What new lens would you LIKE to see from Canon?

MilesTHD · Oct 15, 2003

100 macro with a built in ring-light

m i l e s t

Interested in protecting your photos? Contact me about high-quality scrapbook supplies and training - [email protected] -760.533.7846 - San Diego, CA

BobHo · Oct 15, 2003

Canon did make a 150-500F5.6 for their FD mount. It was a weird looking thing.

Doug Warner said:
Something worth writing to Canon and requestiong they make it?

For me, it's a 200=600L IS
--

--
Bob

BobHo · Oct 15, 2003

Doug Warner said:
Something worth writing to Canon and requestiong they make it?

For me, it's a 200=600L IS
--

--
Bob

Dr. Don Sandell · Oct 15, 2003

Doug Warner said:
Something worth writing to Canon and requestiong they make it?

For me, it's a 200=600L IS
--

softtower · Oct 15, 2003

Very long post, full of great thoughs. But I still don't understand:

Millions of folks have been buying film Rebels with 28-70mm zooms and it was (and still is) a popular zoom range (for reasons you've mentioned) for 35mm format.
Now when they moved on to digital, they STILL prefer the same lens, even though it's 40-112mm now.

I don't get that. Of course there will always be a true lover for EVERY focal length, but since when 40-112mm is considered "normal" or "good walkaround range"? And majority of folks go for 40-112mm over traditional 28-70mm (that's a 17-40mm on a 10D, what I called a "must have"). Despite the fact that 40-112mm if almost twice as expensive and heavy...

What I think is going on is a "zoom craze": a well-known phenomenon among point-and-shoot and camcoder users (labels like "3x zoom" and lookalike pet shots came from that world). It's just now these users are moving on to a new toy: a digital SLR.

--
Eugueny

Troponin · Oct 15, 2003

Doug Warner said:
Something worth writing to Canon and requestiong they make it?

For me, it's a 200=600L IS
--

--
Troponin (Trop)
'No Limitation is Limitation'
and I still can't spell worth a dang!

Patrick Tower · Oct 15, 2003

I had it right the first time, but when the forum rejected my title for "shouting," I mis-typed it.
That stop makes a huge difference.
-Patrick

Evo_ said:
Patrick Tower said:

Trying to find a somewhat reasonable combination of desire and
realistic price/size/performance, I've wanted a lens like this (for
basketball and gymnastics, mainly) since my film days, and it would
still be useful with a 1.3x crop factor. Of course a wider range
would be nice, but a price under $3000 would be nice too.

-P

Doug Warner said:

Something worth writing to Canon and requestiong they make it?

For me, it's a 200=600L IS
--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

NewSushi · Oct 15, 2003

As to why people move from 35mm to 1.6x DSLR and prefer the same focal length, instead of the same equivalent focal length, I don't know. Some of it, at least, has to be the fact that they already own these lenses (in the case of the 24-70L and 70-200L, that's ~$3000) and don't want to shell out for new glass. I agree that many of these users now have a need for wider, but UWA zooms on the EF design are either too expensive/bulky or simply not good enough. This is why many non-FF users are going to optically superior primes that are less strain on the budget and camera bag.

This is why Canon must do one of the two options that I mentioned in my previous post. The fact that their 1Ds is FF suggests that FF is where the future of Canon DSLRs lie (at least higher end). At the same time, the introduction of the 18-55mm EF-S lens displays Canon's willingness to create a temporary compromise that could easily be made available with future cameras. If canon were to bide it's time until it were financially willing to go standard FF, the introduction of an EF-S 15-40L (or something like that) along with the implementation of the EF-S mount on all new DSLRs would probably be a good temporary compromise. I say temporary because my understanding of the EF-S mount requires a change in the mirror mechanism to make it move farther back, and in my opinion, that's just something else to malfuncion and break.

Personally, not that anyone cares, I'd be perfectly happy with a 1.3x FOV compromise (more usuable wide end than 1.6x, more usable tele than FF). I'd also like to see Foveon X3 get into Canon (which will probably NEVER happen!)

One last interesting observation. As image sensors get better, ISOs will get cleaner and cleaner. While most people don't think much about turning it up to 200, 400, or even 800 sometimes when needed, I think it's only logical to assume that we won't think twice about shooting at 800, 1600, 3200 in the near future. Imagine shooting with your f/4L lens in near complete darkness without a tripod...

In closing, I'd like to resubmit my wish of a 24-70 4L, a redesigned 50mm 2.5 USM Macro, and a solution to Eugueny's wide angle problem (I'm no engineer, you figure it out Canon!).

-NewSushi

softtower said:
Very long post, full of great thoughs. But I still don't understand:

Millions of folks have been buying film Rebels with 28-70mm zooms

and it was (and still is) a popular zoom range (for reasons you've
mentioned) for 35mm format.

Now when they moved on to digital, they STILL prefer the same

lens, even though it's 40-112mm now.

I don't get that. Of course there will always be a true lover for
EVERY focal length, but since when 40-112mm is considered "normal"
or "good walkaround range"? And majority of folks go for 40-112mm
over traditional 28-70mm (that's a 17-40mm on a 10D, what I called
a "must have"). Despite the fact that 40-112mm if almost twice as
expensive and heavy...

What I think is going on is a "zoom craze": a well-known phenomenon
among point-and-shoot and camcoder users (labels like "3x zoom" and
lookalike pet shots came from that world). It's just now these
users are moving on to a new toy: a digital SLR.

--
Eugueny

sean64805 · Oct 15, 2003

Doug Warner said:
Something worth writing to Canon and requestiong they make it?

For me, it's a 200=600L IS
--

--

(PLEASE DO NOT list equipment in your signature as this adversely affects searching.)

Stefan Schott · Oct 15, 2003

sean said:
Doug Warner said:

Something worth writing to Canon and requestiong they make it?

For me, it's a 200=600L IS
--

Click to expand...

--
(PLEASE DO NOT list equipment in your signature as this adversely
affects searching.)

Micheal Hall · Oct 15, 2003

The 200mm 1.8 has been discontinued.

I would like to see it updated with full time manual focus and IS.

It's an incredible lens and a shame it was removed from production.

(The inclusion of DO being contingent upon it not degrading the incredible sharpness of this lens as it is found now).

Micheal

Ulli · Oct 15, 2003

http://www.sigma-foto.de/weitwinkel/weit17.html
new SIGMA announced: EX 4,5-5,6/12-24mm DG IF Asp

--
Regards, Ulli

'I don't worry if my lenses are sharp. I worry if my pictures are selling.'

Mr Majestyk · Oct 15, 2003

John Storjohann said:
500 f/5.6 L that was in the price range of, say the 100-400 IS
zoom. They have a 400 f/5.6 that can be found
500 f/5.6 in the $1200-$1300 range?
--
Keep chasing the light!

John
http://www.timelesselements.com

500 f/4L IS = $5500
500 f/5.6L IS ~ $2000-2500

I still find that pretty cheap, but there's no way it would be $1300, thats only $300 more than 400 f/5.6L which doesn't have IS.

Ian Cale · Oct 15, 2003

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

CopCarSS · Oct 15, 2003

Especially if they can start to bring the price down. I know everyone is nuts about 300 f1.8 500 f2.8, etc., but I think 500-600 f4 or f5.6 would be kind of cool...smaller than the 500-600 f4 L IS, but still packing a telephoto punch. Gotta love compressing stuff!

And, having the opputunity to shoot an FD 800 f5.6L on my F1 one time, something above the 600 f4, and below that stratopherically priced 1200 f5.6L would be kind of cool.

Just my $0.02

Chris
Denver, CO

Evo_ · Oct 15, 2003

NewSushi wrote:
(snip)

NewSushi said:
Most people who want wider than 24mm go with a prime. Why?
Because uwa zooms are usually notoriously bad...either that or
they're really really expensive. Regarless, in the EF format they
are all very heavy, bulky, and usually somewhat slow. At this
focal length, a prime is what gives best optical performance,
weight and bulk, and usually price.

That explains the popularity of the 17-40: not very heavy/bulky, fast, affordable, and very good quality.

NewSushi said:
(snip) It is exactly like a 10D, but has a
brand-spaking new 11mp FF sensor in it. What should canon charge?
$2500 (street price).

Where do I sign up?

You may have noticed that I suggested a 28-105/4L. My point is, with f/4 Canon has more leeway in extending the focal length range and still maintain a very compact size (probably 58mm or 67mm filter size). Alternatively a 24-85/4L is possible too.

Evo_ · Oct 15, 2003

I've always wondered why zooms for 35mm seldom goes fast f/2.8. Perhaps the lens you describe is not possible without a lot of bulk/weight -- maybe with a size approaching that of a 300/2.8?

Patrick Tower said:
I had it right the first time, but when the forum rejected my title
for "shouting," I mis-typed it.
That stop makes a huge difference.
-Patrick

Chief · Oct 15, 2003

Fast glass and IS in a useable walkaround length. If the 35/2 can be made so light, so can this lens. I don't care if it is carbon fiber and plastic lens, the technology exists for them.

--
MOLON LABE!

Regards,
John

KenS2 · Oct 15, 2003

Doug Warner said:
Something worth writing to Canon and requestiong they make it?

For me, it's a 200=600L IS
--

20-200 F2.8L IS

Just a copy of the 70-200 with a lower range.

Ken

jason sheridan · Oct 15, 2003

I would agree a 24-135 f4 L IS would be a perfect range form a lot of subjects. I would settle for a 24-120 (5x) range if it meant keeping the quality high. A range of 3-4x seems to the limit for quality zooms and the wider you go the lower the zoom range seams to be. For instance the 16-35 2.8 has a zoom range just over 2x. The only thing that might allow this dreamed up lens to actually have a 5x plus range and high optical quality is that it would have a small constant aperture of f 4.

I've noticed that many people have been suggesting this lens for quite some time now (as long as I have been hanging around here). I wonder if this lens or something like it will ever materialize. Canon has not brought out many new lenses in the past year or so, maybe the next 12 months will bring us some surprises.

Also I would like to see the 200 f2.8 L prime updated with IS to make it the ultimate handheld telephoto. This would be the perfect hiking companion to the lens above if it were similar in size, weight and performance to the existing 200 2.8 L.

Jay

What new lens would you LIKE to see from Canon?

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts