Reading mode: Light Dark

Weirdo lens you wish existed? (Realistic)

Go to last post
A

AcquiredTaste

Veteran Member
Messages
6,564
Solutions
7
Reaction score
4,824
Location
US
Another thread was posted about a previous rumor of a 24-105 f/2.8 - 4 (which obviously never materialized and likely never will) and it got me thinking about what lenses I wish existed.

Now, throwing physics and reality aside, there's a lot of hypothetical lenses that I wish existed, but that's kind of a pointless exercise. So my question is simple, what REALISTIC (or at least quasi-realistic) lenses do you wish existed and would definitely buy if they did?

I'm not really talking about pretty normal lenses that already exist but just aren't made in the Z mount, such as an 85mm f/1.2. I'm thinking of lenses that don't exist at all, or at least don't exist in a modern format.

I'll post my answer in a reply.
 
I'd use the heck out of an 80-105mm f/2. I'd also love a 200mm f/6.3 (even f/8) MACRO.

(Oh, and have a Happy Thanksgiving!)

--
Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview. I'm just a regular poster unless explicitly stated otherwise in the body of the post.
https://500px.com/biggs23
 
Last edited:
A Z version of the 200mm f/2 would make me very happy and my bank account very sad.
 
A Z 300-500 f/4-5.6 is a lens I wish and a portrait lens Z 75-105 f/1.8
 
10-50mm FF. I'd live with F/4.
 
Probably not realistic but... 16-35 mm f1.8 DX with VR (slightly wider than the Sigma counterpart and with VR).
 
10-24 F5.6 S - F5.6 for Cost, size and ease of design for less software correction needed and hopefully sample consistency - so long as it was sharp wideopen across the frame ..

Sigma made the 8-16 like this , one of, if not THE best APS_C mega-wide zooms made ....... given a top copy of course

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **
 
Last edited:
Biggs23 said:
Another thread was posted about a previous rumor of a 24-105 f/2.8 - 4 (which obviously never materialized and likely never will) and it got me thinking about what lenses I wish existed.

Now, throwing physics and reality aside, there's a lot of hypothetical lenses that I wish existed, but that's kind of a pointless exercise. So my question is simple, what REALISTIC (or at least quasi-realistic) lenses do you wish existed and would definitely buy if they did?

I'm not really talking about pretty normal lenses that already exist but just aren't made in the Z mount, such as an 85mm f/1.2. I'm thinking of lenses that don't exist at all, or at least don't exist in a modern format.

I'll post my answer in a reply.
Click to expand...
Ultra light & small 14-200mm f/whatever. IQ can be bad. I want this lens for composing scenes, then once I find the focal length I want, I can pick the actual lens from my bag.
 
I'd buy one of your 80-105/2's in a heartbeat as well.

I'd love something strange like a 40-90/2.5 that had Sigma 40 art type of quality and I wouldn't care if it had the same size. That would be a perfect studio lens for me.

Wouldn't mind a return of the 17-35 range; I don't like the 14-24 range as much as the 17-35 range.
 
TheWillRogers said:
Biggs23 said:
Another thread was posted about a previous rumor of a 24-105 f/2.8 - 4 (which obviously never materialized and likely never will) and it got me thinking about what lenses I wish existed.

Now, throwing physics and reality aside, there's a lot of hypothetical lenses that I wish existed, but that's kind of a pointless exercise. So my question is simple, what REALISTIC (or at least quasi-realistic) lenses do you wish existed and would definitely buy if they did?

I'm not really talking about pretty normal lenses that already exist but just aren't made in the Z mount, such as an 85mm f/1.2. I'm thinking of lenses that don't exist at all, or at least don't exist in a modern format.

I'll post my answer in a reply.
Click to expand...
Ultra light & small 14-200mm f/whatever. IQ can be bad. I want this lens for composing scenes, then once I find the focal length I want, I can pick the actual lens from my bag.
Click to expand...
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=director's+finder&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

or any of the current "director's finder" mobile apps ;-)
 
Variable field curvature + tilt/shift lens for landscape photography. Of course it could take a while to make the adjustments.

Natural scenes come in an infinite variety of geometries.

--
Wag more; bark less.
 
Last edited:
Biggs23 said:
I'd use the heck out of an 80-105mm f/2. I'd also love a 200mm f/6.3 (even f/8) MACRO.

(Oh, and have a Happy Thanksgiving!)
Click to expand...
I'm very curious as to why you want a 200mm f/6.3. Is this just to save on cost and size? Because you'd never use the lens at f/4? Nikon's 200mm F/4Dmicro is a gorgeous lens. But yeah, when used at macro distances close to 1:1 I don't use f/4 much.
 
kbrkr said:
Maybe not so weird, but a 800 F/5.6 PF the same weight as the 200-500 or 500 pf and same price.
Click to expand...
Same as 200-500 and 500 PF.... those are two completely different priced and weighted lenses

I'd love an 800 f/5.6 PF. I'm not sure what I'd be willing to pay.
 
I was thinking of a Multi prime lens in one.
basically the lens should be able to zoom but only from one prime number to another and not in between. For example:

50mm. Next click 75mm. Next click 85mm.

This way, perhaps the manufacturing process could be way easier and image quality may be so much higher because they don’t have to bother with the lens being great in all the in between zoom ranges focal lengths.
 
Last edited:
michaeladawson said:
Biggs23 said:
I'd use the heck out of an 80-105mm f/2. I'd also love a 200mm f/6.3 (even f/8) MACRO.

(Oh, and have a Happy Thanksgiving!)
Click to expand...
I'm very curious as to why you want a 200mm f/6.3. Is this just to save on cost and size?
Click to expand...
Yep. Or f/8. I don't use macro too often, but I'd love a great cheap 200mm macro for when I do venture out into nature.
michaeladawson said:
Because you'd never use the lens at f/4? Nikon's 200mm F/4Dmicro is a gorgeous lens.
Click to expand...
Yep, and I'd actually purchase it except it's not compatible with Z system.
michaeladawson said:
But yeah, when used at macro distances close to 1:1 I don't use f/4 much.
Click to expand...
I can't say I'm ever wide open!
 
I’d like a 24-70 F2. Canon sort of did this with the 28-70, but I’m that’s what I’d like to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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