# Lenses that you want Canon to release next



## Fatfaso (Sep 16, 2014)

Well Photokina has provided us with two non-L lenses and a DO telephoto. None of these lenses has me excited. If I had my way, Canon would release the following lenses within a year:

1. 50L II - I'd like it to focus quickly, render beautiful bokeh and be tack sharp 99% of the time
2. 35L II - see notes from above. 

It possible, I'd love for Canon to keep the weight down on the lenses as much as possible. Carrying a full frame body is heavy enough as it is. 

What would you like to see Canon release next?


----------



## Ruined (Sep 16, 2014)

135L II
85L III redesign, similar to the 50 1.0 > 1.2 redesign


----------



## mpphoto (Sep 17, 2014)

I was hoping to see a new 50mm 1.4, but it looks like that won't be happening soon. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 appears to yield some great images, but it is expensive (compared with the old Canon 50mm 1.4) and I have concerns about inconsistent AF performance. I would like a new non-L 50mm to equal Canon's 35mm f/2 IS in terms of build quality and performance.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 17, 2014)

Ruined said:


> 135L II



With IS the budget be damned; that and a 200 f/2 for indoor sports.

Jim


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Sep 17, 2014)

Ruined said:


> 135L II
> 85L III redesign, similar to the 50 1.0 > 1.2 redesign



+1 135 II (or the 135 1.8L IS Mk I 

+1 85L III (with fully internal focusing and no more focus by wire)

35L II


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 17, 2014)

85 L III (or L IS)
135 L II (or L IS)
100–400 L II
24–300 DO


----------



## cycleraw (Sep 17, 2014)

1) 100-400 L F4.5-5.6 IS II
2) 135 L F2.0 IS II


----------



## Perio (Sep 17, 2014)

85 1.2 iii


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Sep 17, 2014)

50 1.4 II IS or even a good 1.8 USM


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 17, 2014)

*EF 2.8 200 IS* - i tend to see 100-135 mm as "normal" with good close focus capabilties (1:4 would be great)

*EF-M 2.0 50 IS* - in a compact package with great IQ, flare resistance and good close focus capabilities. Shure, in *my view *a moderate wide angle but a good partner for a DSLR with 70-200 or 200mm prime


----------



## jthomson (Sep 17, 2014)

800 mm f5.6 DO with built in 1.4x ;D


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> A version of the 70-300 IS USM lens that isn't rubbish and doesn't cost over $1000.



And I'd like some low calorie ribeye steak, too.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 17, 2014)

cycleraw said:


> 1) 100-400 L F4.5-5.6 IS II
> 2) 135 L F2.0 IS II




FYI, if it has IS, it won't be a vII. It will just be 135mm f/2L IS USM.

I think there is zero chance of their being a 135mm f/1.8L IS USM and very little chance of a 135mm f/2L II USM, but there could be a 135mm f/2L IS USM.

I would love a 85mm f/1.4L USM, but there is little chance of that, too.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 17, 2014)

My list:

1. 100-400L IS USM II (would be nice, if it stayed as compact as v1, whether push-pull or rotating)
2. 50 1.4 USM II, non L (with IS would be nice, but only if it does not lose aperture)
3. 85 1.8 USM II, non L (with IS would be nice, but only if it does not lose aperture)


----------



## pulsiv (Sep 17, 2014)

I want a good 20mm 1.8 non-L... or even a not-too-expensive L. 
There just is this crappy Sigma-lens and some non-AF-lenses (I don't wanna mention the even more crappy Canon 20mm 2.8 )... C'mon Canon! 
I might put up with a 2.8 ... but that better be tack sharp!


----------



## serendipidy (Sep 17, 2014)

100-400L IS USM II


----------



## Omni Images (Sep 17, 2014)

400mm F5.6L IS with a closer min focus distance
along with a new 300mm F4 IS
Both the oldest lenses in their line up now .... come on !


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> The 85/1.8 is a sweet lens, just a pity about the CA. If they fixed that and kept a similar IQ, price & size... mmm....


Exactly my thought. 
Improve it optically, less CA, little bit more colors and contrast.
New ring USM, aperture design and maybe improve the mechanics a bit.

Even if this would be 200 €/$ more expensive, say 500 to 600 bucks, I would be in at once.

I don't know if I would miss an IS. 
The L ist way to expensive and special for me and having tried the Sigma 85/1.4 I was not really happy but I saw what could be possible.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Sep 17, 2014)

It's difficult to imagine how my image making experience would be somehow improved by the release of more lenses. The ones I have are more the sufficient for the task.

Though, having said that, I wonder if Canon could keep all the qualities of their existing L-glass and reduce their size. I'm thinking of the 24-105L and 24-70L.

I shot a wedding recently where a friend showed up with a Sony A7r kit. His comment was "Gee, Canon builds huge lenses, don't they?" To which I added "Give me that Sony a moment... Hmmm... lighter and smaller... and higher resolution images, too... maybe I could learn to love that dreaded gawdaweful EVF afterall..."

The older I get the heavier and more unwieldy these DSLR kits have become. Long gone (like, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, OK?) are the days when I could haul a 12x20inch Folmer and Schwing view camera, half dozen film holders, three lenses, dark-cloth, and tripod.


----------



## Memdroid (Sep 17, 2014)

A revised 16-35mm f/2.8 and a 50mm L would be nice! As these are my two favorite lenses and are severely lacking in wide open sharpness compared to the completion and the 24-70 and 70-200 version 2 zooms.


----------



## tat3406 (Sep 17, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> 50 1.4 II IS or even a good 1.8 USM



+1


----------



## jd7 (Sep 17, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > The 85/1.8 is a sweet lens, just a pity about the CA. If they fixed that and kept a similar IQ, price & size... mmm....
> ...





> ... and having tried the Sigma 85/1.4 I was not really happy but I saw what could be possible.



85 1.8 II sounds great to me too, although I think 85 1.8 IS would be even better (as long as it doesn't push up the weight/size/price too much!) ... or perhaps an 85 1.4.

Other than that, 135 2L IS (I keep trying to come up with a way to justify adding a 135 2L to my kit  ) and 50 1.4 IS (or even a 50 1.4 II if there are problems putting IS in a lens with a 1.4 aperture).

Maximilian - out of curiosity, what weren't you happy about with the Sigma 85 1.4? The reviews I've seen are generally very positive, with the only real complaint being some reports of AF issues. I've been thinking about trying to pick up one second hand to give it a go, so I'd be interested to hear what you didn't like about it.


----------



## risc32 (Sep 17, 2014)

100mm f1.8 usm macro IS. AF like the 85mm 1.8/100mmf2


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 17, 2014)

jd7 said:


> Maximilian - out of curiosity, what weren't you happy about with the Sigma 85 1.4?


My style of working with 85mm lenses does not necessarily need more than f1.8. 
The canon is smaller and lighter which I prefer. The AF seems also faster, though it could be even better 
The Sigma I tested had a slow AF with AF inconsistencies. I didn’t want to try through several copies of that lens to find one fitting to my camera body and not fitting to the next body I’ll probably have. I never had such problems with Canon lenses although Canon also has some spread in quality.
Optically I really wish Canon to design something similar. And I really appreciate what Sigma does and has done in the past. If I was to buy a third company lens, Sigma would be the first way to go.

Edit: If Sigma comes out earlier than Canon with a new 85/1.4 or 1.8 Art, I'd at once would give that one another try.


----------



## e17paul (Sep 17, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > A version of the 70-300 IS USM lens that isn't rubbish and doesn't cost over $1000.
> ...



It is far from out of the question. A full frame 70-300 STM has been rumoured (I think I remember a patent), and would be a logical follow up to the 24-105 STM.If it has a non rotating filter and good IQ (as recent STM lenses for EF-S), it will only lack the USM, external appearance and high price of the 70-300L.

Logic says that it will come, but only if willing to sacrifice USM for the silent but slower STM. I would have settled for that instead of stretching to the wonderful L, if the existing non-L USM had not been so dissapointing in so many ways.


----------



## Reiep (Sep 17, 2014)

An Otus-class 85mm f/1.4 with AF 8)


----------



## Fatfaso (Sep 17, 2014)

Wow. It seems like th majority of shooters in this thread shoot telephoto. A lot of requests for updates to 85, 135, and tele zooms. 

What blows my mind is that my 24-70L ii and 70-200L ii are sharper than my primes. Shouldn't that be the other way around? I shoot mainly portraits/events so I'm looking for fast primes. The sooner Canon can release updates to their L primes (hopefully increasing the sharpness and reducing the weight), the happier I'll be.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 17, 2014)

e17paul said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I had waited for that lens for a long time following logic, and still am. But I am less than hopeful. Canon has tiered it such that people are forced to buy the more expensive lens if they want quality or go bust. The non-L has so many issues- ergonomics, no true ring USM, few aperture blades, rotating front element. It was just a difficult lens to love. But then I have had the same feeling about the 50/1.4 and that seems to go on without replacement for ages.
Your idea about an STM makes sense. But having used STM lenses, I don't think I'd want one if I am shooting birds or sports- it's just too slow. So even if it comes out, I'd not benefit from it.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Interesting. One learns something every day.
It also seems you're from Australia. Right guess?


----------



## Eldar (Sep 17, 2014)

I'm surprised that the 12/14-24 f4L has not been mentioned.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 17, 2014)

I wish Canon and Zeiss could agree on an AF license ...


----------



## Viggo (Sep 17, 2014)

I have stopped hoping, but 35 L II and a 50 Art with Canon AF.


----------



## Steve (Sep 17, 2014)

jthomson said:


> 800 mm f5.6 DO with built in 1.4x ;D



This + suitcase full of cash


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 18, 2014)

1. 24-70 f/2.8L IS
2. 16-35 f/2.8L III or 16-35 f/2.8L IS (I don't care which as long as it's got at least f/2.8 and is as sharp as the current f/4)
3. 100-400 f/4L IS
4. 180 f/3.5L IS
5. 14-24 f/2.8
6. 50 f/1.2L IS


----------



## eml58 (Sep 18, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I wish Canon and Zeiss could agree on an AF license ...



Hail Mary, But Canon aren't that dense I think, who would buy a Canon Lens between 15 & 135 ?? if the Zeiss Lenses AF on a Canon Body, exception being the TSE lenses.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 18, 2014)

EF 50mm F1.4 IS USM
EF 50mm F1.8 IS STM
EF 85mm F1.8 IS
EF 200 F4 macro IS

EF-S 10mm F2.8
EF-S 15mm F2.8
EF-S 22mm F2
EF-S 30mm F1.4
EF-S 60mm F1.8 IS
EF-S 90mm F2 IS
EF-S 16-55mm F2.8 IS
EF-S 55-150mm F2.8 IS


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 18, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I wish Canon and Zeiss could agree on an AF license ...


I will be in big trouble


----------



## kkelis (Sep 18, 2014)

24mm f/1.4 LIII for me


----------



## Steve (Sep 18, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Hail Mary, But Canon aren't that dense I think, who would buy a Canon Lens between 15 & 135 ?? if the Zeiss Lenses AF on a Canon Body, exception being the TSE lenses.



Hmmmm, just a thought here, but maybe people who don't have unlimited amounts of disposable income? People who can't afford to drop $4-6k on every single lens?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 18, 2014)

Steve said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Hail Mary, But Canon aren't that dense I think, who would buy a Canon Lens between 15 & 135 ?? if the Zeiss Lenses AF on a Canon Body, exception being the TSE lenses.
> ...



LOL, was going to say the exact same thing.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 18, 2014)

Some long lists, but the question is how many of these will you buy. At least within a year of release?
Let's have some realistic lists.
Which lenses you want Canon to produce and you will pre-order if they do?
I'll start:
85/1.4
135 IS
20/1.8
(Not if they are all released simultaneously, I won't have the dough for that  )


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 18, 2014)

dilbert said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > e17paul said:
> ...



Agree with both statements.
I had the 70-300 Tammy and it was a lot better than the Canon in handling (non-rotating FE, manual focus override, better build), was about 20% cheaper, and about the same in IQ. 
But considering the fact that Canon is around 1.1K with discounts and street prices, I think the market will be tough for a third party lens, especially given the L zoom's reputation.


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 18, 2014)

I would like to see a new 

100-400L 
135 f2 IS L 
180L IS Macro
New 50mm 

All of the Canon 50 mm need updating. I included the dates for just how old those lens are. 

50L is great but a real specialty has some focusing issues out of my price range anyway.
50 1.4 USM (1992) needs fixing prone to breakage. 
50 1.8 II (1990) is POS focus motor noisy slow, coatings suck, not sharp enough for my taste until stopped down to 2.8. 
50 macro (1987) is archaic.


Personalty I think they need to release a new 50mm F1.8 STM to keep it cheep and a new 50mm F1.4 IS L.
I would not mind seeing an updated 50mm Macro.

I may just buy the Sigma 50 ART tired of waiting.


----------



## gregorywood (Sep 18, 2014)

I'd like to see updated version of the non-L primes (50mm/85mm) done like the 24mm/28mm/35mm. I'd also like a fixed aperture 70-300mm zoom - f/4 would do nicely. Lastly, an update to the prime fisheye would be a great addition.

I think all of those would be great sellers if the prices weren't too terribly high. I'd buy all four.


----------



## chromophore (Sep 18, 2014)

Lenses that I think Canon has the capability to produce in the near future:

1. EF 35/1.4L II USM. This would be an update to the existing 35/1.4L, to offer better corner performance with less astigmatism and coma.

2. EF 14-24/2.8L USM. A competitor to Nikon's version. But I believe Canon will not offer f/2.8 in this focal length range.

3. EF 100-400/3.5-5.6L IS USM. This would be a faster-aperture @ 100mm update of the current lens, with overall improvements. Zoom ring instead of push-pull design. It could end up being a DO lens, though.

4. TS-E 45/2.8L and TS-E 90/2.8L. It is said that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The existing designs are stellar lenses; but it seems only natural that the rest of the TS-E lineup should see L upgrades, with modern coatings, more flexible movements, and improved optics.

5. EF 50/1.4L USM. They should be feeling the pressure from Sigma's 50/1.4 Art. This design would discontinue the 50/1.2L, which is a portrait specialty lens with relatively poor corners and low contrast wide open.

Now for the lenses I *personally* fantasize about seeing Canon make, but doubt they can or will:

6. EF 50/1.0L II USM. The revival of 50mm f/1.0 would dovetail with the strategy of introducing a 50/1.4L. Here, Canon can use advancements in lens design and manufacturing that have occurred since the original 50/1.0L was produced. This lens would appeal to portrait photographers and those who prize a unique look over corner-to-corner sharpness.

7. EF 85/1.8 "Petzval" USM. Here, deliberate astigmatism and field curvature is introduced with heavy vignetting for a lens that combines a distinctive bokeh with modern autofocus technology. This lens could be made very, very cheaply--easily under $300, as it does not need to correct for these aberrations.

8. EF 300/1.8L USM. Canon has designed and patented it, at least on paper. It would be a beast, but without a doubt, there would be nothing remotely comparable in the 135mm format world.

9. Anything faster than f/2 with IS. No such lens exists in the EF lineup. Most likely, the first such lens would be a design in the normal focal length range.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 18, 2014)

chromophore said:


> Lenses that I think Canon has the capability to produce in the near future:
> 
> Now for the lenses I *personally* fantasize about seeing Canon make, but doubt they can or will:
> 
> 8. EF 300/1.8L USM. Canon has designed and patented it, at least on paper. It would be a beast, but without a doubt, there would be nothing remotely comparable in the 135mm format world.



Your first four seem probable. #8 not so much, but I guarantee you I'd rent the hell out of one if it ever happened!

Jim


----------



## vulie504 (Sep 18, 2014)

16-35 f2.8 iii


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 18, 2014)

can0nfan2379 said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > 135L II
> ...



+1 All of the above and new 50mm lenses (50mm f1.2L II and/or 50mm f1.8 IS)


----------



## Zv (Sep 18, 2014)

50mm / 85mm prime updates to the IS versions would be very welcome. The fifty is long long long overdue IMO. I'm not feelin the large and expensive Sigma. I want something the size of the EF 50mm 1.4 that's same price as the 35IS. 

Anything wide would also be nice such as a 14-24mm, though it might be out of my price range. I guess the 16-35 f/4L IS is filling the ultra wide needs for the time being so I doubt we'll see another ultra wide zoom anytime soon. 

Some more EF-M lenses like a few primes in the short tele range would be cool too. 

Lenses I'd like to see released but not likely to buy -

35LII
50LII 
100-400LII
TS 45 and 90 updates.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 18, 2014)

chromophore said:


> 2. EF 14-24/2.8L USM. A competitor to Nikon's version. But I believe Canon will not offer f/2.8 in this focal length range.



I personally feel should Canon not offer f/2.8, it's not really a true competitor. The rumor was that this new wider zoom would cost $2800, so without at least f/2.8, Canon would be asking that we pay significantly more than the excellent Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 for a slower Canon version.

I very much hope you're wrong. If Canon wants to offer an f/4 or so, then I'd prefer to see two offerings by Canon just like Nikon's f/4 12-24 and f/2.8 14-24.


----------



## e17paul (Sep 18, 2014)

gregorywood said:


> I'd like to see updated version of the non-L primes (50mm/85mm) done like the 24mm/28mm/35mm. I'd also like a fixed aperture 70-300mm zoom - f/4 would do nicely. Lastly, an update to the prime fisheye would be a great addition.
> 
> I think all of those would be great sellers if the prices weren't too terribly high. I'd buy all four.



...and 20mm too, or maybe a fraction wider. I'm still keeping an old Vivitar 19-35 for those occasions wgere the 24 IS just isnt wide enough.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 18, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > 2. EF 14-24/2.8L USM. A competitor to Nikon's version. But I believe Canon will not offer f/2.8 in this focal length range.
> ...



If the rumored Canon zoom starts at 11mm, then it is a different league than what Nikon has no matter the aperture. Nikon's 12-24mm f/4 is for APS-C only, so the angle of view isn't as wide 11mm, and there is a big difference between 11mm and 24mm.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 18, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > chromophore said:
> ...



I can't argue with any of that. My only real point was that if this lens is real, Canon will continue to have no fast and sharp (compared to the new 16-35 f/4) ultra wide zoom, which is a shame.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 18, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I can't argue with any of that. My only real point was that if this lens is real, Canon will continue to have no fast and sharp (compared to the new 16-35 f/4) ultra wide zoom, which is a shame.



And before this year, Canon had nothing that was sharp wide open in the ultrazoom category at all. Now we have the 16-35 f/4 IS and, if the rumor is true, a 11-24 f/4 might appear soon. Perhaps Canon can't figure out a way to design a good 14-24 f/2.8 w/o infringing on Nikon's patents, or maybe it did market research and found that people would rather have a 11-24 f/4 rather than a 14-24 f/2.8. I'd prefer that Canon update the 16-35 f/2.8 II rather than a 14-24 f/2.8 anyway. The extra FL on the long end saves on a lot of lens-changes and makes the 16-35 much more versatile (and easily filterable).


----------



## meli (Sep 18, 2014)

chromophore said:


> 8. EF 300/1.8L USM. Canon has designed and patented it, at least on paper. It would be a beast, but without a doubt, there would be nothing remotely comparable in the 135mm format world.



Well, there was.., Nikon had a 300/2 back in the 80s


----------



## 20Dave (Sep 18, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> I would like to see a new
> 
> 100-400L
> 135 f2 IS L
> ...



You listed the two lenses that I am on the lookout for (100-400L II and a 180L macro with IS). I have the 400L prime and really like it, but I would love IS. If a 100-400L comes out at north of $3000 US, then I'd consider either a 300 2.8 or a 500 instead, but would most likely buy none of the above at those prices. I think that the 180 macro is a pipe dream and would (again) be ridiculously expensive if/when it does come out. I'm seriously looking at the Sigma 150 and 180 macros.

EDIT: I would add a 400L 5.6 prime with IS to my wish list, which I would buy over a new 100-400L II if it was two out of {lighter/sharper/cheaper} than the zoom.


----------



## Tanispyre (Sep 19, 2014)

I want a work over of the normal to short telephoto lenses with is, like the 24, 28, and 30 is.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 19, 2014)

These with upgraded optics over the version I originals:
EF 20/2.8 II 
EF 28/1.8 II or 28/2.0
EF 50/1.4 II 

These with IS added:
EF 50/1.8 IS or 50/2.0 IS (with upgraded optics over 50/1.8 nifty fifty)
EF 85/1.8 IS
EF 135/2L IS *the lens I would most like to see!*

These for APS-C cameras:
EF-S 22/1.4
EF-S 32/1.4
EF-S 54/1.8 IS
EF-S 85/1.8 IS
EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS II (with upgraded build quality over the original)


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 19, 2014)

Tanispyre said:


> I want a work over of the normal to short telephoto lenses with is, like the 24, 28, and 30 is.



Maybe I get you wrong (or incompletely) but what is missing for you from the 16-35 f/4?

Jim


----------



## Runnerguy (Sep 19, 2014)

I just want the 100-400L II when I need to go lite


----------



## eml58 (Sep 19, 2014)

Steve said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Hail Mary, But Canon aren't that dense I think, who would buy a Canon Lens between 15 & 135 ?? if the Zeiss Lenses AF on a Canon Body, exception being the TSE lenses.
> ...



Your right of course, my humble apology, I should have been more specific.

If Zeiss had Lenses that AF on a Canon body, Canon would certainly loose some of their Lens Market to the Zeiss option, in particular to those People who are prepared to pay for that extra IQ the Zeiss Lenses generally provide, albeit at a sizeable cost increase. 

This is the area that Sigma with their Art Series Lenses are putting a lot of Dollars & effort into, improved IQ at a reasonable price comparison to Canon, Zeiss tend to work on the best possible IQ, but at a price.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 19, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> Tanispyre said:
> 
> 
> > I want a work over of the normal to short telephoto lenses with is, like the 24, 28, and 30 is.
> ...



I think he's saying that he would like to see lenses like the 50 and 85 get the same makeover/upgrade as the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS.


----------



## zlatko (Sep 19, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > Tanispyre said:
> ...



I agree. The new 24, 28 and 35 with IS are good lenses. I'd like to see the same updates for the 50 and 85.

And one more I'd really like to see for EF-S cameras: *EF-S 40-135/2.8 IS* ... this would the be EF-S version of the big but heavy 70-200/2.8L IS.


----------



## TAF (Sep 19, 2014)

I would like an EF 20-150/f2.8 L IS USM


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 19, 2014)

70-400/4-5.6L IS
15-28/2.8 fisheye
24-85/2.8L IS


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 19, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > I can't argue with any of that. My only real point was that if this lens is real, Canon will continue to have no fast and sharp (compared to the new 16-35 f/4) ultra wide zoom, which is a shame.
> ...



Don't get me wrong, I'm really not trying to bash Canon or anything, and the recent efforts towards filling in its comparatively deficient UWA offerings is great, I just hope that it doesn't end here for a chunk of time. I too would be thrilled to see a 16-35 f/2.8 iii. If it has IS too it would be amazing (and probably expensive, but I know at least I'd be willing to pay for something like that, I imagine there are others who would too). A slightly wider fast zoom such as the one hinted at earlier this year (http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/canon-working-on-faster-f2-8-ultra-wide-zoom-cr2/) would also be welcome.

As for Canon doing market research and finding that people would rather have f/4 than f/2.8, I don't know. Anything is possible I guess.

As for the patent issue, I doubt that's the problem, but I'm certainly not in a position to say with any degree of certainty that it isn't playing a role. While I've been studying patent law for some time and am hoping to soon practice IP law with a concentration in patent litigation, I'm certainly no patent prosecutor nor am I an optical engineer.

Rather than continue to speculate though, let's wait and see if this new lens is real in the end. If it turns out that it is AND that a high MP camera is set to be announced alongside it, it would lend credibility to the rumor about a new fast ultra wide zoom and it'll come down to probably buying the 16-35 f/4 IS to hold me over until the faster lens is released.


----------



## Helios68 (Sep 19, 2014)

As a wildlife photography newcomer I would love to hesitate between the following new lenses:
-EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
-EF 300mm f/4L IS II
-EF 400mm f/5.6L IS
-EF 500mm f/5.6L IS

For more allround use: EF 18-105 f/4L IS

And the world would be perfect if pricing was affordable (max 2000€).
I know I am quite a dreamer


----------



## bholliman (Sep 19, 2014)

20Dave said:


> I would add a 400L 5.6 prime with IS to my wish list, which I would buy over a new 100-400L II if it was two out of {lighter/sharper/cheaper} than the zoom.



+1 A 400 f/5.6 IS would be next on my wish list if available. If not, I may buy a venerable but excellent 400 f/5.6 anyway.


----------



## Photographer-at-Large (Sep 22, 2014)

Instead of EF 135mm f/2.0 L IS,
I wish Canon would release *EF 75-150mm f/2.0 L IS*

Instead of TS-E 45mm f/2.8L II,
I wish Canon would release *TS-E 35-70mm f/2.8 L*

Instead of TS-E 90mm f/2.8L II,
I wish Canon would release *TS-E 70-140mm f/2.8 L*


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 22, 2014)

Primes:
EF 16mm f/2 with no coma
EF 35mm f/1.4 L II USM (or 43.3mm f/1.618  )
TS-E 60mm f/2.8 L
TS-E 135mm f/3.5 L (Macro 1:1)

Zooms:
EF 11-24mm f/4 USM
EF 35-85mm f/2 IS USM
EF 100-300mm f/4 L USM (1.4xTC)
EF 500mm f/5.6 L IS USM


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 22, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> EF 100-300mm f/4 L USM (1.4xTC)
> EF 500mm f/5.6 L IS USM



Let me ask you a question. I've thought about this before.

What if the 100-300/4 were a 100-350/4 or, conversely, the 500/5.6 were a 350/4? 350/4+1.4xTC = 500/5.6, and the new optics Canon has been putting out take teleconverters really, really well.


----------



## knoxtown (Sep 22, 2014)

For the love of God, a new 20mm!!!!!!! i love the lens but it was released in 1992... I think it deserves to be put down and replaced with an L version.


----------



## jheez (Sep 23, 2014)

I think from a business standpoint, Canon should release a good 50mm prime. It's the weakest spot in their lens lineup. I probably won't buy it, as I don't really shoot 50mm.

The lenses I have dreams of:
85mm f1.8 IS
135mm f2 IS (and if we can't get that....200 f2.8 IS). I'm sick of carrying around my 70-200 2.8. A 135 f2 IS would sell extremely well IMO. Almost every wedding photographer I know would buy one.

Might be a cool possibility: 
150mm f2.8 IS macro


----------



## Helios68 (Sep 23, 2014)

knoxtown said:


> For the love of God, a new 20mm!!!!!!! i love the lens but it was released in 1992... I think it deserves to be put down and replaced with an L version.



+1
A new 20mm with large aperture why not:
-EF mount and not EF-S
-Aperture 1.8 or 2
-USM or even STM
-L or not L?
-Fair price

It would be really useful for architecture and low light conditions in general. I have been looking for one these last month but I'm still waiting for a new release from Canon.


----------



## Helios68 (Sep 23, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> EF 500mm f/5.6 L IS USM



+1

It would also be a good one. And better if it could work fine with the tele 1.4x mounted behind. The new 7D mkII should be also to AF with this setup, I think. With good light condition it would bring to a nice 700 f/8. Not to bad for birds maybe !


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 26, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > EF 100-300mm f/4 L USM (1.4xTC)
> ...


Yes either would be good. 

The reason I separated it into two fantasy lenses was 100-300/4 for larger wildlife but with the convenience and dust-avoidance of a built-in TC. I thought 350/4 might bring it too close to the 200-400/4 and also would make it heavier (maybe as much as 30% heavier...).

I'd like to see a 500/5.6 IS to displace the ageing but still good 400/5.6. As a prime it could hopefully be less expensive, lighter and offer fewer IQ compromises than third party zooms in this range. In my mind a lens to take on Tamron and Sigma in the "reach-on-a-budget" fight. (e.g. 150-600mm)


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 27, 2014)

I'm going to narrow my previous post down to the two I want to see most:

1. 24-70 f/2.8L IS
2. 16-35 f/2.8L IS

Along with the existing 70-200 f/2.8 IS II that would be the holy trinity for me to have in my bag always.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 27, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I'm going to narrow my previous post down to the two I want to see most:
> 
> 1. 24-70 f/2.8L IS
> 2. 16-35 f/2.8L IS
> ...



While I would certainly appreciated the 24-70/2.8L IS USM lens, I'd be worried about price tag, considering what I have to shell out for its non-IS version :-\


----------



## davidcl0nel (Sep 27, 2014)

Khalai said:


> While I would certainly appreciated the 24-70/2.8L IS USM lens, I'd be worried about price tag, considering what I have to shell out for its non-IS version :-\



Usual the double, isn't?  So a small amount of ~4K...


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 27, 2014)

EF 14-24mm USM f/2.8 - would welcome wider long side, and would settle for f/4.

EF 16-35mm f/2.8 III USM - I'd rather have improved IQ over IS, but wouldn't object to having both, if the price is right.


----------



## chromophore (Nov 7, 2015)

chromophore said:


> Lenses that I think Canon has the capability to produce in the near future:
> 
> 1. EF 35/1.4L II USM. This would be an update to the existing 35/1.4L, to offer better corner performance with less astigmatism and coma.
> 
> ...



While going through old posts, I found one of mine from about a year ago. How did I do?

1. The EF 35/1.4L II was actually released, with characteristics that meet and even exceed my predictions. I did not mention chromatic aberration, and of course I could not have predicted something like BR technology. But I anticipated that this lens would be updated and it came true.

2. The EF 11-24/4L was released. And with prescience that surprises even myself, I said "I believe Canon will not offer f/2.8 in this focal length range." I did not predict it would go as wide as it does, but I was spot on that any new lens to cover this range will not be f/2.8.

3. While the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS II is not f/3.5 at 100mm, it does sport a twist zoom design. And again, this is a design that I predicted would get an update, and it did.

4. Hasn't happened yet, but if rumors are to be believed, these are definitely in the works.

5. Still, more rumors swirling about on this, especially recently.

So, in about a year's time, the top three lenses I anticipated that Canon would release, actually got released, with specifications that are remarkably close to what I predicted.


----------



## vangelismm (Nov 8, 2015)

20mm f/x, same upgrade of 24/28/35mm IS lens.

85mm 1.8 IS and better CA.


----------



## John (Nov 8, 2015)

i would buy either of the ones below if they were updated
85mm f1.8 IS
135mm f2 IS


----------



## Gnocchi (Nov 8, 2015)

30mm 1.8 efs


----------



## arthurbikemad (Nov 8, 2015)

11-500 but please don't make it an f4 I need f2.8 at the 11mm end


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 9, 2015)

Something that is surely missing in the lineup right now is a good-quality inexpensive (non-L) long prime, something like an EF 300mm f/4 IS 

I'd even wager that Canon would do well from a good quality f/5.6 version if it were as inexpensive as the current 70-300 and had noticeably better image quality.


----------



## risc32 (Nov 9, 2015)

75-135 f2 

I'll be in the corner by myself holding my breath.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 9, 2015)

Canon EF 10mm f/4L USM, rectilinear.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Nov 9, 2015)

A 70-200 mm f 2.8 stm version similar too the 55-250mm but a lil bigger and in black for less then 1000


----------



## Tony5787 (Nov 9, 2015)

jolyonralph said:


> Something that is surely missing in the lineup right now is a good-quality inexpensive (non-L) long prime, something like an EF 300mm f/4 IS
> 
> I'd even wager that Canon would do well from a good quality f/5.6 version if it were as inexpensive as the current 70-300 and had noticeably better image quality.



I agree but if they're going to put out a new 300mm f4 it's going to be an L lens almost definitely considering that the current one is and so is the version before that. I think maybe if we do see a replacement though it might actually be a DO lens to compete with the new Nikon 300mm f4 PF which is considerably smaller than its predecessor.


----------



## ERHP (Nov 9, 2015)

A 600mm f/4 with a built in 1.4TC would be awesome.


----------



## Ladislav (Nov 9, 2015)

[list type=decimal]
[*]24-70 f2.8 L IS
[*]50 f1.2 L Mk. II
[*]400 f5.6 L IS (or 500)
[/list]

While I could not afford either of these lenses at the beginning, they are on my wishlist (together with existing 70-200 f2.8 L IS Mk. II). First two would be upgrades to lenses I already have, the last would give me new options.


----------



## Daan Stam (Nov 9, 2015)

70-200 f4 is usm markII


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 9, 2015)

My list would be:
[list type=decimal]
[*]500mm f/5.6L IS
[*]50mm f/1.2L II 
[*]16-35mm F/2.8L IS 
[/list]

I love the 16-35mm F/4 IS and use it all the time, but I mostly choose the 24-70mm f/2.8 over it because most of my work is light-limited photojournalism. I don't want to give up the IS, but I also want f/2.8. I'm not sure that's entirely possible for Canon, but I would love it.

The 50mm F/1.2 would rock low-light for me as well, but I'm just nervous about using that sort of lens for very important assignments and getting focus shift. I'd like it to be updated with all the fancy new features Canon has for their lenses.

And finally the 500mm f/5.6L IS would be an incredible lens. I would love it even if it didn't have the best image quality. I don't have any focal lengths above 200mm, and I'm fine cropping to 400mm with my 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II when an assignment really needs it, but it would be fantastic to get all the way to 500mm without getting a loan.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 15, 2015)

Events/General:
18-28mm f/2 L USM
28-85mm f/2 L IS USM

Portraiture:
58mm f/1.4 L USM
135mm f/1.8 L IS USM

Sports/Wildlife:
120-300mm f/4 L IS
200mm f/4 macro
500mm f/5.6 L IS USM


----------



## addola (Nov 16, 2015)

135L II
180L II (Macro) or longer.
A new 85mm lens with that new BR element. 

In general, Canon should update all their lenses that were never updated since the 1990s.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 16, 2015)

addola said:


> 135L II
> 180L II (Macro) or longer.
> A new 85mm lens with that new BR element.
> 
> In general, Canon should update all their lenses that were never updated since the 1990s.


That's my list with one change - I'd love to see IS on the 135mm.


----------



## wsmith96 (Nov 16, 2015)

I'd like to see an updated 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4-1.8, and a 400 5.6 IS prime. IS on the 50 and 85 aren't a requirement, but if they have it I wouldn't turn it away


----------



## DCP (Nov 23, 2015)

I would like to see a more dedicated astrophotography lens. 14-20mm zoom, F 1.8, very low Coma, high resolution , high sharpness, AF, no IS etc. For that matter, rectilinear to boot.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 23, 2015)

ERHP said:


> A 600mm f/4 with a built in 1.4TC would be awesome.


With the 600mm f/4 being a DO lens with BR optics and the TC also having BR optics.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 26, 2015)

I'm happy with the current offerings, but would like $30K for two great whites, a 200mm f/2, and a 1Dx. Then I could call it done.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 26, 2015)

It would be nice to see the 300 F4 L IS and the 400 F5.6 L updated to the 300 F4 L2 and the 400 F5.6 L2. Both with AF and glass updates and reduced minimum focus distance (note no IS).
It would be tempting to suggest an equivalent of the new Nikon 200-500, however I feel that a budget 500 F5.6 prime may offer better IQ and/or price. It would certainly be at the top of my wishlist for a walkabout birding lens especially if it were not encumbered with IS.
Canon will certainly not make non IS lenses just because I want better pictures so it won't happen!


----------



## candc (Nov 26, 2015)

A canon version of the sigma 120-300s. It would certainly have better af and be lighter. The price would be more but worth it imho.


----------



## applecider (Nov 26, 2015)

"A 600mm f/4 with a built in 1.4TC would be awesome."

The 600 is IMHO marginally handhold able adding an extender would push it beyond hand hold able for me.

So here is a thought how about an extender that can be added to a lens and flipped on or off without removing it. It could also be used for macro extension tube but would have to address infinity focus when not in use so it would need an optical element when not in use.

Suspect this would be At least a short kilo in weight.


----------



## ntt2007 (Nov 27, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Yes, a new 85/1.8 IS USM to replace the 85/1.8 USM would be very nice.



if Canon make a 85/2.0 IS or 1.8 mkii, i still want it.
just hope they will replace this 23 years old lens soon


----------



## geekpower (Nov 27, 2015)

add weather sealing and IS to the 135/2L and 200/2.8L


----------



## SteveA (Nov 27, 2015)

EF-S 10 2.0 IS USM.
EF-S 15-30 2.0 IS USM.
EF-S 45-85 2.0 IS USM.
EF-S 50-150 2.8 IS USM.


----------



## RGF (Nov 27, 2015)

16-35 L F2.8 III - really great IQ. non-IS

14, 16 or 20 L F1.4 to F2.0. non-IS. Again great IQ, for night skies

100 (or 200) to 560 (or 600) F4 to 5.6 IS L. Longer version of the 100-400


----------



## MrToes (Nov 27, 2015)

14mm 1.4 with amazing sharp optics for night photography


----------



## scyrene (Nov 27, 2015)

Macro 180mm f/2.8 IS (or similar).


----------



## RGF (Nov 27, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Macro 180mm f/2.8 IS (or similar).



Why F2.8? In macro there is little to DOF, F2.8 goes from tiny to none.

Easier focus? Weight and size will increase a lot.


----------



## RGF (Nov 27, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Macro 180mm f/2.8 IS (or similar).



I would very pleased with F1.8 or F2.0


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 28, 2015)

RGF said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Macro 180mm f/2.8 IS (or similar).
> ...


Why not F1.4? 

Seriously, I want a Canon 200mm F5.6 Macro with Hybrid Image Stabilizer.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 28, 2015)

RGF said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Macro 180mm f/2.8 IS (or similar).
> ...



Lol, for macro? Depth of field is thin enough at 1:1 f/2.8! Lighter than the 180L and with IS - those would make it more usable. Wider aperture, and it starts becoming something else. The lens you want is the 200L f/2 IS, and add an extension tube for the closer focusing


----------



## JohanL (Nov 28, 2015)

Replace all the little buggers, the non-L EF crowd from 85mm and down, with STM, better optics and build. Including a full line of f/1.8s wherever possible.


----------



## WIDEnet (Nov 28, 2015)

17-55/2.8IS replacement: 15-70 f/2.8 IS USM with better build quality and mechanics, esp. focus ring (like 18-35 Art), better IS for video, and slightly larger image circle, would both make a great option for PJ/event photography on crop (7DII) and as a decent run and gun starter zoom for C-series (or, for me, the Ursa Mini 4.6K) that's cheaper than the $30,000 cinema lenses, like a crop version of Sony's 28-135/4 without the power zoom. Honestly, as much as I want my 18-35/2 for cine, I'd skip or put off that (and a 18-135 STM for outdoor walkaround) plus sell my current 17-50 if the Canon could deliver a similar level of mechanics as the former with a little more range and better stabilization than the latter. Realistically, though I'd hope for a price around $1000, considering the current model is $879 normally with a $100 instant savings right now, I doubt it'd go for less than $1200, and even if its up to $1300 or so I'd still make that trade if I could get it refurb or open box a little while after launch. It would also mean I'd have to haul out the 70-200 and second body less often and give me more flexiblity overall when shooting stills (events, PJ, magazine, portraits).


----------



## lightthief (Nov 28, 2015)

RGF said:


> 100 (or 200) to 560 (or 600) F4 to 5.6 IS L. Longer version of the 100-400



There is already an 200-560 4-5.6 L IS.... for 11000 bucks or so.

But i'm in for a longer zoom, something like a 200-500 5.0-6.3. 600mm is okay, too. The 6.3 will keep the price lower, because it can't be used with a canon 1.4xTC.

BTW... Canon, please bring that damn 50mm with IS. Thank you!


----------



## FTb-n (Nov 28, 2015)

lightthief said:


> BTW... Canon, please bring that damn 50mm with IS. Thank you!


+1

I want to see a 50 1.4 with IS and an 85 1.8 with IS (or a 100 2.0 with IS).


----------



## martti (Nov 29, 2015)

Today I want a 28-135 f/4.0 IS L.
Tomorrow something else.
I'd really want to have my Tamron back from the repair...


----------



## brad-man (Nov 29, 2015)

Since I was unable to resist the M3 + EVF deal from B&H, I'm requesting an EF-M 35mm f/2 please. If there's any money left from the $4500 R&D Canon budgets for EF-M lens development, I'll take a 50mm as well.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 29, 2015)

EF 40-200 4.0 L IS USM (replacement for my 70-200 4.0 L USM)
EF 50 1.4 IS USM with compact outline and 1:3 close focus capability (with good IQ from f/4.0 on for close distances)
Both lenses with brilliant contrast and flare resistance.

With my 100mm Macro and a 16-35 it would make a great 2-Body-2-Lens-Combo ... depending on the needs.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 1, 2015)

There are a few aging sirens in Canon range and one of those is the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM. 
This lens could do with a increase in maximum aperture to f2.8 and image stablisation to the same level as the EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM.
The EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM is a steller lens as both a macro and a regular 100mm where its a great portrait lens. The disadvantage is subject distance at 1:1 macro to light small subjects this is where the 180mm wins out by why no image stabiliser and if we can have an EF 200mm f2.8LII USM lens the f2.8 must be doable on the 180MM.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 1, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> There are a few aging sirens in Canon range and one of those is the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM.
> This lens could do with a increase in maximum aperture to f2.8 and image stablisation to the same level as the EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM.
> The EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM is a steller lens as both a macro and a regular 100mm where its a great portrait lens. The disadvantage is subject distance at 1:1 macro to light small subjects this is where the 180mm wins out by why no image stabiliser and if we can have an EF 200mm f2.8LII USM lens the f2.8 must be doable on the 180MM.



If you fancy a 180mm F2.8 have a look at the Sigma 180 - lovely lens but a bit of a monster for practical purposes! Now if Canon were brave enough to make a 180/200 mm F5.6/F8 Macro then I would be in the queue! For Macro F8 gives very little depth of field (so we don't need F2.8!) plus the lens would be MUCH smaller, lighter and cheaper with a filter size of around 40mm or less it would be very slim and easy to handle. Canon already make some very good, fairly cheap, fast general purpose lenses at around these focal lengths so lets have a proper (dedicated/practical) 180/200 F5.6/F8 Macro! IS - no thanks, but many like it.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 1, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > There are a few aging sirens in Canon range and one of those is the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM.
> ...



Of course, an f/8 lens wouldn't autofocus on most bodies...


----------



## sjprg (Dec 2, 2015)

A 24mm F2.8 with the blue optics like the new 35mm.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 2, 2015)

Of course, an f/8 lens wouldn't autofocus on most bodies...
[/quote]

Didn't even think of that as I don't use AF for macro. Perhaps a nice small 5.6 then?


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 2, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > 2. EF 14-24/2.8L USM. A competitor to Nikon's version. But I believe Canon will not offer f/2.8 in this focal length range.
> ...



A Canon 14-24mm f/2.8L IS USM would be so nice. I'm very happy with my Tamron 15-30mm, but it just seems weird having the overlap into my 24-70mm. I know, I'm strange in that sense.

If it performed as well as the Tamron I'd bite. If Canon came out with a 24-70 with IS I'd take that too.

Here's the thing: Make them all f/2L. The 135 f/2L isn't huge so why not? If it had to be a really large and heavy lens because it is a zoom lens I'd still take it.

Wouldn't a 14-24 f/2L IS, 24-70 f/2L IS, and a 70-200 f/2L IS be a sweet combo? I can only dream. I wouldn't care about weight or size.

Of course, then I'd have to come up with more $$$$ and it would destroy the idea that I am almost done buying lenses.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 2, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> Of course, an f/8 lens wouldn't autofocus on most bodies...



Didn't even think of that as I don't use AF for macro. Perhaps a nice small 5.6 then?
[/quote]

Could work! I'd still want an f/2.8 180-200ish though, for big insects and suchlike. As for AF-MF, do you use the 100L macro? The AF can be a lifesaver with moving subjects/handholding in less than ideal circumstances.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 2, 2015)

To scyrene.

I use the standard Canon 100 F2.8 Macro - can't fault it.

The 100-400 Mk2 looks interesting for larger insects with a magnification of 0.31 and a decent working distance, haven't had the opportunity to try one properly yet.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Dec 3, 2015)

I would love to see a stabilized F/2 85mm prime. With modern optics of course.


----------



## jblake (Dec 3, 2015)

Maybe a 100-400 IS STM or a 250-500 IS STM and a IS STM macro in the 50mm to 100mm range.


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 3, 2015)

Interesting question. I'd like to see Canon do an f/2.8 500mm DO. That would be an exciting and tempting lens for what I do.


----------



## d (Dec 3, 2015)

Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8L BR - updated version of the 90 TS-E, adding the red ring, blue goo, and the ability to rotate tilt/shift mechanisms relative to each other, as with the 17mm TS-E/24mm TS-E II.

Canon EF 100mm f/1.8L IS USM - updated 100mm f/2 USM, whether sealed, 1/3 stop wider, and added IS. This will bump the size up a bit, but if it were around 135/f2 dimensions I'd be happy.


d.


----------



## martti (Dec 5, 2015)

knoxtown said:


> For the love of God, a new 20mm!!!!!!! i love the lens but it was released in 1992... I think it deserves to be put down and replaced with an L version.



Sigma came out with the 20mm f/1.4...
The same thing with a high-quality 50mm. 
Why does it have to be Canon?


----------



## TheJock (Dec 5, 2015)

A 500mm L f5.6 priced about the same as the 400mmL f5.6, or even with IS at double the price of the 400mmL.


----------



## RobertG. (Dec 5, 2015)

An updated TS-E 45mm or 50mm f2 lens.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 5, 2015)

Stewart K said:


> A 500mm L f5.6 priced about the same as the 400mmL f5.6, or even with IS at double the price of the 400mmL.



You want them to add 25% on the focal length for free?


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 5, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Stewart K said:
> 
> 
> > A 500mm L f5.6 priced about the same as the 400mmL f5.6, or even with IS at double the price of the 400mmL.
> ...



He didn't mention IQ, I'm sure they would have no technical problems pumping out a cheap 500mm lens.

If the could get a high quality 500f5.6 out for less than $4,000 I would be ecstatic.


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 5, 2015)

I want the mythical triple 1 lens.

1-1000mm f1.0.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 6, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> I want the mythical triple 1 lens.
> 
> 1-1000mm f1.0.


it costs 1 billion and weighs 1000 Kilos, delivery in 100 years


----------



## Proscribo (Dec 6, 2015)

9VIII said:


> He didn't mention IQ, I'm sure they would have no technical problems pumping out a cheap 500mm lens.
> 
> If the could get a high quality 500f5.6 out for less than $4,000 I would be ecstatic.


Then it wouldn't be L lens however I think if canon was to make a cheap supertele it will not be an L lens.


----------



## slclick (Dec 6, 2015)

Update the 200 2.8L. Yeah I know, I'm the only one that wants one.


----------



## fussy III (Dec 7, 2015)

EF 14-18mm/2.0 L IS USM - if too heavy and awkward, then 18/1.4 (below) may complement the line-up better
EF 20-35mm/2.0 L IS USM
EF 40-85mm/2.0 L IS USM 

EF 18mm/1.4 L USM tweaked for astrophotography, minimum focus distance about 24cm, if possible 17mm/1.4
EF 17/2.0 L USM with slight (50%) fish-eye-characteristics intended for underwater-photography and close-ups
EF 15-30/4.0 L USM FF-Fisheye

*EF 18-70/4.0 L IS USM (complementing the 70-200/4.0 L IS USM, eliminating need for extra wideangle in the bag)*
*EF 35-100/4.0 L IS USM Macro (complementing the 16-35/4.0 L IS USM and 100-400 L IS USM) *
EF 35-100/2.8 L IS USM Portrait/Macro (complementing the 16-35/4.0 L IS USM and 100-400 L IS USM) 

TS-E 20-30mm/4.0 (IS)
TS-E 35-60mm/4.5 (IS)
TS-E 65-120mm/5.6 (IS)

EF 38mm/1.2 L IS
EF 66mm/1.2 L IS Macro/Portrait

EF 300/4.0 L IS USM II excellent
EF 360/5.6 (L) IS USM affordable, lightweight, plastic, yet near L-quality optics
EF 200-500/5.6 L IS affordable
*EF 500/5.6 L IS USM excellent *
EF 800mm/8.0 L IS USM excellent


----------



## tron (Dec 8, 2015)

A sharp 16-35 2.8L III with excellent corners and no coma fully open.


----------



## John (Dec 8, 2015)

Updated versions of the following
85 f/1.8
135 f/2


----------



## MYB (Dec 9, 2015)

EF-S 15-85mm f/4 or they can update EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8


----------



## Pixel (Dec 9, 2015)

20mm 2.8
85mm 1.8
100mm f2.0

Is that too much to ask?


----------



## Dave685 (Dec 9, 2015)

Shooting mostly wildlife my wish list would be:
-EF 300mm f/4L IS II
-EF 400mm f/5.6L IS
-EF 500mm f/5.6L IS
I would have added a new IS 180 macro but the Sigma 150mm & 180mm are so good I'm not that bothered!
The EF 500mm f5.6L IS would be at the top of my wish list as it would be especially useful for travel and carrying all day and if priced sensibly would enable more people to enjoy the benefits of a super sharp 500mm lens and for those with deep pockets I'm sure they would purchase this lens as well as the f4 version for the reasons already stated.


----------



## richro (Dec 9, 2015)

24-70 f/2.8L IS, 24-105 f/4L II
50 IS, 85 IS, 135 IS
EF-M 15-85


----------



## cellomaster27 (Dec 9, 2015)

85mm F1.8 IS USM
17-55mm F2.8 IS USM II
300mm F4 IS USM II
50mm F1.2 USM II


----------



## beckstoy (Dec 9, 2015)

How about an update to 200 2 or 1.8? That 1.8 was discontinued long ago, right? A re-boot might turn some heads. Mine would be on a swivel!


----------



## Proscribo (Dec 9, 2015)

beckstoy said:


> How about an update to 200 2 or 1.8? That 1.8 was discontinued long ago, right? A re-boot might turn some heads. Mine would be on a swivel!


Whyyyy would that 200mm need a replacement? I thought it was almost perfect starting from f/2 already, f/1.8 -> f/2 doesn't seem to be really that significant amount.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 13, 2015)

Proscribo said:


> beckstoy said:
> 
> 
> > How about an update to 200 2 or 1.8? That 1.8 was discontinued long ago, right? A re-boot might turn some heads. Mine would be on a swivel!
> ...



Because it would be fun to yell, "I'm stopping down to f/2!"


----------



## Kwwund (Dec 13, 2015)

18-300 IS


----------



## DRR (Dec 16, 2015)

Pixel said:


> 20mm 2.8
> 85mm 1.8
> 100mm f2.0
> 
> Is that too much to ask?



I would also welcome an update to the 20mm 2.8. Improve IQ across the frame, (shouldn't be too difficult with a 20+ year old design) and either improve build quality and make it heavier, or make it a little smaller and lighter with "standard" build quality. We need more wide primes.

Also an 85mm 1.8 with IS would be great. I don't really need 1.4 on a lens like that and I also don't know if it would be too close for comfort to the 85/1.2 from Canon's standpoint. I do wish they would update the rest of the standard primes in the same ways they updated the 24mm, the 28mm, and the 35mm IS lenses.


----------



## tron (Dec 16, 2015)

Dave685 said:


> Shooting mostly wildlife my wish list would be:
> -EF 300mm f/4L IS II
> -EF 400mm f/5.6L IS
> *-EF 500mm f/5.6L IS*
> ...


Even better a DO BR 500mm f/5.6L IS version


----------



## RGF (Dec 26, 2015)

14MM f2 (or f1.4) BR is possible

180 macro II - similar IS to 100L macro

zoom extender 1.0 - 1.4 Would allow me to convert 600 prime to 600 to 840 zoom  ;D


----------



## mml4 (Dec 26, 2015)

24-70 f/2.8L IS


----------



## john1970 (Dec 27, 2015)

A Canon 600 mm f4 DO would be first on my lists for wildlife photography. There were prototypes of this lens at Canon Expo 2015 in NYC so I am hoping that they release the lens in the next 12 to 18 months.


----------



## RGF (Dec 27, 2015)

john1970 said:


> A Canon 600 mm f4 DO would be first on my lists for wildlife photography. There were prototypes of this lens at Canon Expo 2015 in NYC so I am hoping that they release the lens in the next 12 to 18 months.



care to speculate about the price. If the IQ is close to the 600 F4 II, then the price might tip the scales at $15,000 USD. If the lens is 1.5 lbs lighter then each pound shaved off cost $2,000.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2015)

TS-E 45 f2.8 L.


----------



## john1970 (Dec 29, 2015)

RGF said:


> john1970 said:
> 
> 
> > A Canon 600 mm f4 DO would be first on my lists for wildlife photography. There were prototypes of this lens at Canon Expo 2015 in NYC so I am hoping that they release the lens in the next 12 to 18 months.
> ...



Difficult to speculate on price, but when one considers that the 400 mm DO II sells for $6899 vs $6099 for 300 mm f2.8 (13% price increase), the 600 mm f4 DO might go for 13% more than the current 600 mm lens, which would be ~$13K. Of course, this is purely speculation. Canon might even price the DO lens similar to the current L II lenses to make it more competitive.


----------



## PeterAlex7 (Jan 5, 2016)

50L II and 85L III that as good as the 35L II.


----------



## abbebus (Jan 5, 2016)

Why not an EF 50-105 f/2.0 L IS USM (or maybe even 1.8) with stellar optics, targeted at portrait-, wedding- and fashion- photographers. Perhaps it would also attract indoor sports shooters and street photographers. 

Please Canon, think a little outside the box and present something new and innovative.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 5, 2016)

1. EF 50mm f/1.8 IS 
2. EF 85mm f/2.0 IS 
3. EF 500mm f/5.6 IS 
4. EF-M 55mm f/1.8 IS


----------



## Neutral (Jan 5, 2016)

abbebus said:


> Why not an EF 50-105 f/2.0 L IS USM (or maybe even 1.8) with stellar optics, targeted at portrait-, wedding- and fashion- photographers. Perhaps it would also attract indoor sports shooters and street photographers.
> 
> Please Canon, think a little outside the box and present something new and innovative.



My dream is a new version of 24-105:
EF 24-105 F/1.8 L IS USM with the highest possible optical performance using latest Canon optical technologies so that optical quality would be even better than EF 24-70 F/2.8L USM II and also faster AF.
I would not hesitate to buy such one immediately when it becomes available


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 9, 2016)

Okay, this is pretty petty, but I'd like to see a 24-70 F/2.8 L go back to a 77mm thread size. I don't have many filters, but almost all of my lenses (the one's I'd use the filters on) are 77mm. Price you pay for progress I guess.  Same goes for a 16-35 F/2.8. Both lenses used to have 77mm threads.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 10, 2016)

Neutral said:


> abbebus said:
> 
> 
> > Why not an EF 50-105 f/2.0 L IS USM (or maybe even 1.8) with stellar optics, targeted at portrait-, wedding- and fashion- photographers. Perhaps it would also attract indoor sports shooters and street photographers.
> ...



Even if it cost, say, $12k and was the size of the 400/2.8?


----------



## Gnocchi (Jan 10, 2016)

Well, I use to want a 30mm 1.8 built by canon for my 7d, but now I have the 6d I would like a new 50 1.4 !! How about it canon?


----------



## concilio (Jan 10, 2016)

I expect a canon counterpart of nikon's 200-500 5.6
had tried sigma 150-600 s/c both and the mentioned nikon lens and been thinking of adding a nikon d7100 body and the nikon lens


----------



## docsmith (Jan 10, 2016)

Lots of different options. A few that would catch my eye:
1. Something similar to the Sigma 20 f/1.4
2. A 70-300 f/4 IS DO L. Get up the a 77 mm or, more likely, 82 mm thread, if more is needed, then stay at max f/5.6. But hopefully shorter than the current 70-300 L. More the zoom ring back to where it should be
3. F/2 zooms.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jan 10, 2016)

bholliman said:


> 1. EF 50mm f/1.8 IS
> 2. EF 85mm f/2.0 IS
> 3. EF 500mm f/5.6 IS
> 4. EF-M 55mm f/1.8 IS



Sold, just about everything I'd like to see ;-)


----------



## Neutral (Jan 10, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > abbebus said:
> ...



Why should it be the size of 400/2.8 and cost of 12k ?
Should not be significantly heavier and bigger than EF 85 f/1.2L II. 
And maybe 30-40% longer than 24-70 f/2.8L II.
Just use of latest Canon advances in optical technologies: blue spectrum refractive optic, fluorite elements, new coating, better weather sealing , faster and more precise focusing etc.
Would not hesitate to buy such one immediately even if it would cost 4-5k.
This could be extremely universal solution for many situations, especially combined with coming 1DX II which I hope will have at least 1 stop better high ISO than 1DX or better even 1 stop better than Sony a7s and a7rII which are both better than 1DX at high ISO. Currently with a7rII and Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 I can do handheld shots at very low light with quality significantly better than using 1DX. No need for using tripod any more. A7rII IBIS helps a lot. 
1DX II with such new 24-105 f/1.8L IS USM could change game back in favour of Canon.


----------



## zim (Jan 10, 2016)

EF 24-105 f/1.8L IS USM with those IQ improvements, I'd buy that


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 10, 2016)

Neutral said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Neutral said:
> ...



Because it would be ENORMOUS, and very hard to make good optically.



> Should not be significantly heavier and bigger than EF 85 f/1.2L II.



Wrong.

The 85/1.2 is a telephoto design. A 24-105 has to be a retrofocus design.

As yourself why a 24-105/4 has to have 77mm filter threads which is already bigger than an 85/1.2. In fact, the 24-105 at f/4 is bigger than the 85/1.2:

85/1.2: 3.6" x 3.3" 36oz 72mm threads
24-105 3.3" x 4.2" 36oz 77mm threads

Now, make it f/1.8 instead of f/4. It'll have to be at least 3/4" bigger in diameter just to accommodate the larger entrance pupil at the wide end. And it's going to have to be longer and heavier to accommodate the elements to correct it.

Let's compare to a couple things that already exist:

Sigma 18-35/1.8 for crop: 3.07 x 4.76" 28.5oz
Sigma 24-35/2 for FF: 3.4 x 4.8" 33.2oz

You're basically asking for the Sigma 24-35 to have its focal length tripled while also making it faster by half a stop and keep it about the same size. That's entirely unrealistic.

Let's do a little math:

Triple focal length = triple aperture. Cost goes up with aperture cubed: $1k becomes $9k
Half a stop faster. Cost goes up with f-stop squared: $20k
Canon multiplier compared to Sigma: 2.5 = $50k

Okay, I doubt it would be that expensive, but I'm sure it would be more than $10k, and while it probably wouldn't be the size of the 400/2.8, it would be closer to the 200/2.


----------



## Neutral (Jan 10, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Good math )
Personally do not mind size of 200/2 for such 24-105f/1.8L IS USM lens.
OK, could agree on f/2 or even f/2.2 to make it a bit smaller and more affordable.
Even for f/2 or f/2.2 this would be very exclusive lens with no competitors on the market for very long time. Would be dream for many photographers.
Would be also less people complaining about Canon lack of innovation )
High, difficult goals and their implementations are important contributors to success.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 10, 2016)

Neutral said:


> Personally do not mind size of 200/2 for such 24-105f/1.8L IS USM lens.


Would you mind it being over $10k?



> OK, could agree on f/2 or even f/2.2 to make it a bit smaller and more affordable.
> Even for f/2 or f/2.2 this would be very exclusive lens with no competitors on the market for very long time. Would be dream for many photographers.
> Would be also less people complaining about Canon lack of innovation )
> High, difficult goals and their implementations are important contributors to success.



Canon once built a 24-135/2.8 IS prototype and never released it due to its enormous size and cost.


----------



## tron (Jan 11, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > Personally do not mind size of 200/2 for such 24-105f/1.8L IS USM lens.
> ...


 24-105/2.8 L seems more doable ( judging by Tamron 28-105/2.8 ) although it would still be big, heavy and expensive.


----------



## miz (Jan 14, 2016)

hope to se 28 1.8 II soooon


----------



## midluk (Jan 25, 2016)

I would vote for:

1. EF-S 15-45 f/2.8 IS USM (perhaps even as L)
2. TS-E 100 f/4 macro

1: as a replacement for the EF-S 17-55 with a focal length range more closely matching 24-70 and with updated IS and better build quality (and some weather sealing).
2: Tilt is more important than shift on this one. This would allow to do sharp macro photos of flat objects while shooting at some angle not perpendicular to the surface. Should be 1:1 macro.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 6, 2016)

An EF 10mm f/5.6, similar to Voigtländer Heliar-Hyper Wide 10mm f/5.6 Aspherical


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 6, 2016)

I want crop equivalent of 35mm f/2 IS. Something like 22mm f/2 is or 22mm f/1.8. Cheap prime for crop users for normal walkaround lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 6, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> I want crop equivalent of 35mm f/2 IS. Something like 22mm f/2 is or 22mm f/1.8. Cheap prime for crop users for normal walkaround lens.



You already have the 24mm f2.8 IS, I have one for sale, it is a great lens and tiny! I don't see Canon making a faster version.


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 6, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > I want crop equivalent of 35mm f/2 IS. Something like 22mm f/2 is or 22mm f/1.8. Cheap prime for crop users for normal walkaround lens.
> ...


That is pricy for cheap crop user like me and end up paying for FF glass. I have sigma 17-50mm f2.8 IS lens. I wish Canon makes ef-s prime for 35mm equivalent. Only option is Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 which is heavy and expensive.
Thanks


----------



## slclick (Mar 6, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ritholtz said:
> ...



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Cameras/N/0/Ntt/CA2428STM

Your wish came true...(two years ago)


----------



## Kwwund (Mar 7, 2016)

An affordable 35mm f/1.8, similar to the 24mm f/2.8 pancake and the 50mm f/1.8 STM. Not looking for a professional model lens, just very good. And with IS, please.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 7, 2016)

Kwwund said:


> An affordable 35mm f/1.8, similar to the 24mm f/2.8 pancake and the 50mm f/1.8 STM. Not looking for a professional model lens, just very good. And with IS, please.



Right... and that won't be much cheaper than the existing 35 f/2 IS.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 7, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> Kwwund said:
> 
> 
> > An affordable 35mm f/1.8, similar to the 24mm f/2.8 pancake and the 50mm f/1.8 STM. Not looking for a professional model lens, just very good. And with IS, please.
> ...



Why would it be any cheaper?

Which begs the question, 1/3 stop, does it really make that much difference in a 35mm f2 or f1.8?


----------



## In-The-Dark (Mar 7, 2016)

FTb-n said:


> lightthief said:
> 
> 
> > BTW... Canon, please bring that damn 50mm with IS. Thank you!
> ...



Since these 3 lenses were released way back in the early 1990's, I think it is high-time that Canon come up with their respective replacements IMHO. Just hoping that they are included in Canon's agenda.


----------



## dolina (Mar 7, 2016)

Updates to these ancient lenses.

1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM


----------



## NancyP (Mar 7, 2016)

I have a lot of those ancient lenses, and they have been excellent performers. I have a special fondness for the 400 f/5.6L. There isn't anything as light and long and well-balanced - and it focuses fast for birds in flight (not a whole lot of mass to shove about - only 7 elements). It needs IS. The 180 f/3.5L macro has been reliable, but Sigma has given it a serious challenge with the Sigma 180 f/2.8 OS, which is sharper AND has stabilization. 70-200 f/4L IS - another light and well balanced tele. I am not sure that I would need much more than this, it's a good tele landscape lens.


----------



## slclick (Mar 7, 2016)

NancyP said:


> I have a lot of those ancient lenses, and they have been excellent performers. I have a special fondness for the 400 f/5.6L. There isn't anything as light and long and well-balanced - and it focuses fast for birds in flight (not a whole lot of mass to shove about - only 7 elements). It needs IS. The 180 f/3.5L macro has been reliable, but Sigma has given it a serious challenge with the Sigma 180 f/2.8 OS, which is sharper AND has stabilization. 70-200 f/4L IS - another light and well balanced tele. I am not sure that I would need much more than this, it's a good tele landscape lens.



Who's calling the 135L ancient? 

I think the reason the 135/200L's haven't been updated is that there's is practically nothing wrong with them.


----------



## Kwwund (Mar 7, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Kwwund said:
> ...



If Canon can profitably make a low-end IS zoom for $199 (18-55mm IS), and a series of low-end primes for $100-125 (24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.eight), then I'd hope they can make a prime with IS for $199 as well. My logic, admittedly not informed by any understanding of optics, is that it would be simpler and cheaper to put IS on a prime than on a zoom.

For comparison, the 35mm f/2.0 is $549 today. A great lens, but out of my reach.

Canon has done a great job creating high-quality budget lenses for people like me. I'd love to have one in between the 24 and the 50.


----------



## RGF (Mar 7, 2016)

how about a lightweight 28-300 L that is not the size of 70-200 F2.8 Nikon has one, a bit soft around the edges but other wise a nice lens.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 7, 2016)

Kwwund said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...


Between 24mm and 50mm, there is a 40mm pancake. That's just F2.8 but it seems that Canon does not want us to F1.8 at cheap lenses, except 50mm.

I have a little envy of Nikonians colleagues, who have a good 35mm F1.8 to APS-C, for less than $ 200.

I gave up waiting for the goodwill of Canon with us who use APSC, and bought the Sigma 30mm F1.4 Art.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 8, 2016)

The lenses are ancient, but I am even more ancient, and I can say that they probably are aging better than me.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Mar 9, 2016)

dolina said:


> Updates to these ancient lenses.
> 
> 1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
> 1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
> ...



70-200 f/2.8L was updated. "IS mark II" is the current version from 2010.. Its one of the best on the market.. No need to update this lens for another 4 years..


----------



## tron (Mar 9, 2016)

ExodistPhotography said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Updates to these ancient lenses.
> ...


Actually the "IS mark II is the update of "IS mark I. The non IS model coexists with the latest IS model (and the same applies to f/4 L). Since I had it (before it was stolen) I know that it had very good IQ (the first zoom that had fixed lens quality). Since all of the above lenses (with the possible exception of 300 4L IS) have very good IQ there is no immediate need to be updated.


----------



## Foxdude (Mar 9, 2016)

EF-M 35MM F1.4
EF-M 50MM F1.4
EF-M 85MM F1.8

EF-M 10-22MM F2.8 IS
EF-M 55-300MM IS F something

all these with good manual focus rings 8)


----------



## ntt2007 (Mar 9, 2016)

i think we sould stop buying canon old design lens like the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 to force them release the new ones.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Mar 9, 2016)

Omni Images said:


> 400mm F5.6L IS with a closer min focus distance
> along with a new 300mm F4 IS
> Both the oldest lenses in their line up now .... come on !



Yes! This one: 400mm F5.6L IS with a closer min focus distance. And updated AF! I'm still waiting.


----------



## tron (Mar 9, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> Omni Images said:
> 
> 
> > 400mm F5.6L IS with a closer min focus distance
> ...


It also has to be significantly cheaper than 100-400 II since the new zoom has superb IQ, latest stabilizer and focuses close enough. Otherwise everyone will chose 100-400 II...


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 9, 2016)

tron said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > Omni Images said:
> ...



Or they could make it DO lens, which would enhance it's weight advantage. That way Canon gets to charge a higher price and people that opt for the prime will have a more "portable" option.


----------



## gn100 (Mar 9, 2016)

What I would like to see:

EF-M 35mm f1.8
EF-M 55mm f3.5 macro (they have a patent for this)
EF-M 24-50mm f2

EFS 24-50mm f2

EF 50mm f1.4
EF 35-80mm f2


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 10, 2016)

gn100 said:


> What I would like to see:
> 
> EF-M 35mm f1.8
> EF-M 55mm f3.5 (they have a patent for this)



Why would you like a slow 55mm lens, when you can connect any of the existing 50mm lenses with an adapter? Does it have special abilities, like macro?


----------



## gn100 (Mar 10, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> gn100 said:
> 
> 
> > What I would like to see:
> ...



Apologies .... I initially left the word "macro" off this (updated now) ..... I imagine this will mean a very compact macro lens ..... Agree, a 50mm non macro prime should be f2 or wider


----------



## photojoern.de (Mar 10, 2016)

There is a need for IS in prime lenses in the normal and wide angle area. The f2.8 24-70L II with an IS would be great for street photography or handheld landscapes or portraits in low light. The current non IS lens is fabulous in picture quality. But combined with a EOS 5DS (R), you need even shorter exposure time than the usual rule 1/focal length. I need around 1/100th second at 24 - 50 mm range and around 1/125th or 1/160th of a second when shooting at 70mm in order to have crisp handheld shots. A modern four stop IS would do marvellous things and make the lens much more versatile. It should be technically possible, rather easily.
I would be prepared to accept 200 or 300 USD more in price and 150 grams more in weight for this added quality in low light handheld situations.

The 24-105mm f4 IS is not an alternative. It´s soft in the corners by default, a significantly poorer optical quality than the 24-70 f2.8 II.

If you think the same, please respond. If you have concerns (feasibility, price etc.), please post here. Thanks.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 10, 2016)

photojoern.de said:


> ...
> But combined with a EOS 5DS (R), you need even shorter exposure time than the usual rule 1/focal length.


Hi Joern! 

The rule shutter time = 1/focal length comes from the "old film days". 
Even with DSLRs with lower pixel count the usual adaption of this rule for digital cameras went to 1/2*focal length.
I've heard from some people doing camera courses that they recommend even more with MP monsters like the 5DS. 
And if the subject is moving they recommend at least 1/4*focal length. 

So your experience fits into that schema.


----------



## bainsybike (Mar 10, 2016)

I'd like an EF-M 17mm F2.8, and an EF-M 28mm F2 or better. Pancake if possible, IS if not.


----------



## RGF (Mar 12, 2016)

photojoern.de said:


> There is a need for IS in prime lenses in the normal and wide angle area. The f2.8 24-70L II with an IS would be great for street photography or handheld landscapes or portraits in low light. The current non IS lens is fabulous in picture quality. But combined with a EOS 5DS (R), you need even shorter exposure time than the usual rule 1/focal length. I need around 1/100th second at 24 - 50 mm range and around 1/125th or 1/160th of a second when shooting at 70mm in order to have crisp handheld shots. A modern four stop IS would do marvellous things and make the lens much more versatile. It should be technically possible, rather easily.
> I would be prepared to accept 200 or 300 USD more in price and 150 grams more in weight for this added quality in low light handheld situations.
> 
> The 24-105mm f4 IS is not an alternative. It´s soft in the corners by default, a significantly poorer optical quality than the 24-70 f2.8 II.
> ...



Perhaps improve the quality of 24-105. The range is convenient. the extra lens on the long side is helpful


----------



## RGF (Mar 12, 2016)

on the wide angle front

14-24/35 F2.8 with screen in filter matching quality of 11-24 and Nikon 14-24.

On the long end

200-5xx F5.6 (extends range of 100-400) or perhaps 6.3 at the long end

600 with a builtin 1.4 like the 200-400

Speciality lens

28-300 that is not a mini-great white. More on the size of the 70-300L with similar optical quality
Extender (or teleconverter) that is either a zoom, or has discreet additions such as 1.2, 1.4, 1.7 and possibly 2.0


----------



## scyrene (Mar 12, 2016)

RGF said:


> Perhaps improve the quality of 24-105. The range is convenient. the extra lens on the long side is helpful



I agree. It's a really useful lens, but just needs a touch less chromatic aberration and a touch more sharpness. It's a shame that to upgrade IQ means downgrading focal range, e.g. the 24-70 (though I know it's often the case with zooms that the bigger the range, the more compromises).


----------



## tron (Mar 12, 2016)

scyrene said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps improve the quality of 24-105. The range is convenient. the extra lens on the long side is helpful
> ...


Still 100-400 II is a really very good lens (although I am not comparing exactly apples to apples)


----------



## scyrene (Mar 12, 2016)

tron said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



Oh you're right. Although compared to shorter zooms and primes in the same focal range, is it better? I've never used it. But sure, the 24-105 could be improved (but then would no doubt cost a lot more).


----------



## slclick (Mar 21, 2016)

More pancakes. Think Voigtlander but with AF and less vignetting. Possibly 20/24/28. No IS, just a lens.$199-$249 price points.


----------



## Mancubus (Mar 22, 2016)

50mm 1.4L IS Nano USM (yes I wish L for the build quality and sharp corners)
50mm 1.0 II
85mm 1.4
24-70mm 2.8L IS
50mm 2.8 Macro IS
11-1200mm 1.0L IS Macro Nano USM DO :


----------



## tron (Mar 22, 2016)

Mancubus said:


> ...
> _*11-1200mm 1.0L IS Macro Nano USM DO :*_


You forgot to mention Tilt and Shift capability (without compromising AF of course) ;D ;D ;D


----------



## PeterAlex7 (Mar 22, 2016)

24L III
50L II
85L III
135L II
200 f2L II

200 f2L II
Many of you that think the 200 f2L mark 1 was already the best on its own league. Fellow canon's 200mm lens? Yes. How if its compared to other brand? Lens tip shown their 200 f2 VR II is noticeably better than 200 f2L.

Actually, my main concern is not the nikon lens. It's big brother 300 f2.8L II which is the real problem even for the 400 f2.8L II. The 300 f2.8L II beat all of them in term of sharpness, everybody knows that. The 300 f2.8L II has better and newer AF system which come with the third image stabilization mode that give a big advantage in field for most its owners. And the last reason why canon must update this lens is the price. The price between the 200mm and 300mm just slightly different, but the 300mm brings so much advantages (sharpness, AF, less weight). It doesn't make sense for me.


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 22, 2016)

70-200 F/1.4 IS

Enough of 2.8. Give me the BEAST... A 70-200 super low-light fast lens. Who cares if it weighs 8 - 9 pounds. Get some muscle. 

Would also love a 120-300 F/2.8 IS to compete with Sigma. Really like this range, and while the 100-400 is great, I want more light and prefer better focusing


----------



## tron (Mar 22, 2016)

Hmmm,

100-500 5.6L IS

600 5.6 DO BR OK there is a 400 DO II which I happen to have and love and probably there will be a 600 4 DO - since they have a prototype - but 600 5.6 would be more manageable in both front element diameter and weight...


----------



## PeterAlex7 (Mar 23, 2016)

Mancubus said:


> 11-1200mm 1.0L IS Macro Nano USM DO :



TSE MPE Soft Focus Blue Spectrum Refractive Optic. There will be no more lens segmentation, there will be no more "lenses" in canon's dictionary, just lens. That sounds spooky for me


----------



## SkynetTX (Jul 29, 2016)

Most of the times I make macro / close-up photos and sometimes it's pretty hard to take shots of butterflies, grasshoppers, lizards and similar shy animals. So a true macro lens with the following specifications would be great if it's possible to make it (I'm not sure about that).

Minimum focusing distance: 100 or 150 cm
Focal length: between 60 and 100 mm, but lower could be better
Image Stabilization
Full Time Manual focusing (!)
USM for AutoFocus
Maximum magnification: 1:1 (with Extension Tubes or Extenders: 2:1)


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 29, 2016)

SkynetTX said:


> Most of the times I make macro / close-up photos and sometimes it's pretty hard to take shots of butterflies, grasshoppers, lizards and similar shy animals. So a true macro lens with the following specifications would be great if it's possible to make it (I'm not sure about that).
> 
> Minimum focusing distance: 100 or 150 cm
> Focal length: between 60 and 100 mm, but lower could be better
> ...


If I understand your proposal, you want to achieve magnification 1X (life size) at a distance of 1 meter from the object.

To achieve this magnification, would need a lens with focal length about 500mm. In this case the front element would be gigantic.

On the other hand, I believe it is technically feasible a lens 300mm F5.6 truly Macro, with magnification 1X around 70 centimeters of the object.


----------



## SkynetTX (Aug 1, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> If I understand your proposal, you want to achieve magnification 1X (life size) at a distance of 1 meter from the object.
> 
> To achieve this magnification, would need a lens with focal length about 500mm. In this case the front element would be gigantic.
> 
> On the other hand, I believe it is technically feasible a lens 300mm F5.6 truly Macro, with magnification 1X around 70 centimeters of the object.



A 300 mm lens with around 70-75 cm focusing or working distance could also be good. The point is that I'd like a lens that I don't need to put right in the subject's face to get a close-up photo.  According to the calculator at http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm any lens can provide life size magnification if the focusing distance is for times of the focal length.

Last time I forgot that an USM version of the EF-S 55-250mm lens with FTM would also be great.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Aug 1, 2016)

1.	500mm f/5.6 w/IS & AF
2.	50mm 1:1 macro, manual w/a long throw
3.	400mm f/5 w/IS & AF
4.	100mm 2:1 macro, manual w/a long throw

My needs are simple...


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 1, 2016)

Just one: ef 50mm 1.2/f L II

This thread seems kind of familiar...


----------



## chrysoberyl (Aug 1, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Just one: ef 50mm 1.2/f L II
> 
> This thread seems kind of familiar...



It does, doesn't it? Hope springs eternal...

BTW, 2. and 4. can be 3rd party:

1. 500mm f/5.6 w/IS & AF
2. 50mm 1:1 macro, manual w/a long throw
3. 400mm f/5 w/IS & AF
4. 100mm 2:1 macro, manual w/a long throw


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 1, 2016)

SkynetTX said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > If I understand your proposal, you want to achieve magnification 1X (life size) at a distance of 1 meter from the object.
> ...


There is an important detail for use in Macro:

All lenses have their nominal focal length, measured when focused on an infinite distance. When focused on short distances, the focal length is MORE SHORT than the nominal value.
A 100mm lens when used in typical distance Macro becomes something like 60mm. A 180mm lens in Macro distances, becomes something like 110mm.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Aug 1, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> SkynetTX said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



Noted and thank you! Revised list:

1. 500mm f/5.6 w/IS & AF
2. 100mm 1:1 macro, manual w/a long throw, as sharp as the Milvus 100mm
3. 400mm f/5 w/IS & AF
4. 200mm 2:1 macro, f/4, manual w/a long throw


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 3, 2016)

300mm f5.6, prime.
Lightweight, and so affordable that practically no-one could justify not getting one, Canon could probably get this to market for about $200. The ultimate entry level wildlife lens, perfect for vacations.
Make it high magnification too and I'd probably use it every day.

I realize that the entry level zooms tend to have these characteristics, but a Prime could get better IQ while simultaneously reducing cost.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Aug 3, 2016)

9VIII said:


> 300mm f5.6, prime.
> Lightweight, and so affordable that practically no-one could justify not getting one, Canon could probably get this to market for about $200. The ultimate entry level wildlife lens, perfect for vacations.
> Make it high magnification too and I'd probably use it every day.
> 
> I realize that the entry level zooms tend to have these characteristics, but a Prime could get better IQ while simultaneously reducing cost.



That's a good notion. I would also like to see an update to the current 300mm f/4. Not exactly what I want, but I must admit I would consider one.

In addition to the prime advantages you mention, I see these:

1.	Size.
2.	No dust and moisture huffing.
4.	Sharper edges.
5.	Less flare (fewer glass to air interfaces).
6.	No lens creep.


----------



## sjprg (Aug 3, 2016)

28-300L MarkII


----------



## SkynetTX (Aug 4, 2016)

So, to put things together here's my whislist:

18-55 mm IS USM
55-250 mm IS USM II
300 or 400 mm IS USM 1:1 macro with 75-90 cm minimum focusing distance (where IS stands for Insect Stabilization as someone told in the forum  )

All lenses must have the following features:

non-rotating front element
full time manual support (!)
no focus reset
both the zoom and the focusing ring should be at least 19-25mm wide if possible (but not wider than 30 mm)


----------



## Eldar (Aug 5, 2016)

50mm f1.2L IS
85mm f1.2L IS
135mm f2.0L IS
(with optics to rival the Zeiss alternatives)

I have not been very concerned with IS on these focal lengths in the past. However, since I got the 5DSR I have become more aware of the benefits. 

Apart from those 3, I would like to see upgrades of the 45mm and 90mm TS-E lenses and the introduction of a TS-E macro lens.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Aug 5, 2016)

SkynetTX said:


> So, to put things together here's my whislist:
> 
> 18-55 mm IS USM
> 55-250 mm IS USM II
> ...



Whoa! 400mm 1:1 macro? Oh, OK, I get close with my Sigma 180 + a 2X extender. But I would give this one some thought if the throw is long and smoothly damped. And it weighs less than 6 lbs. Heck, I'd buy anything with insect stabilization!


----------



## SkynetTX (Aug 9, 2016)

And do not forget about the 10-18 mm IS USM with Full Time Manual support and no focus reset. So there would be a perfect travel kit of 10-18mm, 18-55mm and 55-250 mm lenses with the 60 mm and the 300mm/400mm IS USM macro.


----------



## dsnook (Aug 20, 2016)

TS-E 45mm
TS-E 90mm

My guess is the market is too small for Canon to be interested enough to put in the effort, but it sure would be nice!


----------



## Ekpil (Aug 20, 2016)

My wishlist for wildlife...

EF 600mm f/4,0 IS USM Extender 1.4x integrated.

You have 2 lenses 600mm f/4,0 and 840mm f/5,6

You do not need a 800mm f/5,6 !! 

If quality is the same like the
EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x
I am happy.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 20, 2016)

scyrene said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps improve the quality of 24-105. The range is convenient. the extra lens on the long side is helpful
> ...


You got your wish.


----------



## HankMD (Aug 20, 2016)

I can afford a Big White but a lighter, cheaper, hopefully more mobile 400-600 mm f5.6-6.3 IS would suit my current birding needs. Alternatively I will also take a 200-500 mm f5.6 IS with better AF than Tammy or Sigma.


----------



## craiglove (Aug 22, 2016)

I would love to see something like a 24-200 f2.8 and f4L lenses available. I use the 24-70 f4 and have both the f4 and f2.8 70-200's. I shoot a fair amount of music in clubs and am always trapped between the two lenses and having to change back and forth. I actually love the EF-S 18-135 which I use on the 7D and 80D mostly for video. To me that 28-200 equivalent range is almost perfect. I just bought the 28-135 to try out but am not wild about it always slipping to the long end of the range when carrying it.

I do have many of the fast primes but good quality zooms get you spoiled real fast. For me, a 24-200 would be superb!


----------



## ntt2007 (Aug 28, 2016)

everyone seem to be excited about the new 24-105L II and 16-35 2.8L III, but i am longing for either the new 50 1.4 and 85 1.8
where are they?


----------



## SkynetTX (Aug 31, 2016)

Beside the real lenses I'm also waiting for the 250D and 500D close-up lenses for all filter sizes they don't exist yet.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 31, 2016)

ntt2007 said:


> everyone seem to be excited about the new 24-105L II and 16-35 2.8L III, but i am longing for either the new 50 1.4 and 85 1.8
> where are they?


There are rumors about Canon is working on a replacement for the 50mm F1.4 but no concrete information about the release, features and price. Image Stabiliser or not Image Stabilizer is the question. I gave up waiting and bought the Sigma 50 Art, and other people bought the 50 STM as a temporary lens, while the new F1.4 does not come.

At some point, Canon will update the 85mm F1.8 but there is not yet any information about it.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Sep 29, 2016)

I would like to see Canon release a non-L lens to compete with the Sigma/Tamron 150-600 or the Nikon 200-500 offerings and have it priced in the $1000-1400 price window.


----------



## Baba_HT (Sep 29, 2016)

50 II L lens is much needed


----------



## Duckman (Sep 29, 2016)

Baba_HT said:


> 50 II L lens is much needed



I would like to see a new 50L as well.


----------



## TAF (Oct 8, 2016)

After much deliberation, I think I'd like a 50mm f/0.8 IS L


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 8, 2016)

800 F8.0 DO


----------



## Viggo (Oct 8, 2016)

After I bought the 85 f1.8 I really enjoy, I would have liked it to have upgraded AF so it tracks better in lowish light, and upgraded sharpness and way less purple fringing.

A really enjoyable lens overall that needs a fresh up .


----------



## SteveM (Oct 8, 2016)

The 85mm 1.8 is the only non L series lens I have, it is soooo sharp. Just give it stabilisation and I'd be happy. The 24-70 f2.8 should have IS as well, I often use the poorer 24-105 because I have the security IS offers with it.


----------



## pwp (Oct 9, 2016)

I'll join the chorus for a new 50L. Perfectly fine with me if it's f/1.4, that might keep the bulk and price a bit lower, but _per-leeze_, give it IS. 

-pw


----------



## ERHP (Oct 9, 2016)

Personally I would still like to see a 600 f/4 with built in 1.4TC like the 200-400. Honestly not caring if it is DO or L but having the ability to go from 600 to 840 and back again without opening my 1DX MK II's sensor to dirt would be pretty fantastic. A DO version, provided it has the same IQ, would just be icing on the cake.


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 9, 2016)

I seriously want a new 50mm more then anything right now. It would never have IS in my opinion but it would be nice. Give me a refreshed 50 f2 IS and there is a good chance I would buy it. Too bad I can't imagine it having weather sealing. I want to be able to grab any lens in my arsenal and not have to worry about the weather. I've considered the Tamron 45mm but after my unhappy experience with my 50 art, I would like to stay with in the Canon eco system. I don't think I can wait for ever though.


----------



## timmy_650 (Oct 9, 2016)

I would want a 16 or 17 f2.8 non L NO IS for under $600. Something kinda lighter that I would take hiking. I have a 24-70 2.8 So I don't need 16-35 (I want) but it would be nice to save the weight. I think it would pair really well with the new 24-105 for hiking.


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 9, 2016)

timmy_650 said:


> I would want a 16 or 17 f2.8 non L NO IS for under $600. Something kinda lighter that I would take hiking. I have a 24-70 2.8 So I don't need 16-35 (I want) but it would be nice to save the weight. I think it would pair really well with the new 24-105 for hiking.



I just picked up the 16-35 f4is and I am very impressed so far. This lens doesn't seem to add any weight to my 5d3 with a grip and I would think would be a great lens for hiking.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 9, 2016)

To weld on my EOS M: A super sharp, contrasty and flare resistant EF-M 2.0 50mm IS + good closeup capability - 0.3x magnification + in macro supersharp across the frame from f/4 on // some compromises are needed to keep the size below e.g. EF-S 2.8 macro
For both worlds (FF + APS-C): EF 4.0 40-200 L IS USM+STM with superior quality, good close focus (1:5...1:4 at 200mm seems to be realistic) in a compact package e.g. like a smaller version of the EF 70-300 L - would be my "standard" lens

EDIT: 0.3x magnification, not 3x!


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 9, 2016)

EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM
as compact as possible, optically as excellent as 22/2.0 and also very affordable.

after that:
EF-M 50/1.8 IS STM
EF-M 35/2.0 STM - as small, good and cheap as the Fuji XF 

will provide an excellent lineup of ultra-compact, optically good and inexpensive EF-M primes allowing us to go "really small" whenever we want: 
22 / 35 / 50 / 85 with angle of view like 35 / 55 / 80 / 135 on FF.


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 9, 2016)

Okay! So in the last few years, Canon have given us a new 24-70 f/2.8, 100-400, 35, 16-35 & 24-105 so I think there's 3 lenses left on the 'fix-it' list

50mm (all 3)
85mm (both)
14mm (make it the Astro king please!)

So let's start with the 50mm


----------



## Viggo (Oct 9, 2016)

SteveM said:


> The 85mm 1.8 is the only non L series lens I have, it is soooo sharp. Just give it stabilisation and I'd be happy. The 24-70 f2.8 should have IS as well, I often use the poorer 24-105 because I have the security IS offers with it.



I guess you don't use at 1.8 then... at 2.8 I have no complaints about IQ either.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 9, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> ... I think there's 3 lenses left on the 'fix-it' list
> 50mm (all 3)
> ...
> So let's start with the 50mm



in case you missed it: EF 50/1.8 STM is available since 2015 ... it is small, light, optically fantastic and dirt-cheap. 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-STM-Lens.aspx
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f18-stm.htm

But 50/1.4 replacement is long overdue. 50/1.2 is not worth the money, update not needed, what for? A really great f/1.4 is all it takes.


----------



## Sabaki (Oct 9, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > ... I think there's 3 lenses left on the 'fix-it' list
> ...



Silly me! Forgot the STM f/1.8 was released 

I'd still like to see a f/1.2, just for the fact that it could produce an image quality no other 50mm can. 

Then of course there's the engineering aspect. If Canon can produce a substantially better f/1.2, it offers the blueprint for other focal lengths to go f/1.2


----------



## timmy_650 (Oct 12, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> timmy_650 said:
> 
> 
> > I would want a 16 or 17 f2.8 non L NO IS for under $600. Something kinda lighter that I would take hiking. I have a 24-70 2.8 So I don't need 16-35 (I want) but it would be nice to save the weight. I think it would pair really well with the new 24-105 for hiking.
> ...



I agree. The thing it lacks in being able to be a good night lens.


----------



## Zv (Oct 12, 2016)

timmy_650 said:


> Ryananthony said:
> 
> 
> > timmy_650 said:
> ...



Well, that depends. If you consider the IS ability to shoot handheld at quite slow shutter speeds, I'd say it's a pretty good "night lens". When walking about in the evening it's nice to have the ability to shoot at narrow apertures to get a nice dof without going ridiculously high on ISO. 

Or are you referring to astro/night landscape? In which case it may not be ideal (though still useable).


----------



## TAW (Oct 12, 2016)

I love to see an update to the 28-300... A 24-200 would also be welcomed with open arms...

The ideas of starting to incorporate an extender into the long lenses (like on the 200-400) is also very appealing. If Canon could incorporate both a 1.4x and 2.x integrated in the same lens (two bulges?), I would be lobbying my wife fairly hard for my next Christmas present (I only need one kidney anyways!)

Have a GREAT day!
tom


----------



## SkynetTX (Nov 9, 2016)

Nowdays everyone want to have lenses with as large aperture as possible ( f/1.2-f/2.8 ) But for macro photographers a true macro with the smallest aperture of f/40+ would be better if possible. Though such a small apeture would require very long exposure time it could increase the DOF pretty much.  (I made one of my best photos with aperture f/32 and 8 sec exposure time so with the aperture f/40+ the exposure time could have been around 12-15 sec.)


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 9, 2016)

SkynetTX said:


> Nowdays everyone want to have lenses with as large aperture as possible ( f/1.2-f/2.8 ) But for macro photographers a true macro with the smallest aperture of f/40+ would be better if possible. Though such a small apeture would require very long exposure time it could increase the DOF pretty much.  (I made one of my best photos with aperture f/32 and 8 sec exposure time so with the aperture f/40+ the exposure time could have been around 12-15 sec.)



in principle yes. However, in practice you may want to consider "diffraction" and how it adversely affects image quality.


----------



## j-nord (Nov 10, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> SkynetTX said:
> 
> 
> > Nowdays everyone want to have lenses with as large aperture as possible ( f/1.2-f/2.8 ) But for macro photographers a true macro with the smallest aperture of f/40+ would be better if possible. Though such a small apeture would require very long exposure time it could increase the DOF pretty much.  (I made one of my best photos with aperture f/32 and 8 sec exposure time so with the aperture f/40+ the exposure time could have been around 12-15 sec.)
> ...


Yes and the modern method is focus stacking. If you can take a 15 second exposure then, you can take a bunch of shorter and sharper images instead. The net result is better with focus stacking.


----------



## e_honda (Nov 15, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> For both worlds (FF + APS-C): EF 4.0 40-200 L IS USM+STM with superior quality, good close focus (1:5...1:4 at 200mm seems to be realistic) in a compact package e.g. like a smaller version of the EF 70-300 L - would be my "standard" lens



You realize that the 70-200 F4 IS L is already bigger than an unzoomed 70-300 L, right? A 40-200 F4 IS would be a good amount bigger than that. That's something that's just unlikely to happen.


----------



## ScottyP (Nov 16, 2016)

300mm f/4 or f/3.5 DO lens. Compact telephoto.


----------



## tron (Nov 16, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> Okay! So in the last few years, Canon have given us a new 24-70 f/2.8, 100-400, 35, 16-35 & 24-105 so I think there's 3 lenses left on the 'fix-it' list
> 
> 50mm (all 3)
> 85mm (both)
> ...


YEEEES! I agree with this (especially after the 4.5 stops vignetting of 16-35 2.8L III ...


----------



## Lfitz (Nov 24, 2016)

a 200-600mm f/5.6 L IS USM, that is as sharp as the new Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 and about the same price. I am tired of my Nikon friends having a sharper long zoom than me. The Tamron and Sigma 200-600 does not compare in sharpness or speed.


----------



## mitchel2002 (Nov 24, 2016)

Lfitz said:


> a 200-600mm f/5.6 L IS USM, that is as sharp as the new Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 and about the same price. I am tired of my Nikon friends having a sharper long zoom than me. The Tamron and Sigma 200-600 does not compare in sharpness or speed.


whats with the new tamron 150 600


----------



## tron (Nov 24, 2016)

Hmmm I know it won't happen (especially after the latest CR3 info) but this is a wish thread so I will say it anyway:

EF 85mm f/1.2L IS ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Jopa (Nov 29, 2016)

11-1200 (+1.4x integrated) f/1.0L IS under 3lbs and under $1000 please.


----------



## tron (Nov 29, 2016)

Jopa said:


> 11-1200 (+1.4x integrated) f/1.0L IS under 3lbs and under $1000 please.


How Tilt and shift (while keeping AF capabilities) plus macro too? ;D


----------



## Jopa (Nov 29, 2016)

tron said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > 11-1200 (+1.4x integrated) f/1.0L IS under 3lbs and under $1000 please.
> ...


Works for me  The macro should be 5:1 though.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Nov 29, 2016)

How many posts are needed before Canon gives in and makes for each of us what we want?

Probably the number of times I would have to send in my 24L to get the coma fixed...snicker.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2016)

Lfitz said:


> a 200-600mm f/5.6 L IS USM, that is as sharp as the new Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 and about the same price. I am tired of my Nikon friends having a sharper long zoom than me. The Tamron and Sigma 200-600 does not compare in sharpness or speed.



The Nikon 200-500mm has mixed reviews. Many copies are soft above 350mm and some reviewers prefer a Sigma 150-600mm. A 200-600mm f/5.6 would be a heavy monster.


----------



## slclick (Dec 1, 2016)

A really good Non L 50
An updated 200 2.8L
" " 300 f/4L
" " 400 f/5.6L


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 2, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Lfitz said:
> 
> 
> > a 200-600mm f/5.6 L IS USM, that is as sharp as the new Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 and about the same price. I am tired of my Nikon friends having a sharper long zoom than me. The Tamron and Sigma 200-600 does not compare in sharpness or speed.
> ...



True! 
Now a 500/600 F5.6 prime with no silly IS and other bits and bobs could be made at a very reasonable price, possibly with a plastic body to reduce costs even further.

I love the way that my 1DX and "Big White" lenses are built but many (most?) photographers simply don't need the durability of top level gear and simply want a plain and simple long lens that has decent IQ and AF and they would be more than happy to accept F5.6 to reduce size/weight and price.

Locally there would be a significant market for such lenses but they are all going Sigma/Tamron because that is all that is available. Canon is missing out on significant lens sales in this area.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 2, 2016)

I'm hoping for a 24-105 "L" III.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 2, 2016)

unfocused said:


> I'm hoping for a 24-105 "L" III.



Not exactly my thought after reading the incoming data about the mark ii - because the ii will last 5 years or more before we will see a mark iii version ...

While waiting for this one I would like to see an EF 4.0 / 40-200 L IS USM with brilliant IQ and ergonomics (like 70-200)... and if it starts at 50 mm I would take it in a heartbeat. Thinking of two bodies - one with 16-35 + 40/50-200 for landscape, people, towns, nature, beach, ....


----------

