# What's your "lens that won't be made"



## jebrady03 (Dec 6, 2015)

When I wake up before my alarm goes off (practically daily) my mind starts going like a train leaving the station. If I can get back to sleep before it picks up too much steam, I'm good to go. More often however, it slowly starts going, picks up speed, and within a few minutes is racing along the countryside thinking of anything and everything conceivable.

This morning, somehow I started thinking about my lens usage. I have the following prime lenses for my 6D:

EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art

EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM

EF 135mm f/2L USM

Then I started thinking about the fact that realistically, I could easily get along without the 85mm f/1.8 because the 100mmL is such a similar focal length and has IS to boot, and typically I stop the 85 down to at least 2.2 and usually 2.5 or 2.8. All that would really hold me back is the very fast focusing of the 85 which comes in handy when photographing my daughter (and when he becomes mobile) my son at play.

I also then started thinking about the fact that my favorite lens and focal length is truly the 135mmL and that I really only use the 35 and 50 indoors, more out of necessity than love of the focal length.

Finally, I thought about a tip I read one time regarding lens selection that, when deciding what focal length to purchase next, a person should consider halving, or doubling their current prime lens because that is such a significant leap that it provides some real value and versatility.

Then my mind went back to my least used lens, the 35mm f/2 IS USM. Double that focal length would be 70mm. That's close enough to 85mm, in my mind, that if I had a 70mm lens, I could probably do without the 85. Also... taking 70mm and doubling THAT would roughly be back to my favorite lens, the 135mmL. So... MY personal "lens that won't be made" but I'd buy in a heartbeat is...

35-70mm f/2L IS USM (or STM if there was no speed penalty in focusing). That's a 2x zoom range, so it's long enough to be useful but not so long that a very fast aperture (for a zoom lens) is prohibitive. It doesn't really give up much to many of the popular lenses in terms of aperture (the 35 f/2 lenses, 50 f/1.8, and 85 f/1.8 are the same, or 1/3 of a stop difference). And finally, it covers very common angles of view from (barely) wide angle to normal to (barely) short telephoto.

For this lens to be of use to someone like me, it would need to be of a similarly high image quality to Canon's latest L series glass. And of course the price would match - lol.

For me, I think I'd still rarely use the lens, simply due to my focal length preferences. But I'd be willing to pay handsomely to trim my lens collection from 3 lenses that (arguably) cover this (rough) focal range down to one, with little to no loss in wide open ability, and likely result in an improvement. And that's coming from someone who basically never uses zoom lenses. For me, I rarely use the 35 and 50 so being able to have a zoom cover both would be very valuable, especially when using the telephoto end, as I would do most of the time.

With my vast experience designing lenses in my head with absolutely zero real world experience or education, I'd assume that despite this lens having a large aperture, it could be made relatively small (for a zoom and especially for a zoom with a large aperture). Consider that the 35 f/2 IS, 50mm f/1.8, and 85mm f/1.8 are all small-to-medium sized lenses. I would think that a 35-70mm f/2L IS could be the same size or possibly smaller than the 24-70 f/2.8L II.

I don't think this lens will be made because the 24-70 lenses are so popular. Personally, I'd prefer a shorter zoom range with a larger aperture.

A 35-70mm f/2L IS USM plus the 135mm f/2L would be a dream combo for me. That's a 4x "zoom range" (yes, I know 71-134 is missing) at f/2 and would allow me to utilize my favorite lens almost all the time, but not miss out on the normal focal length range when I occasionally need it, and do so without necessitating 4 lenses.

So... what's YOUR "lens that won't be made". I'd love to hear about it, why it won't be made, but why you'd love it!


----------



## BeenThere (Dec 6, 2015)

I would like to have a 15mm f/1.8 that has little coma in the corners of a FF image at the widest aperture. Add to that, say, only 1.5 stops of vignetting in the corners. Manual focus would be OK. Oh yeah, and fairly sharp into the corners wide open. Finally, offer it in EF mount for under $2k U.S. Dollars.
Astro!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 6, 2015)

Whereas Signa already made a 24-35mm F2 Art, it is quite likely that some day make a 35-70mm F2, but without Image Stabilizer.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 6, 2015)

My lens that will not be done is an EF-S 15-50mm F2.8 IS, with the same quality of the Sigma 18-35 Art, and that does not change in size during the zoom. Yes, I know that this lens would be too big and heavy compared to other EF-S but a perfect match for 7D Mark II.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 6, 2015)

EF 50 f/1.4 IS. :-X


----------



## Rahul (Dec 6, 2015)

EF 200 f/2.8L IS


----------



## justmy2cents (Dec 6, 2015)

ef-s / ef-m 10-22 2.8 
ef-s / ef-m 15-70 2.8 IS


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 6, 2015)

My lens that won't be made is:

Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8 L IS (non bulbous front element of course)


----------



## rs (Dec 6, 2015)

A large image circle 560/4L IS with built in 1.4x TC _and_ 0.7x TC to make a 400/2.8, 560/4 and 800/5.6 without any lens swapping.


----------



## zim (Dec 6, 2015)

My lens that won't ever be made

50mm 1.2L IS USM same size as current 1.2, sharp from centre to 1.4 then ear to ear from 1.4 to diffraction limitations.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 6, 2015)

40-135f2
Even without IS this would be pretty heavy, but it would cannibalise practically every portrait length lens on the market. Never Going to Happen.

EF-S (EF-M?) 500f5.6
That's right, no IS. Non-IS means there's just less to go wrong, and it saves weight (the 400f5.6 is lighter than any other lens that size). Being EF-S would mean they can tune it specifically for the smaller sensor and not worry about large corners. Or EF-M would be cool if the new high end body is a decent performer (though it probably wouldn't be too hard to make both).
This would be my ideal backpacking lens, and it's never going to happen.


----------



## wldbil (Dec 6, 2015)

My lens would be the 35 – 85mm f/2 with not more than a 77mm filter. This would go nice with a 16 – 35mm canon lens. If canon could make it faster and still keep the filter size at 77mm that would be wonderful.
I use the EF 135mm f/2L USM lots and feel that this would complement the 135 when I take pictures of my granddaughter at swim meets.
I have a Canon EF 24mm f1.4 that I use and don’t need or want the 24 – 70mm f/2.8


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 6, 2015)

A rectilinear Canon EF 5mm f/5.6


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 6, 2015)

Also, 400f5.6 2x Magnification Macro.

A full size telephoto macro lens would be great for giving you a good amount of working room, and might even allow magnification beyond the standard 1:1.
But that's a pretty specialised tool, probably never going to happen.


----------



## David Littleboy (Dec 6, 2015)

*My "lens that won't be made": 40-120/2.0 IS*



9VIII said:


> 40-135f2
> Even without IS this would be pretty heavy, but it would cannibalise practically every portrait length lens on the market. Never Going to Happen.



Actually, it could happen. If it were 40 - 120/2.0 IS, it'd be plenty long enough for portraits, and might not be all that heavy. It's the need for the wider end that makes the 24-70/2.8 II such a clunker, so limiting the wide end to 40mm and the long to 120mm might just ameliorate the need for a monster front element a bit and keep the filter size to 77mm. (A 120/2.0 prime would only need a 67mm filter size, of course.) I'm hoping such a lens would be noticeably _lighter_ than the 24-70/2.8 IS.

If it were as good optically as the 24-70/2.8 II it'd be a real joy for landscapers. 70mm just isn't long enough much of the time, but the 35mm and wider range is covered by the 16-35/4.0. Also it'd be great for concert/event photography where you can approach the stage. The f/2.0 and IS bits would be real useful.

It's interesting that someone else likes 40mm as the wide end. I find 50mm to be way too narrow a lot of the time. I used the 40/2.0 Voightlander manual focus pancake lens on the 5DII as my normal lens on the 5DII for a couple of years, and it was fine for family shots, although sometimes things needed a lot of cropping.


----------



## Perio (Dec 6, 2015)

AF Zeiss (Otus 55 f1.4, 85 f1.4, 135 f2.0), Canon 200 f1.8 and 70-200 f2.0.


----------



## Gnocchi (Dec 6, 2015)

30mm efs 1.8 & any other efs prime for that matter.


----------



## johnnycash (Dec 6, 2015)

Perio said:


> AF Zeiss (Otus 55 f1.4, 85 f1.4, 135 f2.0), Canon 200 f1.8 and 70-200 f2.0.



8) That's a dream!


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 6, 2015)

I want Canon to re-vamp the 800 F5.6 L IS to an 800 F5.6 L - possibly with a carbon fibre body.
It won't happen, they wouldn't even take the IS out of my existing 800 let alone risk a non metal body.


----------



## fussy III (Dec 7, 2015)

I just posted a list of dream-lenses in another section. I think they all would sell very well, some like hotcakes, including the 
*40-85mm/2.0 L IS USM*, which is pretty close to the 35-70/2.0 demanded by the threat-opener. If we ever get to buy a 38-80/2.0 instead, we will both be happy - as so many fashion-, portrait-, wedding- and reportage-photographers would. I think someone will do it eventually.

However, here I will list the one's from my list which unfortunately seem much more unlikely ever to be made (going by manufacturers psychology and fears).

EF 18/2.0 L USM with slight (50%) fish-eye-characteristics intended for underwater-photography and close-ups

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

EF 66mm/1.2 L IS Macro/Portrait

EF 800mm/8.0 L IS USM


----------



## ejenner (Dec 8, 2015)

Some of these sound good, but they would be so large and/or heavy (or impossible) as to be non-starters for me.

Along similar lines are the OP and another, I would pay for a 35-50/60 f2 IS. My least used FL's that I don't want to have to have slow zooms and fast primes covering for the occasions I need them. I'd rather keep this lens light then have it go to 70+ and be heavy and keep my sig 85 1.4.

Failing that, I'd settle for a 50 f2 IS before christmas.

135 f2 IS if not too heavy


----------



## axtstern (Dec 8, 2015)

There is that sentence I believe from H. Ford? 'If I would have asked my customers what they want they would have asked for faster horses"

Canon and all other lens manufactures are cought in this Special triangle of Forces: Technical feasibility, Price and the ability of the customer to see the benefit.

Cutting edge Technology costs Money and so making your customers see the benefit is critical.
I believe a lot of lenses (at least those which do not defy physics) could be build or have been build in the past and either never aligned the customers behind them or never would do so in the required quantities.

The 50mm 0.95 and the 200mm 1.8 from Canon are fossils now because they did not achieve this ballance.
The Tamron 28-135 2.8 and the non OS Sigma 50-150 2.8 shared the same fate for different reasons.

I have bought the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and the Sigma 18-35 2.0 because pages like CR educated me about the specific abilities These lenses have. Will the Mainstream customer ever consider buying a zoom lens with 5mm zoom capacity? 

I often wondered why Canon puts effort in releasing a boring lens seeming to be without any apeal to me and than learning that this is the holy grail for Astros, BIFs or Porn Producers.

In my eyes Canon does not a good Job in educating the main customer base in developing an interest in niche products.


Like always: please forgive all the spelling mistakes, I type in English on a forced german spell checker...


----------



## LovePhotography (Dec 8, 2015)

EF 24-350 f/1.4.
((


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 8, 2015)

400F5.6L II 

For me, the perfect walk-around long lens.....


----------



## wsmith96 (Dec 9, 2015)

Any canon lens between 50mm and 400 mm with L quality at under $1000.


----------



## grainier (Dec 11, 2015)

There was a time I really wanted a 35-105/2.8


----------



## RickWagoner (Dec 11, 2015)

EF-S 250-500mm 6.3 STM IS for $600. Same optical and build quality of the 55-250 stm, this is one of the greatest lenses i have used at anywhere close to the price you can buy it at $150 once you put a lens hood on. Every first time SLR or even long time SLR shooter that has anything to do with wildlife, birds and maybe even sports will buy this lens no ifs ands or buts...hell it may just convert a few Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm users back over to Canon. A silent great picture wide open at 6.3 with great servo tracking at 500mm for $600...yummy but it will never happen.


----------



## grainier (Dec 11, 2015)

RickWagoner said:


> EF-S 250-500mm 6.3 STM IS for $600.



Speaking of which - I'd like a FF AF mirror 500/8 - like Minolta used to make.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 11, 2015)

A 50mm f1.0 L II with 200 f2 quality of bokeh and sharpness like the 35 L II and AF comparable to the 24-70 II.


----------



## chas1113 (Dec 16, 2015)

1.) 17-70mm f/2.8 IS L with 67mm threads. I would trade BOTH my 16-35mm f/4 and my 24-105mm Ls.
2.) Update EF 24-85mm. Add IS, keep the 67mm threads, and make it a fixed 3.5 aperture.

Not gonna happen.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 16, 2015)

Going through the lineup of lenses I already have and those available out there, I find it very difficult to say that I am in need of a lens that won´t be made. I would have preferred a 28mm f1.4L to the 35mm f1.4L II. I never thought one would be made, but since Zeiss is bringing an Otus out, it might be that Canon might be considering the same. I would love the Otus, but at 1,35kg it is simply too heavy. I expect updates of the 50 and 85 1.2L lenses to come out in the foreseeable future, so I´ll live happily with my Otus lenses until then. A few months back I would say a 600 f4 DO, but that may well be coming. A TS-E macro lens seems to be coming ... Maybe a really compact L-class DO superzoom. 16-200, or something like that, with a decent max aperture ...

I guess the conclusion is that I already have more and better gear than my artistic and technical abilities can exploit and the only reason for making changes would be that something breaks (never happens) or my weak character is tempted with something new (happens all the time).


----------

