in fact, even a reworked f2.8 version would do if it really really cut it wide open.

But it's the f1.4 version that I'm realistically waiting for.

Earthlight

--

Mostly harmless

i like wide angle, but don't like losing zoom too (hey afterall, we're being hypothetical and dreamy here yes?)... so a 12-80 range will be nice! or even better 10-100! or even better......... ok i better stop before it gets too ridiculous! lol. but seriously, 12-80 will not sacrifice too much of a quality but will still have that nice zoom range for travelling i believe.

LensWizard said:

Well for me I DO NOT want to see the end of the DO Concept as I love
my EF400 F/4DO Lens. Those whom bash it for the most part cant afford
to buy it anyways.. I myself would pay 10k for a 200-400 f/4 DO Zoom
by Canon..

Click to expand...

I don't wish to bash the DO concept. I only bash lenses that I have used and deserve to be bashed.

I am looking for a 400mm lens with IS and I really want to like the 400 DO because of the weight. I have seen lots of great photos taken with this lens but from what I have read the sharpness and contrast aren't the best when shot wide open. It is good but not great. The 300/2.8 with a 1.4TC is better and cheaper as shown here.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&Lens=338&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1&LensComp=249&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&Camera=9

I really want to like the 400 DO but if I am going to spend over $5K on a lens it better be sharp wide open. To get extra reach I would be using it with using it with a Canon 40D which has smaller pixels than a 1 or 5 series camera which puts further strain on the sharpness.

Please tell me I am wrong and that the 400 DO will give me all the sharpness I need when shooting wide open. My only experience with a DO lens was with the 70-300 DO and I was totally unimpressed. I know the 400 DO is in a different class but is it as sharp as the 70-200/4 IS or 17-55/2.8 IS or 100/2.8 macro which are the current lenses I use?

If Canon can't make a DO lens as sharp as their other lenses then a 400/5.6 IS or a modern 100-400/5.6 IS would be at the top of my wish list.
--
http://www.pbase.com/cartlett

Canon need (and look like its coming ) a 18-200 IS consumer zoom.

Consumer zoom range:
17-55IS
55-250IS
18-200IS

Prehaps a longer consumer zoom though I dont see that as happening (over the 70-300IS).

Prehaps a cheaper wide angle than the 10-22.

Pro glass lots needs updating with IS and proper USM, especialy non L primes

Canon lack any decent > 200mm zooms apart from the 100-400 which does need an IS update. Not sure if theres much profit here though as sigma have plenty of 300,400 and 500mm zooms. Ooops forgot about the 28-300L....

Would people buy a 100-300 f4 L?

What's wrong with the current one? I recently took one for a test drive and I was blown away with it's performance on my 40D. Wide open, it's fairly sharp and not dreamy at all, with great bokeh, and stopped down to 1.8 or 2.0 it's absolutely razor sharp. I'm ordering tomorrow

Earthlight said:

in fact, even a reworked f2.8 version would do if it really really
cut it wide open.

But it's the f1.4 version that I'm realistically waiting for.

Earthlight

--

Mostly harmless

Click to expand...

--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/

100-400 f/4-5 IS push-pull
24 1.4 II
35 1.4 II
50 1.4 II
85 1.4 IS
135 1.8 IS
150 2.8 Macro

But I don't think Canon will bring any of these, which is a shame.

I'm currently giving the Sigma 150 2.8 Macro and new Sigma 50 1.4 a close look.

Dave

Redteg94 said:

stopped down to 1.8 or 2.0 it's absolutely razor sharp. I'm ordering
tomorrow

Click to expand...

Problem with the current version is I want to shoot at 1.4 not 2.0

Dave

Canon needs to make wide angle primes for crop cameras. a 17mm F2 or 2.8 is so neccessary its sickening, and come to think of it a 25mm F2 if it were less than 2.4 inches long and, to keep cost down below $500, had micro USM would be superb. I'd buy one right away.

I think Canon pretty much has it's zooms and telephotos covered, wide angle for crops is Canon's weak spot, but I guess super zooms sell more for bigger money so that's what they'll make... and I'll have to keep on dreamin about pentax pancakes.

I would like a longer walk about lens. Something around -

18-125 IS or 18-150 IS F4 through zoom.

Also a redesigned 100-400 with F4 through zoom would be nice.

I would like more EFS wide aperture primes. Also, keep improving the lenses they DO make. Make them sharper, more contrasty, add IS etc.

The EF400DO F/4 I own is as sharp as any lens you mentioned in my opinion. It appears to me you have not tried this lens. As I said earlier, 99% of the "Not as Sharp" as "A' or "B" Lens comes from thyose whom have not shelled out the $5500.00 to buy it. I own it and find it a stellar performer..

So with that in mind I am hoping Canon will come out with a EF200-400MM F/4 DO IS Zoom this fall.

rtw

LensWizard said:

Could we see Canon possibly making a EF200-400 F/4 DO IS Zoom..? This
would be top priority on my wish list.

Click to expand...

Probably now Canon has technology that can help to design, produce, manufacture lenses that indeed are out of our perception.

I see very old, expensive Nikkor lens - I wish Canon/Nikon can give us AF version of it under $8k...

Best,
d

Considering how often I use IS on my 100-400, they can eliminate that and save me some money.

If Sigma made a lens like that, I'd be willing to buy it from them instead. It would probably cost a LOT less and be almost as good.

--
Bob

LensWizard said:

[...] I myself would pay 10k for a 200-400 f/4 DO Zoom by Canon..

rtw

Click to expand...

Why is this not surprising... rtw = Jerry (R.) T. Westlick = bulbmogul, right?

Andy

LensWizard said:

Could we see Canon possibly making a EF200-400 F/4 DO IS Zoom..? This
would be top priority on my wish list.

Click to expand...

This would be such a low sales lens I do not think it likely to be made at all.

People already complain that the Nikon 200-400 f4 is over priced, but for Canon to make such a lens DO (I have nothing against DO, but it is more expensive, thus quite possibly pushing the cost to over $8k) would mean it would be more economical to change to Nikon for this focal range and to buy a D3 and the 200-400 f4 ED VR.

I use the Nikon 200-400 at work, and it is a great lens. But, to tell the truth, even if Canon made a 200-400 f4 L IS (non DO) for a lesser cost than the Nikon, I would not buy it. The range is OK, but simply not great and I end up spending all my time at 400mm. For such a limited range I would rather use the 300 f2.8 L IS and a 1.4 TC. Only slightly less range, lighter, faster, and almost inarguably better image quality.

Or another option, give me an as yet unmade 400mm f4 L IS non-DO, I bet the cost is a little under the current 300mm f2.8 L IS. Probably less than half the cost of an 200-400 f4 zoom, lighter, more compact, and less to fail. Probably just a little over half the cost of the current 400mm f4 DO while being a few percent (less than 25% ?) longer and heavier.

T!
--