# Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2013)

Since this will be a year for lenses, What lens do you desire the most to be released by canon? If your lens is not on here, Post and I will add.

Most should know my vote. :


----------



## rpiotr01 (May 6, 2013)

100-400 f4-5.6 IS II

400 5.6 IS 

Give us telephoto goodness for the masses!


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 6, 2013)

You left off the 24-105 f/2.8L IS USM with near Macro (0.7x or better) capabilities that's nearly as sharp as the new 24-70 v2.

Joking aside, for me it's the 135L (1.8 or 2, either one, but with IS and even better optics) or the 14-24 2.8 that has little distortion and is very sharp.


----------



## DArora (May 6, 2013)

You need to add 100-400mm f4-5.6L IS mk II to the list.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2013)

rpiotr01 said:


> 100-400 f4-5.6 IS II



Yeah, I'd have voted for that one.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2013)

added 100-400mm F/4-5.6L IS USM II & 400mm F/5.6 IS USM


----------



## Click (May 6, 2013)

I vote for the 100-400 f4-5.6 L IS II


----------



## Mick (May 6, 2013)

100-400 all day but I just wonder if it will ever see the light of day considering Canon have the excellent 70-300 IS L. A bit to close to bother bringing out the 100-400? I hope not.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2013)

Added 200-400mm 1.4x TC IS USM. (Even though we all know its real.)


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2013)

[x] 180mm f/3.5 IS Macro


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> [x] 180mm f/3.5 IS Macro



Done.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > [x] 180mm f/3.5 IS Macro
> ...



...and plz change the vote to "members can change vote", I already voted something else from the list and I don't think locking the vote is necessary here.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 7, 2013)

14-24 is my vote, plus 85L with faster AF.


----------



## bholliman (May 7, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> Joking aside, for me it's the 135L (1.8 or 2, either one, but with IS and even better optics) or the 14-24 2.8 that has little distortion and is very sharp.



Just curious, what's wrong with the current 135L? ???


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (May 7, 2013)

Most of these lenses already exist, a 14-24mm 2.8 would fill a hole in the Canon lineup for those who want an UWA similar to Nikon's stellar 14-24. If it ever comes out and is as sharp as the current 24-70 II then I think we'd have a winner. (Yeah, that means I voted for the 14-24) If I could pick a second choice, any new 50mm would be nice since it's one of the weakest and most outdated (except for the 50L) areas in the lineup.


----------



## killswitch (May 7, 2013)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> Most of these lenses already exist, a 14-24mm 2.8 would fill a hole in the Canon lineup for those who want an UWA similar to Nikon's stellar 14-24. If it ever comes out and is as sharp as the current 24-70 II then I think we'd have a winner.



+1

14-24 f2.8L


----------



## eml58 (May 7, 2013)

14-24f/2.8 L, I currently use the Nikkor version with an adaptor on my 1Dx & 5DMK III, Beautiful Lens.

200-400f/4 L IS (1.4x) I dream about this Lens, have done for 3 years while waiting, patiently, less patiently after 2 years, Peed off now.


----------



## toodamnice (May 7, 2013)

50mm F/1.4 USM II


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 7, 2013)

No pressing needs at all for a new lens, but I have been contemplating adding a 50mm, although I mostly prefer zooms. So I voted for a 1.4 MkII, I don't think I'd need the L, also it seems quite difficult (for me) to get that little extra out of it.


----------



## expatinasia (May 7, 2013)

I voted for 24-70mm F/2.8L IS USM, though not sure I would buy it if they did launch one. Definitely not at the top of the shopping list.

What is interesting is how all our interests and needs differ, and that is shown by there being no true breakaway lens that we all want.


----------



## agierke (May 7, 2013)

i know that the 45mm TSE and 90mm TSE replacements are probably imminent but i ould have voted for them had they been on the lists.

as this list stands, my vote was for the 50mm 1.2L II.


----------



## TAF (May 7, 2013)

I want a lens that does not yet exist.

I would like a 24-135 f1.4-f2.8 L with IS.

Preferably less than 800 grams; black, not white; and using a 77mm filter.

That would be my perfect walkabout lens (the the perfect kit lens). The 24-105L is really nice, but I wish it were faster. I've finally come to appreciate the advantage of the faster lens with the 5D3 AF system.


----------



## Don Haines (May 7, 2013)

400 F5.6 II with IS and sharper optics.

and a new version of the 1200 F5.6, one that none of us can ever afford to buy but can drool over. (must be waterdroolproof)


----------



## pierlux (May 7, 2013)

I voted for the 400mm F/4L IS USM. I have the excellent 70-300 L and would love a 400 f/4 which could be used with both the 1.4X and 2X TCs. I could sell it and go for the new 100-400 when it comes out, but the former option is much more attractive to me, though more expensive.

Other lenses I'd like: 14-24 (or 12-24, a patent exists!) and 50 f/1.4 IS


----------



## aroo (May 7, 2013)

Been thinking about a 20mm IS.


----------



## steven kessel (May 7, 2013)

200-400 TC 1.4. My passion is wildlife photography and something like that would give me the capacity to really reach out. A lens like that would bankrupt me, but still, I'd find a way . . . .


----------



## yogi (May 7, 2013)

Voted for the 100-400ll, but i also like TAF's idea.


TAF said:


> I want a lens that does not yet exist.
> 
> I would like a 24-135 f1.4-f2.8 L with IS.
> 
> ...


----------



## funkboy (May 7, 2013)

I'll take any stabilized mid-telephoto prime at f/2 or faster! (or a stabilized 50mm f/1.4)


----------



## 9VIII (May 7, 2013)

I voted for an update to the 400f5.6. Technically a 100-400 could perform just as well, but I would prefer something with less moving parts.


----------



## pj1974 (May 7, 2013)

I voted for the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM (as long as it's true USM - which I expect any replacement to the current 50mm f/1.4 will be).

Having written that (& voted) - I would like to add 2 other suggestions:

1) With last month's announcement of Sigma's new 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C, as a ground-breaking fast zoom - I would like to see a manufacturer (preferably Canon) come out with a complementary fast zoom lens, in the *30mm - 70mm* range. I realise having a f/1.8 (or f/2) zoom all the way from 30mm to 70mm might be biting off more than one can chew (without compromise in size, image quality, etc). So even having a *35mm - 60mm * range could still work well. USM focus to be used (or STM - at a push). IS not a priority for this lens.

2) *Canon 50mm f/2 USM IS*. I would probably prefer the 50mm f/2 USM IS over a Canon 50mm f/1.4, due to the smaller size / potential lower cost. Obviously if the 50mm f/1.4 is sharper @ f/2 than a 50mm f/2 @ f/2 (wide open) - I would take that into account. The recently announced Canon 35mm f/2 USM IS looks like a great lens, awesome IQ wide open: sharp, contrasty, great bokeh, etc. So I see a *Canon 50mm f/2 USM IS* as a logical near future release.

I would be keen to hear other's thoughts / input / calculations (eg of weight, size, filters, estimated cost, etc) on the above lenses.

Regards

Paul


----------



## birtembuk (May 7, 2013)

I'd be sure happy to see a new improved 100-400 but a 50mm f/1.2 II gets my vote with no hesitation. I just think it might take 5 years before this has a chance to materialize ...


----------



## florianbieler.de (May 7, 2013)

I'd like Sigma to add a 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 to their Art line.


----------



## kennephoto (May 7, 2013)

I like that the Canon 200mm 2.8L didn't receive any votes!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (May 7, 2013)

I would have voted either 14-24mm f/2.8L USM or 16-35mm F/2.8L USM III, but considering Canon's sticker shock policy, I would be unable to buy either one, so what's the point?


----------



## greger (May 7, 2013)

Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.
« Reply #31 on: Today at 12:47:58 AM »
Quote florianbieler.de
I'd like Sigma to add a 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 to their Art line.
Sigma has $50.00 instant savings on 50 1.4 and $75.00 instant savings on 85 1.4 posted on their website under Standard lenses. I just found it because your post made me go look because I thought you wanted them to make these lenses. I guess you want them updated. Why would they add them to an Art Line when they are Standard Lenses?


----------



## bvukich (May 7, 2013)

greger said:


> Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.
> « Reply #31 on: Today at 12:47:58 AM »
> Quote florianbieler.de
> I'd like Sigma to add a 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 to their Art line.
> Sigma has $50.00 instant savings on 50 1.4 and $75.00 instant savings on 85 1.4 posted on their website under Standard lenses. I just found it because your post made me go look because I thought you wanted them to make these lenses. I guess you want them updated. Why would they add them to an Art Line when they are Standard Lenses?



Probably because when they took the 35mm from their standard line, and released it under their art line it went from "ok" to awesome.


----------



## bvukich (May 7, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Joking aside, for me it's the 135L (1.8 or 2, either one, but with IS and even better optics) or the 14-24 2.8 that has little distortion and is very sharp.
> ...



Nothing... but modern coatings and possibly f/1.8 would be even better. I'd like IS in concept, but I don't think I'd like the price tag. The current one is a bargain at ~$1000; an updated one would lose some of it's charm if it's was twice that.


----------



## WillThompson (May 7, 2013)

EF 300mm f4 L IS II (4 stops of IS)

EF 400mm f5.6 L IS (4 stops of IS)

EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II (no push pull zoom) (4 stops of IS)

EF 50mm f1.4 & 85mm f1.8 IS (4 stops of IS) not L

Any prime with an IS upgrade.


----------



## adhocphotographer (May 7, 2013)

rpiotr01 said:


> 100-400 f4-5.6 IS II
> 
> 400 5.6 IS
> 
> Give us telephoto goodness for the masses!



+1


----------



## 9VIII (May 7, 2013)

kennephoto said:


> I like that the Canon 200mm 2.8L didn't receive any votes!



That would be in my #2 spot if the 135f2 wasn't so good, and if Sigma can keep up the current trend of releasing best in class lenses then their 135f1.8 will really kick butt (and lets be honest, the canon 135f2 is a really old lens. It should be an easy target). That lens is at the cutting edge of what can be done with long lengths at the fastest apertures (without costing as much as a car), and 200f2.8 is already saturated by the many zoom lenses that every single lens company has been regularly updating for the last decade.


----------



## CanNotYet (May 7, 2013)

bvukich said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...


+1 on this


----------



## Bruce Photography (May 7, 2013)

Depending upon price, I really would like a 400mm F4L IS to be the follow-on lens to the 400 5.6 so that the new version would have IS and could accomodate a 1.4 converter resulting in a lighter weight 500+ 5.6 lens. Yes I would like the 14-24 F2.8 but I use my Nikon with a converter for that which works out quite ok.


----------



## Leejo (May 7, 2013)

> What Lens do you desire to be made the most?


Many - but at a price that I can afford?
Would lova a 200-400 - but there is no way I can afford that one.
A new sealed 100-400 would be interesting - but at what price.
And when I step up to Full Frame many come into consideration.
Seeing as my 50mm 1.4 needs repairing due to broken focus - a more robust version of that would also not go amiss.


----------



## AvTvM (May 7, 2013)

1) EF 100-400/f4.0-5.6 IS
turning zoom, IQ and build quality as good as the 70-200 / 2.8 L IS II 
price approx. USD 2,200 - including tripod ring! 

2) EF-F 50-150/2.8 L IS
IQ and build-quality as good as the 70-200 2.8 L IS II but as compact, light and black as the Sigma 50-150 / 2.8
price? USD 1,300

3) EF 16-35 /2.8 L IS 
optically as good as the 24-70 II 
price USD 1,500

4) EF 20/4.0 pancake
as compact, cheap and good as the 40/2.8 pancake
priced at 250 USD

5) EF 24-105/4.0 L IS II 
IQ and build quality like the 24-70 II
priced at USD 1,000


----------



## nda (May 7, 2013)

15mm f/2.8 Fisheye II (non-L)


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 7, 2013)

dilbert said:


> 17-40/F4 USM II
> 21/anything USM
> 24-105/F4 USM IS II (one that doesn't have huge distortion at the wide end and isn't soft in the corners)
> 
> i.e a wide angle prime lens between 17mm and 22mm that doesn't suck because of field curvature, soft corners, etc, and doesn't have a curved front element like the 14-24 will.


For once I agree with you. As much as I like the 24-105 it has its shortcomings especially in the wide end.

A 17-40 /f4 would be great if they kept it inexpensive.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (May 7, 2013)

nda said:


> 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye II (non-L)



Yes, I kept my 15mm f/2.8 fisheye when the 8-15mm f/4 L fisheye zoom was released for three reasons:

1) DxO doesn't support the 8-15mm f/4. It was listed as to be supported, delayed again & again, until the lens was released, then it was dropped permanently from the list.

2) I use the 15mm f/2.8 in low light to capture a whole stage while standing right in front of it. One more aperture stop will always make for a cleaner image by shooting one ISO stop lower.

I've heard the the 8-15mm f/4 has better IQ. The lack of DxO support makes me wonder how true is that, as in maybe the distortion is so bad, DxO can't fix it, or something.

3) I'm not sure whether I'd find any use for focal lengths between 8 & 15. Actually, I'm considering selling my Sigma 8mm circular fisheye prime.

I'll be happy to see an EF 15mm f/2.8 II with better IQ.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 7, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> nda said:
> 
> 
> > 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye II (non-L)
> ...



The Sigma 15mm f2.8 is a more regarded lens than the Canon counterpart and it's still available. 
The Canon 8-15mm f4 L lens is very sweet and makes a great FX lens. Zoom bursts and zoom swirls will never be the same again! The zoom has slightly less CA, but it's still quite strong. I guess correcting a full frame 180 degree AOV is pretty difficult, but it can be defished with some pretty horrific drops in quality. I think the zoom is a tad sharper, but there is really very little between them. The zoom is more flexible and offers more options, but like all fisheye lenses....best used in moderation and infrequently. I like mine a lot, it's a lot of fun but it's not a lens I use often. In terms of distortion....it's a fisheye....yes it's a distorted view....it's supposed to be....lol!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2013)

bvukich said:


> greger said:
> 
> 
> > florianbieler.de said:
> ...



True, but they've now taken the 30/1.4 DC from standard to Art, and apparently while the build improved, the IQ didn't. 

So, they're at a little better than 1 for 2 at this point, suggesting that a 50mm Art lens might not be a slam dunk.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (May 7, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > nda said:
> ...



If my EF 15mm breaks down, I'll certainly replace it with the Sigma.



GMCPhotographics said:


> I guess correcting a full frame 180 degree AOV is pretty difficult, but it can be defished with some pretty horrific drops in quality.



Which is why this is not a high priority for me.



GMCPhotographics said:


> ... but like all fisheye lenses....best used in moderation and infrequently. I like mine a lot, it's a lot of fun but it's not a lens I use often. In terms of distortion....it's a fisheye....yes it's a distorted view....it's supposed to be....lol!



I've learned that if I shoot with the camera leveled and pointed at the horizon, people like the wide effect without minding the distortion too much.


----------



## RGF (May 7, 2013)

There are a few lenses I would like to see updates / added to Canon's lineup


Update the 180 macro - no need for IS, as I shoot mostly a tripod.
14-24 if up to Nikon IQ
200-400 w/ or w/o the 1.4 
100-400 if IQ is top notch
400 f4 would be a nice

I could not afford all these but it would be nice to have choices


----------



## RGF (May 7, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> 1) EF 100-400/f4.0-5.6 IS
> turning zoom, IQ and build quality as good as the 70-200 / 2.8 L IS II
> price approx. USD 2,200 - including tripod ring!
> 
> ...



If the returns to 150 to USD1 , maybe you'll see these prices. Until then you are 30-50% too lower (unfortunately)


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (May 7, 2013)

A 17-40/4L IS that is sharp corner to corner with low distortion the full zoom-range and all apertures.


----------



## jthomson (May 7, 2013)

rpiotr01 said:


> 100-400 f4-5.6 IS II
> 
> 400 5.6 IS
> 
> Give us telephoto goodness for the masses!



The masses aren't likely to have the $3,000+ needed to get the telephoto goodnes you are proposing.


----------



## pharp (May 7, 2013)

One vote for a FF version of the 60mm macro, no IS, and doesn't have to be L


----------



## hendrik-sg (May 7, 2013)

maybe a 6mm FF fisheye with 220° angle of view, as nikkon had decades ago.... a modestly sized 5.6 version would be enough... no montrus f2.8 version)


----------



## viggen61 (May 7, 2013)

jthomson said:


> The masses aren't likely to have the $3,000+ needed to get the telephoto goodnes you are proposing.



Oh, I don't know. Two and a half years ago, I blanched at the thought of $1,000+ lenses, now I own two. If a new 100-400 comes in at $2,500-$3,000 I'm sure there will be many takers, myself included. Particularly if it has 4-stop (or better) IS, and improved IQ.

Of course, there would be many _more _if the price were in the $2,000-$2,500 range...

Don't forget, Canon's next new option "up" from a hypothetical $3,000 100-400LII, the 300mm f/2.8L II, costs over $7,000...


----------



## CANONisOK (May 7, 2013)

TAF said:


> I want a lens that does not yet exist. I would like a 24-135 f1.4-f2.8 L with IS. Preferably less than 800 grams; black, not white; and using a 77mm filter.
> 
> That would be my perfect walkabout lens (the the perfect kit lens). The 24-105L is really nice, but I wish it were faster. I've finally come to appreciate the advantage of the faster lens with the 5D3 AF system.



I also like the idea of a modest-range walkaround lens. Longer reach than 70mm, but not going crazy like the 28-300mm to reduce distortion and keep size/weight reasonable. However, I think this one sabotages its chances in two key areas:

1) I'd be shocked to see a zoom with that kind of range open up to f1.4. Even f2.0 would probably be fantasy. Consider the 28-300mm which has f3.5-5.6, or the 28-135mm which also has f3.5-5.6. I think we'd be lucky to get f2.8-3.5 over a 24-135mm range. Throw in IS and there goes your weight criteria.

2) If they sold a great-quality lens in that range, we'd have no need to buy any other bright primes or even the 24-70mm f2.8 ii! The kings of marketing and product-differentiation would never allow it. That reasoning explains the good-but-not-great IQ of the 24-105mm.

But as long as we're dreaming... count me in for one also!


----------



## 1982chris911 (May 7, 2013)

14-24mm F2.8 L or 12-24 F4.0L or whatever Zoom with 14mm or less on the short end


----------



## yogi (May 7, 2013)

RLPhoto, what lens would you like to see? We know you usually prefer you primes. So what would you pick--a prime or zoom? (or at least it seems you prefer your primes )


----------



## sdsr (May 7, 2013)

9VIII said:


> kennephoto said:
> 
> 
> > I like that the Canon 200mm 2.8L didn't receive any votes!
> ...



Moreover, Sigma has a fairly new 180mm f/2.8 stabilized macro lens, which received an extremely favorable review at lenstip (elsewhere too, I expect):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/837868-REG/Sigma_180mm_f_2_8_APO_Macro.html


----------



## Click (May 7, 2013)

It seems that we have two winners.


----------



## LOALTD (May 8, 2013)

#1: 50mm f/1.4 II IS. The 35mm f/2.0 IS is an excellent lens but 50mm is my favorite focal length. I do a lot of low-light work in which a tripod is next-to-impossible to use (mountaineering), so hand-holdability in mid-to-wide focal lengths is of the utmost importance!

#2: 14-24mm f/2.8, yeah…who doesn’t want this? Ultra-wides are definitely the weak-point of Canon’s lens lineup. I’d even take a 14-24 f/4.0 IS…*dodges bullets*

#3: 200mm f/4.0 IS. Yep, I’ll probably get spit on for this, but I’d really like to have a sharp, relatively light, relatively non-bulky telephoto prime for backpacking/climbing when IL really need the reach but don’t want to lug around a 70-200. If the IS is 5-stop, that would be nice.


----------



## Mika (May 8, 2013)

Voted for a new 50/1.4. Although, if Canon doesn't get it done soon, I'm pretty sure Sigma will.

The other thing I'd like to see is either 400/5.6 IS or 300/4 IS II. I'd love to have an affordable F/4 telefoto, but 400/4 would probably be far too expensive, hence 400/5.6 IS or 300/4 IS II (and this time, make that IS 4 stops)

I'd also prefer 14-24/4, not 2.8. Up till then, Sigma 12-24 is hopefully sufficient.


----------



## zim (May 8, 2013)

EF 24-105/4.0 L IS II Please 
not on the list though


----------



## lholmes549 (May 9, 2013)

zim said:


> EF 24-105/4.0 L IS II Please
> not on the list though



+1

Voted 135 f/1.8 but if they made a 24-105 II with optics rivalling that of the 24-70 II I think it would prove just as successful as the first version. Not a lens to be loved but a lens to be used!


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

zim said:


> EF 24-105/4.0 L IS II Please
> not on the list though



Done.


----------



## expatinasia (May 9, 2013)

I voted for the 24-70mm F/2.8L IS USM but would a 24-105mm F/2.8L IS USM be possible? That would be a very handy lens.


----------



## mscott (May 9, 2013)

WillThompson said:


> EF 300mm f4 L IS II (4 stops of IS)
> 
> EF 400mm f5.6 L IS (4 stops of IS)
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (May 9, 2013)

Just to play along...

1st priority: good ultra wide zoom, preferably something to compete with Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8

2nd priority: upgraded 24-105mm F/4L IS USM. It's my kit lens so any IQ improvements would be welcome.

3rd priority: 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM. IS would be nice. Big price cutoff would be even nicer.

Upgraded 50mm f/1.4 with better IQ & build quality. IS would be nice.
Upgraded 85mm f/1.8 with better IQ. I'd like f/1.4, but f/2 IS would be just as good.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 9, 2013)

For me, a new 35mm f1.4 L is the most desireable here. It's easily one of my most used lenses. The current model does need a few updates. It's AF is pretty bad in low light. Change the Aperture blades for cirular ones, and an odd number please. It's not a weather sealed lens, although I've not had any issues in the rain with mine - hey I'm a brittish wedding photographer. It could do with the newer coatings, but other than that....leave it alone.

The next on my list is a new 135L, ideally I'd like an IS unit. Push the design to f1.8, while still keeping the stunning optical sharpness, contrast and colours. Shorten the MFD to 1 metre and weather seal. Add proper circular aperture blades (at f2.8 the Bokeh gets quite geometric) and lots of them for nice sunstars and it'll be another Canon Gem.

My third request is for a new 100-400L. I'd really like it to be a 75-400 so that it sits well with a 24-70L. Not fussed if it's push pull or extending...just get the tripod collar in the right place at 400mm. Make it a proper 400mm and not a 380mm. Give it a fast and accurate AF system, the current model is pretty pedestrian. A new IS unit is a given as are newer coatings. Stellar IQ and smooth bokeh are high on the list.

My 4th request is for a revamp of the 24-105L. It's a great lens, but it's old and pales next to the new 24-70IIL. At 24mm it's pretty awful, it could do with a new IS unit and newer coatings...will it be worth the price hike? Prolly not, but give it 5 years and it'll be a cheap lens again. 

My last request is for a newer long macro lens. The 180L is a great lens, but it is a little soft wide open...but awsome stopped down. I'd like a 200mm f2.8 Macro. Fast AF and Hybrid IS. As sharp as the new 100mm L macro with the same smooth and sensitive AF ring style. Make it light, take extrenders well and pop the tripod ring in the right balance spot and Canon will have another gem. 

One PPS request....a new 50mm f1.2L please....no point in labouring this...it's an ok lens, just not one of Canon's finest!


----------



## J.R. (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Since this will be a year for lenses, What lens do you desire the most to be released by canon? If your lens is not on here, Post and I will add.
> 
> Most should know my vote. :



Only 7% for the 135 1.8 L ...  ... 

BTW, I voted for the 200mm 2.8 IS so its not saying much


----------



## J.R. (May 9, 2013)

No TSEs given the CR2 rumors? I'd personally like a new TSE 90mm f/2.8 L


----------



## zim (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > EF 24-105/4.0 L IS II Please
> ...



Thanks....... aww now I can't change my vote, I demand a re-count ;D

Booo hisss. where's the hissy fit icon


----------



## Snook (May 9, 2013)

The 14-24 would just be the perfect addition to canon's f/2.8 L Zoom lens lineup.


----------



## ecka (May 9, 2013)

I want EF 35mm f/1.2L USM ;D


----------



## Redder (May 9, 2013)

35mm 1.2 and 135mm 1.8 are nice.
I want a reasonable small, fast standard zoom, like a 28-50mm f2.0


----------



## iaind (May 14, 2013)

14-24mm with 100-400 in second place.

The 200-400 is just too dear at £12000.


----------



## eriksu (May 14, 2013)

Canon EF 16-600mm f2,8 L USM ;D


----------



## dafrank (May 14, 2013)

*My wanted list -probably a little different*

Since I shoot some different things than most, I'd like to have a few different lenses which not be found on most other peoples' radar:

135mm - 180mm TS-E f/4.0 with both great far field and very good close-up capabilities, plus 3 axis IS (dream on) for a long-ish product lens with nearly zero per cent color aberrations and killer sharpness out to the edge of the image circle. The 90mm doesn't cut it for very large objects (cars, cars, cars) at extreme oblique angles when trying to maintain a relatively "normal" size perspective between the near and far portions of the subject matter.

Super high resolving, super high contrast 50mm f2.0 L with IS.

Super high resolving, super high contrast 16-24mm f/2.8 L with IS.

Super high resolving, super high contrast 24-50mm f/2.8 L with IS.

Super high resolving, super high contrast 50-105mm f/2.8 L with IS.

Modestly priced 400mm f/4.5 L IS

In all of the above lenses, except the TS-E, my purpose for specifying them as I did, is to trade aperture or zoom ratio for better image quality, something I would prefer to have, especially in light of the (hopefully) very high resolution per image area sensor cameras coming pretty soon. Whether these cams use smaller pixels, true color pixels, pixel-shifting multiple exposure techniques or some other method to yield their higher image resolution, better lenses will make them all the more useful.

Just my thoughts.

Regards,
David


----------



## crasher8 (May 15, 2013)

ecka said:


> I want EF 35mm f/1.2L USM ;D



Not unrealistic with Nikon just announcing the 32mm f/1.2


----------



## TAF (May 15, 2013)

CANONisOK said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > I want a lens that does not yet exist. I would like a 24-135 f1.4-f2.8 L with IS. Preferably less than 800 grams; black, not white; and using a 77mm filter.
> ...



RE Point 1: You might very well be right about the 1.4; so let's just say a lens that's 2.8 at the long end, and whatever it ends up being (faster of course) at the wide end, so it can take full advantage of the X AF points in the 5D3. As for the weight, OK, maybe a little more, but not much!

RE Point 2: Yes, I suppose it might reduce the sale of some of their other lenses  But it might also reduce the sales of competitors lenses. Might be a fair trade.

On the other hand, perhaps Sigma or Tamron might like to step up to bat?

I can dream, can't I?


----------



## chas1113 (May 15, 2013)

I voted for the 14-24mm, but what I would REALLY love to see would be a lightweight, sharp EF 17-70mm 2.8 with a 67mm filter thread (although 77 would work). With that and any variant of 70-200mm or the 70-300mm L, I could be happy with a two-zoom lens setup. I think Canon really missed the boat with the EF 24-70 f/4 IS; they needed to differentiate it more from the already strong existing lenses. Heck, I'd even be happy with an EF 24-85mm II with a fixed f/3.5 and keep the 67mm filter thread. Throw in IS, keep it below a grand and I'd jump on it.


----------



## CanNotYet (May 16, 2013)

Hmm, I saw this lens on ebay: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~135_4~56_usm.html 

I think this range would be awesome for indoor sports/martial arts (like taekwondo) on a APS-C camera.
Can one hope for an EF-S 35-135 f2.8-4 USM?

I would buy it in an instant.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 16, 2013)

1. 14-24mm F/2.8L USM
2. 100-400 F/4.5-5.6L IS II
3. 50mm F/1.4 II USM
4. 24-70 F/2.8L IS
5. 135mm F/1.8L IS USM

Poll is Locked and These are the Top 5 Lenses selected. Freebie Info for any R&D dept's wanting to make $$$$$$$.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (May 16, 2013)

14-24

Everything else can wait or use the older/current versions.


----------



## ecka (May 16, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 1. 14-24mm F/2.8L USM
> 2. 100-400 F/4.5-5.6L IS II
> 3. 50mm 1.4 II USM
> 4. 24-70 F/2.8L IS
> ...



Number 4 is the least probable lens to come out any time soon. There have been two new 24-70Ls not so long ago (24-70/2.8L'II and 24-70/4L IS). It should be disqualified . 35L'II should be on that list.


----------



## Eimajm (May 16, 2013)

Voted for the 400mm F4. I think this is very potential lens now they have the glass and parts for the 200-400 which it could share a lot of. Just a simple matter of a few adjustment and voila! Although I'm not so sure this would fit into my reasonable big white price thinking of £4500-£5000 judging on the price of the 200-400.


----------



## NetDog (May 16, 2013)

50mm F/1.4 USM II


----------



## rs (May 16, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> Hmm, I saw this lens on ebay: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~135_4~56_usm.html
> 
> I think this range would be awesome for indoor sports/martial arts (like taekwondo) on a APS-C camera.
> Can one hope for an EF-S 35-135 f2.8-4 USM?
> ...


28-135?

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Standard_Zoom/EF_28-135mm_f3.5-5.6_IS_USM/

18-135?

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Standard_Zoom/EF-S_18_135mm_f_3.5_5.6_IS_STM/


----------



## Zlatko (May 16, 2013)

NetDog said:


> 50mm F/1.4 USM II



Yes!!!


----------



## jthomson (May 16, 2013)

Eimajm said:


> Voted for the 400mm F4. I think this is very potential lens now they have the glass and parts for the 200-400 which it could share a lot of. Just a simple matter of a few adjustment and voila! Although I'm not so sure this would fit into my reasonable big white price thinking of £4500-£5000 judging on the price of the 200-400.



I think your price is in the right ball park. The cost should be slightly lower than the 300mm f2.8L USM II IS.


----------



## CanNotYet (May 16, 2013)

rs said:


> CanNotYet said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, I saw this lens on ebay: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_35~135_4~56_usm.html
> ...


They are too slow for martial arts indoors. A constant 2.8 would be preferred, but I'll take a 2.8-4 for compactness (and price). 5.6 indoors when you want 1/500th of a second shutter speed or faster? Crazy ISO/noise. Maybe the 28-135 on the 6D would work, but then it would be too short.


----------



## dgatwood (May 17, 2013)

What I'd most like to see is a line of EF-S prime lenses, starting with about a 14–18mm pancake.


----------



## RMC33 (May 17, 2013)

Honestly, id love to see the 135 f/2 updated. I would LOVE to see the return of DO lenses, Got to use a 400 f/4 DO today and it was a joy, the contrast/color is a bit off but super easy to fix in post. The owner gave me a LR profile to use with the lens and it works great. I would DIE to see an updated 50 1.4 too, without IS and a 90 MM TS-E.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 17, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> What I'd most like to see is a line of EF-S prime lenses, starting with about a 14–18mm pancake.



Longer ef-s primes won't happen because you can just plug a shorter ef lens and use it with the 1.6x crop factor, the smaller aps-c mirror is only an advantage for wide angle lenses.

As for wa/uwa ef-s prime, imho that won't happen either because ef-s is either for amateurs who are supposed to be happy with zooms or for people who want to use tele lenses for more reach...



NetDog said:


> 50mm F/1.4 USM II



+1 ... but the reason why this didn't happen yet might be to protect the sales of the expensive 50/1.2, if the 50/1.4 gets any better with a "real" usm drive there'll be little reason to buy the good-bokeh mediocre-sharpness L - so probably they'll either replace both or none.


----------



## vscd (May 17, 2013)

I don't understand why you all want those lenses. I would be satisfied with one, only. I need a 14-400 L IS USM f1.4 with TC 1.4 inside. But please not more than 500 grams. Thank you. :


----------



## ecka (May 17, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > What I'd most like to see is a line of EF-S prime lenses, starting with about a 14–18mm pancake.
> ...



Just wait till Samyang brings the 10/2.8 UMC for APS-C 



> NetDog said:
> 
> 
> > 50mm F/1.4 USM II
> ...



Actually, I would be much more interested in 50/2 IS USM Macro, or even a cheap 50/1.8 STM. I think that the rest of Sigma's prime "jewels" (50/1.4 and 85/1.4) will be reborn into A series pretty soon, and only after that ... Canon will be forced to do something about it.


----------



## tron (May 17, 2013)

Can we have ALL please ? (wishful thinking) ;D

Seriously though, that would be extremely bad for our wallets. It's better having each one every year or two (more wishful thinking) ;D


----------



## Hans (May 17, 2013)

Vote for 14-24mm f/2.8L USM. My kind of gear....


----------



## tron (May 17, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> I would LOVE to see the return of DO lenses, Got to use a 400 f/4 DO today and it was a joy, the contrast/color is a bit off but super easy to fix in post.


+100000 !!!!

I would be interested but this lens' IQ has been controversial.

Some say it is very good, some not (some determine 2003 as the make year that made the difference.

I remember correctly at the-digital-picture site the 400DO didn't take the teleconverters well (IQ wise).


----------

