# Which Lens Are You Looking Forward To?



## Cobalt720 (Jul 23, 2010)

Let me know if I should add another one.


----------



## /dev/null (Jul 23, 2010)

I am waiting for a new long tele.

500 f/5.6 IS would be nice, or an update to the 500 f/4 IS if I win the lottery.

A lot of people are waiting for the 100-400 f/5.6 to be upgraded.


----------



## whoami2 (Jul 23, 2010)

I am looking for a 50/1.4 II.

50/1.2 is good but it is just tooooo expensive. 50/1.4 is at a acceptable price range however the build was too bad and old (It's not ring USM).


----------



## muteteh (Jul 23, 2010)

EF 8mm f/2.8 circular fisheye
EF 14-24mm f/2.8 or 4
EF 50mm f/1.4 II


----------



## nzmargolies (Jul 24, 2010)

I would love a 2.8 version of the 24-105. that is the perfect range to complement the 16-35, and i refuse to buy anything slower than 2.8. I love my shallow DOF


----------



## Cobalt720 (Jul 24, 2010)

nzmargolies said:


> I love my shallow DOF



Don't we all!


----------



## scott (Jul 24, 2010)

The list shows an L and non L version of the 14-24 f/2.8, is that just a mistake, or will there be two versions of this lens?


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Jul 25, 2010)

<------------------


----------



## Cobalt720 (Jul 25, 2010)

scott said:


> The list shows an L and non L version of the 14-24 f/2.8, is that just a mistake, or will there be two versions of this lens?



Yes, sorry for that confusion... too many possible lens'!


----------



## JVDL (Jul 25, 2010)

10000% 100-400. But I think I have to wait for it... Very long


----------



## Harv (Jul 26, 2010)

I'm looking forward to one that is not on the list. Being primarily a bird photographer and preferring to travel light, I'd love to see a 600/4 DO IS but would gladly settle for a 600/5.6 DO IS.


----------



## ronderick (Jul 27, 2010)

A 200-400 f/4 zoom like the Nikon one will be nice... maybe stick in a DO if it doesn't affect the quality too much - that might cut some weight off the potential monster.

Well, things would like nice as long as we don't ask about the price :


----------



## J-Man (Jul 28, 2010)

I have a big wish list for new lenses & replacements,
14-24, 24-70, new 50's across the board,
100-400(200-400/200-500), 400/4(non DO),
500/5.6, f2 zoom


----------



## ashah214 (Jul 28, 2010)

I voted for the 24-70L IS but I'm really looking forward to a 35mm NON-L with USM to replace the 35 f/2. I'd love it even if they kept it f/2 and just added USM so it can focus a tidge faster.


----------



## match14 (Jul 29, 2010)

I think you should add EF 15-60mm f/4L IS USM.


----------



## muteteh (Aug 5, 2010)

I would like a new zoom as well, but the prices are high.

I could probably afford the EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 (or it's upgrade, if the price is similar), but the Nikon AF-S VR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED is definitely too expensive for me.

[I'm sure the difference is justified, an extra stop at the long end makes for twice the front element surface, the ability to use a 1.4x extender without loosing autofocus, etc, but that doesn't change my salary.]


----------



## Osiris30 (Aug 9, 2010)

ronderick said:


> A 200-400 f/4 zoom like the Nikon one will be nice... maybe stick in a DO if it doesn't affect the quality too much - that might cut some weight off the potential monster.
> 
> Well, things would like nice as long as we don't ask about the price :



+1 for that lens... Even better would be 200-400 2.8-4.0. It's already going to cost a fortune, why not do it right


----------



## that1guy (Aug 9, 2010)

nzmargolies said:


> I would love a 2.8 version of the 24-105. that is the perfect range to complement the 16-35, and i refuse to buy anything slower than 2.8. I love my shallow DOF



^I could get on board with this! ;D I love my 24-105 but the 2.8 would make it even better. Of course it would be huge, but I don't care. I believe Tamron made one of these (maybe it was a 28-105 2.8...does anyone remember?) at one point.

For the survey, I marked that I was waiting on the 24-70 2.8 IS. I am anxious to see how it performs optically and it would be an awesome lens w/ the IS (the only reason I didn't get the current 24-70 was because it didn't have IS).


----------



## that1guy (Aug 9, 2010)

match14 said:


> I think you should add EF 15-60mm f/4L IS USM.



+1 That would be cool too!


----------



## ashah214 (Aug 10, 2010)

that1guy said:


> ^I could get on board with this! ;D I love my 24-105 but the 2.8 would make it even better. Of course it would be huge, but I don't care. I believe Tamron made one of these (maybe it was a 28-105 2.8...does anyone remember?) at one point.



Tamron still makes it. It's one of their adaptall lenses. http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/m28105mm.asp

I'm happy to hear about the new 35mm. It'll be good for crop bodies as a standard lens as well as those who love the 35mm focal length on FF ( that would be me ;D ).


----------



## that1guy (Aug 10, 2010)

ashah214 said:


> that1guy said:
> 
> 
> > ^I could get on board with this! ;D I love my 24-105 but the 2.8 would make it even better. Of course it would be huge, but I don't care. I believe Tamron made one of these (maybe it was a 28-105 2.8...does anyone remember?) at one point.
> ...



Wow, that's cool, thanks for the link! I haven't seen one of those in a long time


----------



## muteteh (Aug 11, 2010)

ashah214 said:


> that1guy said:
> 
> 
> > ^I could get on board with this! ;D I love my 24-105 but the 2.8 would make it even better. Of course it would be huge, but I don't care. I believe Tamron made one of these (maybe it was a 28-105 2.8...does anyone remember?) at one point.
> ...



People want an IS on the EF 24-70 f/2.8, but not on a 28-105 f/2.8 ?!


----------



## that1guy (Aug 11, 2010)

muteteh said:


> ashah214 said:
> 
> 
> > that1guy said:
> ...



Oh no, we still want it on that too! ;D I think we were more pointing out the fact that you can make a 28-105 2.8 and so it wouldn't be unreasonable for Canon to do so at some point. It was also a bit of reminiscing for me as well. I used to shoot with one of those on an old Kodak 560...ahhh...memories 

One thing about me...I would like to have IS on every lens. I have never been in a situation where I wished I didn't have it on a lens, but I've been in a lot of situations where I wished I did have it on a lens. Of course, I'm _not_ keen on paying a $500 premium :-\


----------



## RichFisher (Aug 11, 2010)

How about something not on the list?

a zoom extender - 1 to 1.5 would be great.

100-400 F4 IS (or similar - like Nikon 200-400 F4)

replacement for the 400 F5.6 w/ an IS version. Either 400 or 500.

180 macro with Tilt capabilities (I don't need shift but extra DOF would help)

Update the 500 F4 by shaving 2 Lbs off it (ditto 400 F2.8 and 600 F4 - they would need to drop 3 lbs)


----------



## Sebastian (Aug 12, 2010)

Aside from a 14-...mm ultra wide angle zoom, I'd like to see a 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM (like the Nikon 200-400) or a 400mm f/4 *non*-DO IS - more reasonably priced and with a better IQ than the 4/400 DO.


Regards,

Sebastian


----------



## Freeze_XJ (Aug 15, 2010)

Voted for a 500 5.6 IS, i wouldn't mind DO, unless price doubled ($2500 for a DO IS would be OK, anything higher makes me scratch my head, and go for a 300 2.8 with 2xTC).
Another great one would be a fast cheap prime, like 24 f/1.8, for $400-$500. Alternative would be a 20 f/1.8 and a 35 f/1.8, as a set, both for EF-S, which saves cost. If f/1.4 is affordable (Sigma manages, and i'm already looking at them), then make it faster, but i fear they won't, because of the L lenses, with their 1500+ price tag.


----------



## DetlevCM (Aug 16, 2010)

Definitely not a 24-70 IS  - simply because I recently got the non-IS version 
(Well, I'd only "need" the IS for non-tripod video)

Else in the long run I'll be keen on a 16-35 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 to compliment my 24-70 - but a lot can happen during one year which is when I may onsider a new lens... (finance)


----------



## J (Aug 26, 2010)

Not on the list, but I'd like an EF-S 15-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. That puts me in the minority here though; no EF-S are listed in the poll and nobody seems to care.

Barring that, EF 20-60mm f/2.8L IS USM. Something wide enough that I can use it on crop. ;D The only full frame I can afford is film.


----------



## kubelik (Aug 30, 2010)

that1guy said:


> match14 said:
> 
> 
> > I think you should add EF 15-60mm f/4L IS USM.
> ...



that wouldn't just be cool, that would be insane. I think I'd use that as a walkaround on the 5D Mark II over the 24-70 almost any day


----------



## muteteh (Aug 30, 2010)

As Canon has announced it's new lenses, how about opening a new survey ? Would such a survery have the option of splitting a vote between a small number - say two or three - lenses ?

Personally, I would like to see an EF 135mm that would be mechanically and optically better than the 135mm f/2.8 softfocus, and cheaper than the 135mm f/2 L (like the EF 85mm f/1.8 in quality and price), and a reasonably priced upgrade (= no more than 30% price raise) to the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L

[Another way to put it is I hope Canon makes a competitor to the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3. I'll be happy for something like an EF 200-500mm f/4-5.6 that would cost no more than twice the price of the Sigma. ]


----------



## papa-razzi (Aug 31, 2010)

I think all the inexpensive (non L) primes are in need of upgrading. Adding better focus and IS on the longer ones. Most are over 20 years old. Update the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm. Especially with all the Rebels being sold, there needs to be a decent set of affordable primes, especially on the wider end.

Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4? It really looks good on paper, but some reviews indicate it has focus problems on Canon bodies.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 31, 2010)

Others have mentioned a 200-400 f/4 and a 200-400 f/2.8-4. Either of those would be entirely acceptable, but a 200-500 f/2.8-4 or even a 250-500 f/2.8-4 would be even better. (I would use any of those lenses almost exclusively on a monopod.) In systems where the camera tells the lens what aperture to use, the variable aperture feature of the lens becomes almost invisible in use.

I already own a 100-400 and would also like it to be upgraded to get rid of the push-pull zoom feature. A 28-300 that is optically as good as the current model but designed (and priced) like the new Nikon would also be appreciated.


----------



## fotografiasi (Sep 1, 2010)

besides the 135 2 L IS I am also waiting for the 200 2.8 L IS. The new 70-200 2.8 is II is very close to the 200 2.8 but also very expensive for me. I would buy the 200 2.8 if it would have IS. I do weddings and I can not walk around with a monopod


----------



## kubelik (Sep 1, 2010)

just thought of another lens that's not on this list and which would be a lot of fun, the rumored 200mm f/3.5 L Macro.

that's gotta be in the works, given canon's clear desire to shift the non-EF-S macros into the L lineup


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 1, 2010)

Personally, this year I was interested in the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II. I was also considering getting the classic (but old, may be on its last legs for resolution) 400mm f/5.6 non-IS, along with perhaps another $1000 lens (can't remember what at this point). Right now I'm looking at the new 70-300mm L, which does have a "modest" (Canon's phrase) maximum aperture (especially at 300mm) but looks to have incredible IQ at all points of the range. If it's around $1500 that also helps the sticker shock substantially (enough that I could replace my T1i with the extra $1000 saved), and the extra 100mm over the 70-200 is very important to me. I'd gladly pay an extra $1000 for a better maximum aperture but you can't have everything.

So for a while I think that will more or less be the last word in 70-300mm on the Canon platform, unless they release one with a better maximum aperture (I'd gladly pay an extra $1000 for an improvement in that though).

I don't care so much about the 50mm f/1.2; the original seems not to be as sharp at normal apertures as the f/1.4, which in turn is claimed not to be as sharp as the compact macro (Ken Rockwell sez...take it with your shovels of salt, I guess, but I assume he's right; MTF curves on Canon's website seem to confirm that at f/8 the 1.4 is sharper towards the edge of the frame, though the 1.2 seems to have a slight boost in the middle). The f/1.2 is expensive. I'd consider getting one all the same, but I shoot with the 50mm at "reasonable" apertures more often so sharpness at those apertures is very important.

Plus the f/1.2 was released in 2006. Those pro lenses don't seem to be upgraded as quickly as the cheapies, probably because Canon wouldn't remake them for cost savings as you can see happened to the original 50mm 1.8 (which looks like the f/1.4 build-wise) to the II. How realistic is it to get an upgrade already?

It's the f/1.4 that is crying for an upgrade, and which I voted for before when this was on the front page of CR.

DO lenses...I wonder if this wasn't a failed experiment on Canon's part. The 70-300mm has weird defocus characteristics (doughnut boke). Again, these are also pretty new lenses, but apparently the 70-300mm is not so well loved so Canon probably isn't rushing out with another. These may eventually catch on but they ought to solve the defocus characteristics issue first. It's a shame because that lens reportedly doesn't change focal length when zooming - no focus breathing - which would be perfect for video.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 1, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> DO lenses...I wonder if this wasn't a failed experiment on Canon's part. The 70-300mm has weird defocus characteristics (doughnut boke). Again, these are also pretty new lenses, but apparently the 70-300mm is not so well loved so Canon probably isn't rushing out with another. These may eventually catch on but they ought to solve the defocus characteristics issue first. It's a shame because that lens reportedly doesn't change focal length when zooming - no focus breathing - which would be perfect for video.



I believe that you can make parfocal lenses without going to DO optics ... and its still cheaper than DO, too. don't forget the lack of contrast in DO lenses. I know they're smaller and whatnot, but to me the price doesn't justify the gain against what's lost ... prefer that canon spends its energy developing non-DO glass


----------



## Justin (Oct 2, 2010)

I want a 24-120 f/4 IS like Nikon just released. A 14-24 2.8. And a 24-70 IS obviously. I don't see Canon making the 14-24 though because it will mess with 24 1.4 and 14 2.8 and 16-35. That's too much cannibalization is what I'm sure their marketers are saying.


----------



## Justin (Oct 2, 2010)

I think that Canon's strategy is to sell cheap zooms to rebel owners, but the 50 1.8 does sell very well. Updated 28 1.8, 35 2.0, and 50 1.4 lenses would be a lot of fun and sell bazonkers. 



papa-razzi said:


> I think all the inexpensive (non L) primes are in need of upgrading. Adding better focus and IS on the longer ones. Most are over 20 years old. Update the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm. Especially with all the Rebels being sold, there needs to be a decent set of affordable primes, especially on the wider end.
> 
> Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4? It really looks good on paper, but some reviews indicate it has focus problems on Canon bodies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2010)

Justin said:


> I think that Canon's strategy is to sell cheap zooms to rebel owner...



Bingo. It seems pretty likely that Canon has done the market research and found that Rebel buyers want zoom lenses. The more zoom the better. The 50/1.8 is popular because it's cheap. I'm sure the 50/1.8 outsells the 35/2 by a wide margin, even though arguably the 35/2 is more appropriate as a 'normal' prime for a 1.6x crop body. But Joe Consumer would take a swig of his can of Bud and say, "I'm not going to shell out $300 for a lens that doesn't even zoom!" If they update the non-L primes, they'll be more expensive than their current versions, and I suspect not be very popular at that price point, at least for the typical consumer. People who hang out here are much more likely to appreciate the benefits of a prime lens. I'd bet that at this point, the EF-S 18-200mm outsells all the primes in that whole range, L and non-L combined. If Canon were to develop a 27x superzoom, say an EF-S 15-400mm, I bet it would be a consumer hit! They could even market around the horrible barrel distortion by claiming, "The wide end gives you that unique and creative fisheye look, at a fraction of the cost of our new 8-15mm fisheye zoom..."


----------



## imgrumpy (Oct 4, 2010)

Hey! My most used lens is the 18-200. It's light and easy to port around...of course I also own the 50 1.2L and 17-55 2.8 for serious occasions. But the 18-200 is extremely useful when I only take 1 lens with me. There is a market for people like my wife who want the performance of an SLR camera in a lighter compact form (rebel) with as much zoom as possible to capture those fleeting moments in life. She just has to follow the rule of averages and take 10 pictures to get one great one.


----------



## kubelik (Oct 4, 2010)

nothing wrong with using an 18-200 superzoom; I'm sure every manufacturer's 18-200 sells extremely well because it's a swiss army knife of a lens.

my wife resolutely shoots with the 18-200 since she hates the additional weight and fuss that comes with switching lenses. and that's a valid point; she is able to move faster than me and often manages to grab shots I simply have to spectate because I don't have the right lens on at the right moment. L glass is certainly not a cure-all, and I know plenty of people who are actually glad not to be carrying around red-striped equipment due to the weight savings (and cost savings!).

oh yeah, her 18-200 comes image stabilized, which neither my 16-35 nor 24-70 are ... so we actually end up pretty even in terms of keeper rates despite her slower glass


----------



## Flake (Oct 6, 2010)

18 - 200mm is EF-s only and quality isn't up there with the best by a long way.

However a lens I'd like to see is born from using a 24 - 105mm IS L on a crop frame. Sometimes you just don't need a wide angle, but do need the long end. The 70 - 200mm is just too long, so something perhaps 35 - 40mm at the wide end and maybe 150 - 175mm at the long end.

I doubt we'll ever see this so it'll have to be the crop body or even two bodies with different lenses.


----------

