Reading mode: Light Dark

Wish Lenses

Go to last post
Why stop at 2.8, c'mon people this is our imagination here, we don't have to worry about practicality! How about a super sharp 1000mm f1.0 L?
 
They're a bit past due for a refresh. Namely the 24 f/2.8 and the 35 f/2. What would be prefered USM versions positioned between the current models and the L ala the 50 f/1.8, 1.4, 1.2 options. That way there's still a small, light $200-350 option for those who want it. Improvements to the 20 and 28 USM and AFD versions are also welcome.

While we're at it I wouldn't mind a 20mm L in the f/1.4-1.8 range. With that on a 5D Mk II or 1Ds Mk III I could crop the images to a 16MP square and it would be like shooting 6x6 with the old Hassy 50.

Tangentially related something along the lines of Nikons 35mm DX lens would also make sense. I'm not an APS-C shooter myself, but if I was I'd really want a 30-35mm prime on par with the 50f/1.4 It's a bit much to pay for the 35L (and carry the extra weight) when a quality lens with reasonably fast aperture could be made lighter for cheaper if it was only throwing an image circle for an APS-C sensor. My guess is Canon is watching to see how well Nikon's 35mm DX sells to see if it would be worth the investment in R&D and manufacturing setup costs.

-300 f/2.8 is golden doesn't need to be touched.
-The 4 70-200 lenses are amazing, no refresh needed.

-24-70 f/2.8L would be nice with IS and some minor optical improvements, but I'd hate to see them stretch the lens on either size of range if it costs IQ.
-The 85L weighs enough and is large enough as is without IS.

-IS on anything 50mm or wider is not nearly as beneficial as it is on long lenses so I really don't want it on wide to normal lenses as I can hand hold pretty slow shutter speeds.

-The current 50mm line up is pretty good with the 50 Macro being the worst of the bunch, which isn't that bad.
-Love the 85 f/1.8 optically, just put a proper bayonet on it to fix the hood.

-I'd love to see Canon bring back the 50 f/1.0L (or even a 0.95) but I'll be honest and say it wouldn't be the first thing on my list to buy, but it would be nice to know it was there if I wanted to rent it for something (especially for video uses)

-For some strange psychological reason I never liked the 28mm length, so I really don't care about the possibility of a 28mm L.

--
~Kurt
 
Yes I've regularly used tripods with wide lenses (including a 38mm on a 4x5 which I think is something in the area of a 10mm lens in terms of 35mm equivalent--thing vignettes like hell, but it was interesting.)

I can hand hold a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera down to about 1/10th of a second. If I'm doing anything longer than that I'm using a tripod, and I wouldn't trust IS for much longer than that anyway.
--
~Kurt
 
Well, since this is a wish list, why not a 10x1000 F1.2L IS USM zoom, sharp at both ends and the middle, in a package about the size of my 24x70L (or smaller) so I only need one lens.
--
Abovethecrowds
 
Some people who think they have learned photography (over the internet) but aren't very experienced in the real world of shooting think that IS is a substitute for proper technique, including the use of a tripod when appropriate. It isn't.
 
You're not a sports shooter, eh Brian?

Indoors f2.8 is not fast enough; and outdoors f2.8 is normally used to isolate subject from background. And sports action shooting hardly benefits from IS at any focal length because you need fast shutter speeds to freeze the action and eliminate motion blur. Sports photography doesn't need the slower shutter speeds that IS enables. Those primes that you mention are all great for sports as they are, adding IS to them would just increase their price without any increase in their usefulness for sports.

Sigma makes an excellent 100-300 f4 which is used by some pro sports shooters.
Brian63H said:
EF 50-150 2.8 L IS
Great for indoor sports and stage work.

EF 100-300 F4 L IS
I think most outdoor sports shooters would love this

85 1.8
100 F2
135 F2
All with IS

Brian
Click to expand...
 
jh2bh said:
Some people who think they have learned photography (over the internet) but aren't very experienced in the real world of shooting think that IS is a substitute for proper technique, including the use of a tripod when appropriate. It isn't.
Click to expand...
...and some other people have no idea what "intentional subject motion blur" is, nor do they understand that you can't take or setup a tripod everywhere you go, like museums, subways, etc.,.
 
jh2bh said:
Some people who think they have learned photography (over the internet) but aren't very experienced in the real world of shooting think that IS is a substitute for proper technique, including the use of a tripod when appropriate. It isn't.
Click to expand...
Of course it isn't. It's a readily available solution for certain photographic situations and a particularly useful one at that. It is an alternative not a substitute. Obviously there are times when one alternative is more suitable than another and vice versa. The real shame is when someone isn't open minded enough to realize that each tool has unique functions unmatched by any other tool.
 
My comment was not directed at all forms of IS. The 70-200 f/2.8 and 300 f/2.8 IS are amazing. But on a super-wide lens (which is what we were talking about), IS is not going to give nearly as much a benefit. I was just saying that a wide angle lens can be hand held for a very slow speed to begin with, and the speeds at which you'd start needing IS on a wide angle lens are so long would be excessive; I don't expect to be hand holding for 1 second exposures. To me adding IS to anything shorter than 24mm is only adding weight.

I'll just assume your comment about people who think they learned photo over the internet without experience was directed at someone else.
--
~Kurt
 
Used a tripod in a museum many, many times and I've used one in the NYC subways a couple times.
--
~Kurt
 
I agree it's good to have an alternative, however the way I use a camera, it's an alternative that I would rarely use and would likely add significant weight to the lens. I believe adding IS to retrofocus lenses is significantly more complex than conventional telephoto lenses leading to significant added weight.
--
~Kurt
 
russkev said:
Why stop at 2.8, c'mon people this is our imagination here, we don't have to worry about practicality! How about a super sharp 1000mm f1.0 L?
Click to expand...
Hopefully this would include the trailer you would need to move it around. ;)

--
Cheers,

bg

'I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.'
  • Bjarne Stroustrup, inventor of the C++ programming language
Check out my gallery at http://beerguy.smugmug.com

(See profile for the gear collection)
 
Belasco said:
No 500mm f5.6 IS would be the killer lens!!!!
Click to expand...
Yes, it would.

I also dream of a lightweight but razorsharp 300mm f5.6L lens (it existed in Canon FD in apo and non-apo) with macro 90 cm. A 600mm f5.6L at ca. 3 kg would also be nice, the 500mm f4 is a bit too heavy for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
EF 85mm f1.8, discontinued 2031
Replies
4
Views
3K
Victor Engel
V
T
Canon 1.4 Extender Advice
Replies
9
Views
3K
TempusFugit2012
T
F
70-200 f/2.8 family
Replies
13
Views
8K
Scott Larson
S
T
Too much overlap
Replies
8
Views
14K
Dave
Dave
J
  • Question Question
Is this supposed to work? Macro tube + extender
Replies
11
Views
412
danski0224
D

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