# Realistic wish lens



## wickidwombat (Oct 27, 2011)

I love my 24-105 f4L IS its's fantastic, however If I could wish up a lens it would be a 24-105 f2.8L IS having the new IS from the 100mm macro I guess it would be a bit of a beast size and weight wise might need to go up to the 82mm filter size? I think its probably possible. It would probably cost a fortune too but thats ok i'd still buy it in a heartbeat
Is there any reason they couldn't make a lens like this?
I also wonder how big physically a lens like this would be? I'm guessing maybe a little bigger than the 70-200

what would be your wish lenses that you think they could realistically make?


----------



## keithfullermusic (Oct 27, 2011)

My dream lens is a 7-800mm f/1.2 IS that weighs 1/4 pound and has perfect sharpness all over and cost $20 US. If they can make a little robot that flies to mars and drives around doing science experiments there is NO reason why my dream lens can't happen.


----------



## samueljay (Oct 27, 2011)

keithfullermusic said:


> My dream lens is a 7-800mm f/1.2 IS that weighs 1/4 pound and has perfect sharpness all over and cost $20 US. If they can make a little robot that flies to mars and drives around doing science experiments there is NO reason why my dream lens can't happen.


ahahahahaha


----------



## Jamesy (Oct 27, 2011)

The 24-105 IS weighs in at 670g and the 24-70 (No IS) weighs 950g (a.k.a The Brick) so it stands to reason that a 24-105/2.8 IS would be well north of 1Kg - more likely 1.5Kg which is in the territory of a 70-200/2.8 IS. I too have thought a 24-105/2.8 IS would be one hell of a walk-around.

I presently have a 40D/17-55/2.8 IS combo and have been debating picking up a 5D2/24-105 kit. The loss of a stop of light is more than taken care of with the higher ISO capabilities. I could go the 24-70 route but like the idea of the reach on the 24-105 - purely as a walk-around.

I echo your wish for a 24-105/2.8 IS, provided it could be produced around 1Kg - but I don't think that is possible.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Oct 27, 2011)

For me, I can't see myself buying an L lends under 2.8. Not just in terms of light, but for the look of the shot. I almost never shoot at f/4 or anywhere right around there. Usually, I'm looking for maximum bokeh or mega-sharpness (around f/7-14 depending on the lens). I always find shots around f/4-f/6ish to have a boring look. Of course I don't mean all the time. I'm sure there are plenty of amazing shots at that aperture, and I know I've taken some that I really like.

I just feel like L lenses are so effing expensive that they better be perfect, and f/4 is just not cutting it at that zoom range. That is probably why they are always part of the nicer kit packages. No one really wants to buy one, but it's nice enough to throw in and sweeten the 5D deal.


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 27, 2011)

A zoom in any range that goes faster than f/2.8 would be nice. (even a f/2-f/3.5 variable would be ok)
As would a 'portrait zoom', like 40-150mm.
Combine those specs into a 40-150 f/2 the size/weight/price of a 70-200 f/2.8LISii and it'd sell well imho. Stick it on a 1DX and there's your killer wedding kit.

200-400 f/4 x1.4 is a bit of a dream of mine (although i doubt i'll ever afford one), it's in prototype just not released yet.

300-800 f/5.6 would be nice, slow to keep size/weight/price down enough (not like the Sigma grenade launcher), although it'll still probably end up in the ranges of the EF 800/5.6

Still, i'm hanging out for the EFs 11mm f/2 (patent exists), and/or EFs 28/30/35 f/1.4/1.6/1.8 (everyone else has one except Canon).


----------



## EYEONE (Oct 27, 2011)

I heard a rumor that they made a 24-105mm f2.8 but it was the size and weight of a 70-200 f2.8 IS II. Which defeats the purpose a general purpose lens.

There are physical limits to constant aperture lenses.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 27, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> I heard a rumor that they made a 24-105mm f2.8 but it was the size and weight of a 70-200 f2.8 IS II. Which defeats the purpose a general purpose lens.
> 
> There are physical limits to constant aperture lenses.



if it was the size of the 70-200 f2.8 II I would be pretty happy 1.5kg lens is fine IMO for walkaround


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 27, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> I love my 24-105 f4L IS its's fantastic, however If I could wish up a lens it would be a 24-105 f2.8L IS having the new IS from the 100mm macro I guess it would be a bit of a beast size and weight wise might need to go up to the 82mm filter size? I think its probably possible. It would probably cost a fortune too but thats ok i'd still buy it in a heartbeat
> Is there any reason they couldn't make a lens like this?
> I also wonder how big physically a lens like this would be? I'm guessing maybe a little bigger than the 70-200
> 
> what would be your wish lenses that you think they could realistically make?



It is definitely feasible, a similar lens already exists, so its not some far fetched dream. See the Tamron 28-105mm f/2.8 here. They are out of production, but you might find a used one for about $350 - $500.

I think that Canon believes that sales would not justify the cost of development and tooling. Apparently, there was not a big enough market for Tamron to keep making them, but times have changed, so who knows.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=242&sort=7&cat=43&page=1

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tamron-SP-AF-Aspherical-LD-IF-28-105mm-f-2-8-Canon-/220825895836?pt=Camera_Lenses

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tamron-AF-Mt-SP-28-105mm-f-2-8-Lens-Canon-EOS-/230620950019


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 27, 2011)

For me, 20-135 f4 L IS. Just a might wider, and a mudge longer than my 24-105... f2.8 would be nice, though not throughly necessary. I wouldnay mind the weight or size (I'm big...). Though I would be satisfied with f4...

Also, Canon 100-300 f4. Sigma once made one, and it was wonderful! Maybe make that 70-300 f4... make it EF-S and we'll call it a day!

And, I'll second that 11 f2 ,,, (maybe I just shutmeself up and go pony up for the tokina 11-16 2.8...)

And, a 50-150 f2 IS...


----------



## J. McCabe (Oct 27, 2011)

Jamesy said:


> The 24-105 IS weighs in at 670g and the 24-70 (No IS) weighs 950g (a.k.a The Brick) so it stands to reason that a 24-105/2.8 IS would be well north of 1Kg - more likely 1.5Kg which is in the territory of a 70-200/2.8 IS. I too have thought a 24-105/2.8 IS would be one hell of a walk-around.



Why is the 24-70mm f/2.8 so big & heavy ?

E.g. does it really need such a big front element ? 70mm / 2.8 is just 25mm, and it's front element is around 77mm.


----------



## torger (Oct 27, 2011)

An "affordable" 500/5.6 IS, and a 400/5.6 IS, preferably with an APS-C body that can focus on f/8 so you can combine these with 1.4x teleconverter. That is a little bit more affordable bird photography for the amateurs.

And then new tilt-shift lenses, a 35 (new focal length for TS-E), 45 and 90 with the same fine movements and L treatment as the new TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 II to make still life photographers happy.


----------



## torger (Oct 27, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> Why is the 24-70mm f/2.8 so big & heavy ?
> 
> E.g. does it really need such a big front element ? 70mm / 2.8 is just 25mm, and it's front element is around 77mm.



The recent lens design article gives some leads:
http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/lens-genealogy/

Specific focal ranges require specific lens designs. The problem is the wide-angle end, lots of glass is required to support that with good quality.


----------



## ianhar (Oct 27, 2011)

I once felt that walking around with 1ds attached with 70-200 f2.8 is is feasible. But by the end of the day my shoulder hurts and i never walk around with my 70-200 unless i really have to. Making a 24-105 f2.8 might be fun for awhile but you really dont want to walk around with your family carrying 3kg of gear on your shoulder everytime you are going out. It will lose its market as a general purpose lens. Unless they could make it for less than 1kg than it would be fine. Other than that 24-105 f2.8 surely be on my wishlist if it does happen

Another wish list would be 135 f1.4. Just like to see how will the image fair. Dont get me wrong the 135 f2.0 is amazing. I rented it out few times, but would like to see this excellent lens to go even further.


----------



## Cetalis (Oct 27, 2011)

A 24-105 f/2.8 would be heavy and expensive, and if price and weight aren't an issue, neither is a second body with a 70-200 f/2.8. 

Personally i'd like to see a 200-400 f/4-5.6 IS, 24-35 f/2, and a good 15-135 IS EFS USM,
Also, +1 on the 11mm f/2.
Edit: think it was mentioned somewhere that the 11 f/2 was for projectors, and come to think of it, an 11mm f/2.8+ is far more realistic...


----------



## J. McCabe (Oct 27, 2011)

I would wish for an ultra-wide zoom, something like Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 or Sigma 12-24mm, preferably as good as the Nikkor rather than the Sigma.

Beside that, upgrades of the non-L wide primes, e.g. EF 35mm f/2 USM, EF 24mm f/2 USM, and EF 20mm f/2 USM. Improvements would be the addition of USM, a stop faster in the 24mm & 20mm lenses, and improved IQ and/or bokeh.


----------



## ianhar (Oct 27, 2011)

20mm 1.4 would change canon holy trinity line up


----------



## whatta (Oct 27, 2011)

to be realistic:
non L primes: 50 1.4 USM II (with ring usm), or rather 28 1.4 USM (or 1.8II)
efs 15-60 F2.8 IS USM
efs 15-85 F4 IS USM


----------



## Zuuyi (Oct 27, 2011)

efs 17-85 f2.8 is usm

It would become the go to lens for 7D owners. It would cost just about the same price as the camera. It would cover almost all needs for most photographers.


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 27, 2011)

Cetalis said:


> Edit: think it was mentioned somewhere that the 11 f/2 was for projectors, and come to think of it, an 11mm f/2.8+ is far more realistic...


Even if it's an 11mm f/3.5 i'll still buy it, if the IQ and distortion is better than the ultrawide zooms...


----------



## The Bad Duck (Oct 27, 2011)

IÂ´d like a 35 f/1.8 USM with the same quality as the 85 f/1.8 USM. (ring USM and usable wide open) That would be supernice!


----------



## jimmy156 (Oct 27, 2011)

I will backup what a poster on the previous page said and say my dream lens would be a 500mm 5.6 IS

Retail price would need to be around Â£1500, but i imagine would be close to Â£2000 when newly released.

I'd love ef-s 15-60 2.8 IS, but it would probably be too expensive as a general purpose lens for me, considering the current 17-55 2.8 is Â£800ish, it would probably be knocking on the door of Â£1000 for the revised version.


----------



## ecka (Oct 27, 2011)

EF 35mm f/1.2L USM
EF-S 28mm f/1.8 USM


----------



## whatta (Oct 27, 2011)

actually efs 15-60 2.8 IS USM has been rumored:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/02/ef-s-15-60-f2-8-is-cr1/

it would be the perfect kit for the 7D II

and indeed, efs 28 1.8, but I think it is not likely, the efs 60 2.8 macro is the only prime so far. 

there was also an interesting one earlier:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/02/canon-ef-s-17-55-f2-is-patent/


----------



## Justin (Oct 27, 2011)

35 1.2L IS
85 1.4L IS
90 ts-e 2.8 II

22-70 2.8L IS


----------



## ecka (Oct 27, 2011)

whatta said:


> actually efs 15-60 2.8 IS USM has been rumored:
> http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/02/ef-s-15-60-f2-8-is-cr1/
> 
> it would be the perfect kit for the 7D II
> ...


EF-S 17-55mm f/2 IS USM would be awesome too


----------



## Cetalis (Oct 27, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> Cetalis said:
> 
> 
> > Edit: think it was mentioned somewhere that the 11 f/2 was for projectors, and come to think of it, an 11mm f/2.8+ is far more realistic...
> ...



Same here, though the price and weight has to match. Come to think of it, f/4 IS doesn't sound so bad either.

Also, does anyone know if its harder to add IS to non-tele, FF, fast lenses? If IS is technically a controlled decentering, that would mean that the IS group has to produce a larger image circle like the the TS-Es, and might make it hard to IS something too fast and too short. Just guessing, but, uh any optical engineers out there to confirm this?


----------



## Rincewind (Oct 27, 2011)

An all-in-one 10-1000 f/1L IS II USM (version II should come out first so it is already better than version I).


----------



## elvan (Oct 27, 2011)

17-55mm f/1.8 IS would be nice.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 27, 2011)

EFS 15-85 f/4 IS USM
EFS 45-125 f/2.8 IS USM (the EFS equivalent to the 70-200 mm)
EF 100-400 f/4-5.6 IS USM (technically not a version II as it starts at f/4)
EF 300-500 f/5.6 IS USM
EF 30 f/1.4 USM (I may buy the Sigma)
EF 10 f/2.8 USM
EF 500 f/5.6 IS USM

Hopefully those are realistic.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 27, 2011)

docsmith said:


> EFS 15-85 f/4 IS USM...



+1 I'd gladly sacrifice the partial stop at the wide end for a constant aperture. I'd even prefer this to a 15-60 f/2/8.


----------



## AprilForever (Oct 28, 2011)

I have an old 22.5-90 f1.5 Bell and Howell, c-mount probably. I'd like to see an ef-s 22.5-90 f1.5! Surely it would only cost a few thousand, right? But, what a lens for weddings and events!


----------



## Caps18 (Oct 28, 2011)

Something like a 6400mm telescope with GPS sky tracking mount.

If Canon doesn't choose to make it, they should work together with Meade or a different telescope maker to make sure everything works nicely...


----------



## moreorless (Oct 29, 2011)

A normal zoom that goes wider than 24mm would be useful as a walkaround landscale lens, something like say a 20-70 f/4 IS. Personally I find that longer tele and more extreme UWA are things I stop and take my time with so a lens change is less of an incovenience but pushing into the upper end of UWA is something I do quite often when taking quick shots.

Maybe the start of a linked up system of landscape lenses? 12-20 f/4, 20-70 f/4 IS, 70-200 f/4 IS


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 30, 2011)

Caps18 said:


> Something like a 6400mm telescope with GPS sky tracking mount.
> 
> If Canon doesn't choose to make it, they should work together with Meade or a different telescope maker to make sure everything works nicely...



now THAT would be fun! an integrated connection that allows full control from the camera i would like to have a go at astrophotography never tried it yet


----------



## whatta (Nov 4, 2011)

as of now, we do have an EF 14.5-60 which is faster than f2.8 (t2.6) with list price of $45,000


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 4, 2011)

But it's only super 35, which NeuroAnatomist just told me is really only ASP-C!!! A 14-60 EF-S would be a wonderful lens! Especially if they slapped some IS in there...


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 4, 2011)

keithfullermusic said:


> My dream lens is a 7-800mm f/1.2 IS that weighs 1/4 pound and has perfect sharpness all over and cost $20 US. If they can make a little robot that flies to mars and drives around doing science experiments there is NO reason why my dream lens can't happen.



Sooner or later if humans don't extinct themselves first, optics will move into the field of organics and genetic engineering. Think something like, a cloned eagle eye developed in a laboratory. So sooner or later you'll likely get your wish, just maybe not in the form you originally had in mind. Don't laugh, it's probably not even as far away as we might imagine, and it would probably lend itself better to a DIY project than grinding your own glass with a dremil.


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 4, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> keithfullermusic said:
> 
> 
> > My dream lens is a 7-800mm f/1.2 IS that weighs 1/4 pound and has perfect sharpness all over and cost $20 US. If they can make a little robot that flies to mars and drives around doing science experiments there is NO reason why my dream lens can't happen.
> ...



Imagine being the first photographer on Mars...


----------



## ferdi (Nov 4, 2011)

EF 24-50mm f/1.4L USM
EF 35-70mm f/2L IS USM



docsmith said:
 

> EFS 45-125 f/2.8 IS USM (the EFS equivalent to the 70-200 mm)


How about a Canon EF 50-150mm f/2.8L IS USM, because the Sigma one is sub-par.


----------



## Heidrun (Nov 4, 2011)

EF 12-24 f/1,4 L is
EF 28-135 f/2,8 L is
EF 135-400 f/4,0 L is with inner focus so the lens does not change in lenght when i`m zooming


----------



## DuLt (Nov 4, 2011)

A compact, lightweight, EF-S 15-45 F2.8

I would prefer if canon opted for lightness instead of toughness...


----------



## Rocky (Nov 4, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> keithfullermusic said:
> 
> 
> > My dream lens is a 7-800mm f/1.2 IS that weighs 1/4 pound and has perfect sharpness all over and cost $20 US. If they can make a little robot that flies to mars and drives around doing science experiments there is NO reason why my dream lens can't happen.
> ...



It is highly doable if you want your sensor to be 2mm X 2mm or smaller


----------



## funkboy (Nov 4, 2011)

Whatever it is, it's f/2.0 or faster across the board and has IS & a sweet bokeh. If it's a zoom, I really don't need more than a 2x zoom range (unless it's a "standard" zoom trying to do wide & tele, but now we're dreaming). Short/fat is preferable to long/skinny.

Also, I very much like the idea of the integrated switchable 1.4x teleconverter as an alternative to mega-range variable-aperture zooms (I'm looking at you, 100-400L). The big lump on the side is less cool, but it beats schlepping a TC on & off by a long shot.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Nov 6, 2011)

I'd like to see a 24mm f/1.8 or f/2 prime and a 17-50mm f/4L IS to round out my ideal landscape setup.


----------



## ianhar (Nov 7, 2011)

Eagle Eye said:


> I'd like to see a 24mm f/1.8 or f/2 prime and a 17-50mm f/4L IS to round out my ideal landscape setup.



Why would you want 24 1.8 there is 24 1.4 or you could go a bit narrower with 28 1.8 which is considerably cheap


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 7, 2011)

A 135 f/2 IS lens - f/2 is fast, but there are times I'd like to keep the ISO down a bit when I hand hold and would love to be able to shoot it at 1/30s or so. Jeff Ascough recently mentioned that he's swapped out the 135 for a 70-200 2.8 IS II for that very reason.


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 7, 2011)

50mm 0.75 ;D


----------



## Surgeonman (Nov 7, 2011)

400 f:4 L is Or. 400 f:5.6 replacement with adding four stops IS.......


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 7, 2011)

mackguyver said:


> A 135 f/2 IS lens - f/2 is fast, but there are times I'd like to keep the ISO down a bit when I hand hold and would love to be able to shoot it at 1/30s or so. Jeff Ascough recently mentioned that he's swapped out the 135 for a 70-200 2.8 IS II for that very reason.


 The 135f2 is a great lens even when shooting at f2. On a [email protected] and 800 iso you really are in low light and probably shouldn't be taking portraits.


----------



## tron (Nov 8, 2011)

I believe CANON "owes" us 3 new 400mm lenses:

1. A second version of the 400mm f/4 DO lens , even lighter (all II telephoto versions are), with better contrast although not more expensive 
2. A 400mm f/5.6L IS
and 
3. A new 100-400mm f/5.6L IS with the latest IS generation.

Am I asking too much? (Anyway I did not want to wait so I have just ordered the current 100-400mm)


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 8, 2011)

I've got my eye on telephoto, as that's what I don't have in my current kit.

70-200L IS II seems great to me, and I've seen the shots that can be had with it, and 2.8 is as slow as I can go for my needs as I like to shoot in available light, but.. My style doesn't really support having huge lenses. And with that focal range I would definitely need to be carrying two bodies for artistic consideration, both with lenses mounted (one of them being wide-angle), making the entire ordeal quite awkward. To further confuse this, I also would want to be able to go well beyond 200mm without fiddling around or impossibly carrying a third setup....

So something really quite unique that would even push APS-C through to more pro usage, like an L quality equivalent of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II that is shorter and lighter while at the same speed and IS rating *with a built in tele-extender!!!*. If it was done with pro-usage and pro-build quality in mind, it'd be worth it's weight in gold and wouldn't need to be designed around budget constraints. First L marked EF-S anyone?


----------



## Rocky (Nov 9, 2011)

AprilForever said:


> 50mm 0.75 ;D


Dream on!!! If Canon can make it, it may weight over 4 lbs, with a 110mm filter and sells for over $10,000. Would you like to have 6 to 7 pounds of camera plus lens hanging on your neck all day long???


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 9, 2011)

Rocky said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > 50mm 0.75 ;D
> ...



Didn't they already, in the 60s? Or was that someone else...? (they've had a 50/1.0 EF-mount, and i'm pretty sure a 50/0.95 at some point).

But yeah, goes against the "realistic" specification either way.


----------



## lol (Nov 9, 2011)

I think a 50/0.75 could be done quite small, since the front opening only needs to be 67mm. That's smaller than a 400/5.6. I think the problem will be that the extreme speed will be incredibly hard to correct optically so while you can optimise for few parameters, other areas will really suck.

On a similar note, in the past they did an EF 50mm f/1.0 which was later replaced by the f/1.2. If they were to have another go, could they do a f/1.0 much better now? The f/0.95 I think was a "TV lens".


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 9, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed has the big list.
I think the one I was thinking of was the Rodenstock 50/0.75, it's been adapted to Leica M and micro 4/3, it covers the 4/3 image circle so might get as far as APS-C, but the flange distance is just too short to use on any DSLR. Bring on Canon Mirrorless!


----------



## RC (Nov 10, 2011)

I don't think it is asking too much for an APS-C version of the 24-105 f/4L. There are plenty of serious crop shooters out here who want HQ lens. Yes, someday I'll get a 5D3 but I'm not getting rid of my 7D.

I want a 15-65 f/4*L* IS USM! I want IS, *weather resistant*, constant aperture, and for heck sakes Canon, include the hood and case. Excellent IQ goes without saying. I'm even OK with an EF-S version but prefer EF of course. If this was a 2.8 constant lens that would be even better but I'd be thrilled with a f/4. Furthermore, I think the price (for an f/4) should be about what the 24-105 f/4L is. 

Am I missing something? Is this too difficult or pricey to build?


----------



## Rocky (Nov 10, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > AprilForever said:
> ...



Yes, Canon made a 50mm f 0.95 for their range finder in the 60s. Leica is making a 50mm f 0.95 ($11,000) for their M series Range finder camera now. It is a lot easier to make a fast 50mm lens for the range finder camera than the for SLR. As far as I know, the fastest 50mm lens for SLR is f 1.2. 0.75 is more than another stop faster. it will be quite a challenge.


----------



## Bateman75 (Nov 10, 2011)

here are som lenses that is faster then 1,2 http://blog.digitalrev.com/2010/08/15/5-fast-50mm-lenses-that-are-worth-selling-a-kidney-for/


----------



## koolman (Nov 10, 2011)

12-60mm F/2.8 L for crops.


----------



## pulsiv (Nov 10, 2011)

I think, canon should make an upgrade to the 35mm 2.0 and make it a 1.8 with USM. I'd buy that thing right away! 
and I'd love to see an "affordable" 20mm 1.8 as well.


----------



## Eisbaer (Nov 10, 2011)

A crop prime fÃ¼r standard use. But I'm to late now: Zeiss announced the T* 2/25 yet. :-*

Best regards
Eisbaer


----------



## Rocky (Nov 10, 2011)

Bateman75 said:


> here are som lenses that is faster then 1,2 http://blog.digitalrev.com/2010/08/15/5-fast-50mm-lenses-that-are-worth-selling-a-kidney-for/


Thanks for the info. Out of all the lenses in the list that is faster than 1.2, only the Canon 50mm 1.0L is for DSLR, the rest are for range finder. The canon 1.0 has been discontinued for the reason stated in the article. the article re-enforce about the difficulty of making a fast 50mm DSLR lnes. Even Nikon made the 1.2 SLR lens in 58mm, not 50mm.


----------



## traveller (Nov 10, 2011)

I've often wondered if an EF 35-105 f/2.8L (IS) would be a popular lens. There are a lot of people who are upgrading from APS-C (and now will be moving from APS-H) to full frame; such a lens could give them the zoom range they're used to. Also, there are some applications for which 35mm at the wide end is probably enough, but would appreciate the extra 35mm on the long end (press photographers maybe?). A design starting at 35mm would probably not involve as many optical compromises as one starting at 24mm, so image quality would probably be improved. The lens would probably be a lot more manageable in size than the 24-105 f/2.8L (IS) that a lot of people seem to dream of.


----------



## Eisbaer (Nov 11, 2011)

Yes, that's true. I remember the 80s when 35-70 or 35-135 lenses were very popular. I would like it, particulary in combination with a UWA zoom lens.

Best regards
Eisbaer


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 11, 2011)

Rocky said:


> Thanks for the info. Out of all the lenses in the list that is faster than 1.2, only the Canon 50mm 1.0L is for DSLR, the rest are for range finder. The canon 1.0 has been discontinued for the reason stated in the article. the article re-enforce about the difficulty of making a fast 50mm DSLR lnes. Even Nikon made the 1.2 SLR lens in 58mm, not 50mm.



For what its worth, there are a few fast m43 lenses. Eg the Voigtlander 25mm/0.95 and the Noktor 50mm/0.95. These are both comparatively small. The Noktor is also quite affordable.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 12, 2011)

Hillsilly said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the info. Out of all the lenses in the list that is faster than 1.2, only the Canon 50mm 1.0L is for DSLR, the rest are for range finder. The canon 1.0 has been discontinued for the reason stated in the article. the article re-enforce about the difficulty of making a fast 50mm DSLR lnes. Even Nikon made the 1.2 SLR lens in 58mm, not 50mm.
> ...



Thanks for for head up. However, I cannot find any information on the two 0.95 lenses that you have mentioned in the official importer's site (Camera Quest). Even they exist, they arefor range finder, not FF DSLR. Also I am not aware of any really fast M43 lens either. Please supply more information. Thanks


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 12, 2011)

The Noktilux 50mm f/0.95 is for Leica M, the Voigtlander 25 f/0.95 is for micro 4/3 (35mm equivalent of 50mm f/1.9). So neither are going to get on your EOS for anything other than extremely close macro.
Yes, those prices are real.


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 12, 2011)

Try:-

Noktor.com

The comment about them being f1.9 relates to depth of field comparisons. Shutter speed is independent of sensor size. So they should be great in low light.

I only mention micro four thirds as they have fast lens options. Not trying to convert anyone! But the thing I like about m43 is that virtually any lens from any manufacturer works. Plus there are a lot of smaller businesses getting involved. There's even fast Canon options with a company selling modified Canon 77mm f1.1 lenses on eBay (jieying-usa).


----------



## Rocky (Nov 13, 2011)

Thanks . now I understand why these two lenses are left out on my post. these two are either m43 or e- mount. My original post is for FF SLR or FF DSLR.


----------

