Poll: What lens do you want to see next?

I am in general pretty happy with the current lens offering from Canon and don't have anything I consider serious "lacking". What I really like to see is the improvement in the sensor development,  that's the area I can notice Canon is lacking behind some competitors. for example, It would be nice if I can use my TSE 17 and TSE 24 II on the native Canon pro SLR body with   better DR and resolution than what they have now so I don't have to go with the Sony and mess around with adapter.

Rick Knepper wrote:

I've got the Otus 55 rented for the Thanksgiving holiday.

What I'd really like is for Canon to compete with these brands/models for wide aperture performance.

So what happened? Did you have the will power to return the Otus 55mm, or did you decide to keep it?

Great Bustard wrote:

Listed are lenses and prices that I think are "reasonable guesses" as to what may be released within the next couple years (some sooner than others, obviously). Of these, which lens would you want to see next?

Canon EF 500mm f4 IS DO

Canon EF 600mm f4 IS DO

Canon EF 800mm f5.6 IS DO

Canon EF 1000mm f5.6 IS DO (well probably not - the front element would be huge).

We will soon know if the 400mm live up to the promise of the MTF. If so it should be supplemented by other DO super tele lenses. They would totally annihilate the competition.

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.

John Sheehy wrote:

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.

That will never happen ! The "reporting" system works just like Canon want it to work and they don't want it to work any other way. What happens is that the attached TC will short 2 or all of the 3 extra TC-contacts on the lens in the lens mount. The lens then changes its reporting to the camera accordingly. Prior to the mk III TC's no Canon TC contained electronics. The marketing material on the mk III TC's say that they actually contain active electronics. You can disable/modify the TC reporting by taping the 3 TC contacts in the lens mount. Use isolation tape to make a 1.4 TC invisible. Use conductive tape to make a 2x TC "report" as a 1.4 TC. Please note at any experimentation with taping contacts will be entirely at your own risk !

Lee Jay wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

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.

That's not how it works. TCs don't report to the camera, they report to the lens, and the electrical way they report only supports either a 1.4x or a 2x. So, now the lens knows its attached to a TC (or it doesn't in the case of TCs that don't report), and it's up to the lens to report that to the camera.

You're talking about what could be done within the limits of what is done in certain TCs. What would prevent a TC, designed to do so, from pretending to be the lens?

40d_dane wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

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.

That will never happen ! The "reporting" system works just like Canon want it to work and they don't want it to work any other way. What happens is that the attached TC will short 2 or all of the 3 extra TC-contacts on the lens in the lens mount. The lens then changes its reporting to the camera accordingly. Prior to the mk III TC's no Canon TC contained electronics. The marketing material on the mk III TC's say that they actually contain active electronics. You can disable/modify the TC reporting by taping the 3 TC contacts in the lens mount. Use isolation tape to make a 1.4 TC invisible. Use conductive tape to make a 2x TC "report" as a 1.4 TC. Please note at any experimentation with taping contacts will be entirely at your own risk !

The whole point of doing things electronically is to avoid having to use things like tape. I only tried tape once, and didn't like it.

Anyway, my main concern is not for total TC transparency; I just included full non-reporting for completeness. I'd prefer to always have the correct focal length and f-number in the camera display and in the EXIF information. I would, however, like the option of having a choice in whether or not the actual f-number affects attempted AF behavior (of course, it can always affect actual performance). Having a mixture of TCs (Tamron SP 2x, Canon 2xIII, Kenko Pro 300 DG & DGX) and lenses of various behaviors (no TC contacts, TC contacts, TC contacts but tricky self-reporting), there are pluses and minuses in the various combinations, but they are inconsistent, which is problematic.

Even total non-reporting is annoying as far as EXIF is concerned, it is sometimes helpful; if you have the aperture of a lens at its sweet spot, and decide that your next subject is too distant and you want to use a TC, simply inserting the TC actually opens the physical aperture, unless you remember to stop down, possibly making the use of the TC almost pointless, at soft-wide-open (better sampling of less analog detail).

With all of these variations and quirks, TC use is a jungle. So, I'd be interested in TCs that could pretend to be the lenses themselves, and let the user determine how the camera sees the combo, and how the system behaves. Could not a TC designed to do so intercept the signalling and change it with little delay?

As you may know, the Kenko Pro 300 DGX TCs allow correct reporting, but AF when it should not be allowed (reported f/8 will allow AF on f/5.6 cameras). Is this possibly a step in the direction that I am talking about?

mailman88 wrote:

Sigma...think long, think affordable, think sharp. I know you have the 150-600mm, but the reviews are not ready. Rumor so far, this lens has a slow focus at 600mm....NOT GOOD ENOUGH for ME, if true.

Which one? There are two Sigma 150-600 lenses.

Lee Jay wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

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.

That's not how it works. TCs don't report to the camera, they report to the lens, and the electrical way they report only supports either a 1.4x or a 2x. So, now the lens knows its attached to a TC (or it doesn't in the case of TCs that don't report), and it's up to the lens to report that to the camera.

You're talking about what could be done within the limits of what is done in certain TCs. What would prevent a TC, designed to do so, from pretending to be the lens?

How? It would have to completely interpret the camera signals, choose which to relay to the lens, choose which lens signals to relay back to the camera, put its own data in the stream in the proper places, and do it all in real time. This is a serial stream (I think it's the Motorola 68HC05 serial communications protocol) so doing that all correctly for all available lenses, first and third party, and doing it all without significant delay would be a pretty big challenge.

I thought that this was a wish thread.

Anyway, it's a shame that protocols are almost always created with no foresight.

Great Bustard wrote:

I would also like a 200 / 2.8L IS (or 200 / 2.8 OS Art) that was sharp enough to take a 2x TC with minimal degradation.

I want a stabilized 200/1.8 that is sharpest at f/1.8, and is pretty good with two 2x TCs (of course, one would have to be non-Canon unless a 12mm extension tube were used between them).