Poll: What lens do you want to see next?

Lee Jay wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

1.2x-1.8x (or 1.1-1.9 or 1.0 to 2.0, whatever can be done) zoom teleconverter for $1,000.

How about a 1x, 1.4x, and 2x TC that have IS?

Yeah, but with nearly all the lenses on which you might use one now having IS, there doesn't seem to be as much of a point of that as there used to be. What's left, 135/2 and 200/2.8L? Everything else reasonable seems to have IS already.

If they were done right, the IS could improve on the IS of older models. Also, some of my IS lenses do not function properly IS jumps after initial mirror slap) with certain combinations of TCs and bodies; that could be overcome. Of course, they'd have to be aware of the focal length of the lens, so they'd have to parse that from the lens or let you dial it in. They'd need to cut power to the IS in the lens, too. Double IS is worse than no IS at all, as it uncorrects a correction, while adding the extra micro-jitter of each correction.

I myself dream of better TC choices. Sometimes 1.4x is just too much for the AF system with slower lenses. My Tamron 150-600, for instance, is f/9 wide open with a 1.4x TC. It's f/6.43 wide open, according to the EXIF, so a 1.244x TC would make it f/8, where it would AF much better than at f/9.09. Not everyone is a "proper sampling" freak like I am, though, so the market might be small.

Another thing I'd like is switches on a TC to determine what is reported and whether or not to trick the camera, like the Kenko Pro DGX TCs do. When no reporting is used, one might still want the identity of the lens changed in the metadata to reflect the presence of the TC, so you can tell when it was used. It might also be useful to change the identity of the lens by the TC to allow separate MFA settings for the lens when used with the TC.