# EF 50-140mm f/2 IS



## KyleSTL (Feb 16, 2012)

Disclaimer: THIS IS NOT A RUMOR, JUST A WISH LIST OR THEORETICAL LENS.

Just out of curiosity is there anything that would keep Canon (or any other maker of APS-C of FF SLRs) from making an f/2 zoom like this? In theory, the lens would be identical to the size of a 70-200mm f/2.8 (and likely just as expensive - if not more so), and would act like an 80-225mm f/2.8 with the 1.6x crop factor of APS-C cameras. On top of that it would make a killer portrait lens on a full frame camera and could replicate 4 other lenses (50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, and 135mm f/2) with the flexibility of zooming and added benefit of IS.

Adding on a 1.4x teleconverter would make it a 70-200mm f/2.8; a 2.0x would bring it up to 100-280mm f/4.

What do you guys think? Would you be interested in such a beast? I know Olympus has made a line of f/2 zooms, just wondered what the CR community would think of one in the Canon mount.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Feb 16, 2012)

Unfortunately we can't just make up lenses that sound nice as logistically they aren't all possible to make for a reasonable price.
It would likely be far to expensive to build and far too heavy to use.


----------



## AmbientLight (Feb 16, 2012)

Quite frankly I don't think such a lens design would be sensible. The problem is primarily that you are asking for a zoom. Such constructs always include a certain trade-off in image quality compared to primes. This trade-off becomes more and more visible the faster those lenses are. As a consequence we don't see f1.2 or f1.4 zooms, because it just is not feasible, while f2.8 can be done successfully. A f2 zoom lens could therefore be expected to be reasonably good in IQ only in case it has a rather short zoom range, but then it would not really make sense, because producing a prime in the area of that zoom range would be more sensible. If you look at that article about lens design you will also find that it would be more likely to build a 150-200 f2 lens then a 50-100 f2 zoom lens, because in the latter case the lens design would not be purely telephoto, but a mixed design, because of the lower end being a "normal" length 50mm lens, so it is not a tele.


----------



## KyleSTL (Feb 16, 2012)

Back in the FD days the fastest zoom lenses were f/3.5 and f/4 and had very short ranges -
FD 20-35mm f/3.5L
FD 24-35mm f/3.5L
FD 28-50mm f/3.5
FD 35-105mm f/3.5
FD 50-135mm f/3.5
FD 80-200mm f/4L

Is it unreasonable to assume they might progress to larger apertures?

The Olympus 35-100 f/2 is not that much larger than the 70-200mm IS II:
*Oly 35-100mm f/2:*
Diameter: 96.5mm
Length: 213.5mm
Mass: 1650g

*Canon 70-200mm IS II*
Diameter: 86.2mm
Length: 197mm
Mass: 1470g


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 16, 2012)

It pretty much seems that each stop can triple the weight of a zoom lens. I'd guess this lens would weigh in at maybe three or four pounds? Maybe up to five? That's just a guess, but probably not far off. It would be exhausting to lug around.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 16, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> Back in the FD days the fastest zoom lenses were f/3.5 and f/4 and had very short ranges -
> FD 20-35mm f/3.5L
> FD 24-35mm f/3.5L
> FD 28-50mm f/3.5
> ...



The Olympus lens is for 4/3s cameras that have sensors even smaller than APS-C. So you can make the image circle smaller and thus a lighter smaller lens.

A 2.8x zoom, f2.0, *EF* lens would be *huge*. I could see some f2.0 zooms in the future but starting as EF-S lenses and much smaller zoom ranges. Rumor has it there has been some short zoom range EF-S f2.0 zoom patents by Canon.


----------



## decltype (Feb 17, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> Disclaimer: THIS IS NOT A RUMOR, JUST A WISH LIST OR THEORETICAL LENS.
> 
> Just out of curiosity is there anything that would keep Canon (or any other maker of APS-C of FF SLRs) from making an f/2 zoom like this? In theory, the lens would be identical to the size of a 70-200mm f/2.8 (and likely just as expensive - if not more so)



If you look at the "portrait zoom" lenses from Tokina and Sigma with APS-C coverage
(Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 @ 845g)
(Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 @ 750g)

as well as the abovementioned Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 @ 1650g, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that a 50-140 f/2 IS with FF coverage would dwarf the 70-200 2.8 IS II.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 17, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> Disclaimer: THIS IS NOT A RUMOR, JUST A WISH LIST OR THEORETICAL LENS.
> 
> Just out of curiosity is there anything that would keep Canon (or any other maker of APS-C of FF SLRs) from making an f/2 zoom like this? In theory, the lens would be identical to the size of a 70-200mm f/2.8 (and likely just as expensive - if not more so), and would act like an 80-225mm f/2.8 with the 1.6x crop factor of APS-C cameras. On top of that it would make a killer portrait lens on a full frame camera and could replicate 4 other lenses (50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, and 135mm f/2) with the flexibility of zooming and added benefit of IS.
> 
> ...



yeah i would be keen i made a similar thread a while ago about 2x f2 zooms you zoom range and aperture is possibly a bit aggressive i was thinking of 20-40 f2 a 50-100 f2 and a 100-200 f2
of course they would be insanely expensive and huge but totally awesome


----------



## lol (Feb 17, 2012)

I think such a lens could be made, but there is a trade off between price and quality. Something that wont totally suck would be stupidly expensive, and something more affordable wouldn't likely be worth it.

Size and weight wise, I don't think it would need to be that massive. Probably comparable to a 70-200/2.8.

Lens design doesn't stand still though. Perhaps through more exotic optical materials and better design techniques, over time this may be bought into commercial viability.


----------



## cps_user (Feb 17, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> Disclaimer: THIS IS NOT A RUMOR, JUST A WISH LIST OR THEORETICAL LENS.



wow, really?


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 17, 2012)

lol said:


> I think such a lens could be made, but there is a trade off between price and quality. Something that wont totally suck would be stupidly expensive, and something more affordable wouldn't likely be worth it.
> 
> Size and weight wise, I don't think it would need to be that massive. Probably comparable to a 70-200/2.8.
> 
> Lens design doesn't stand still though. Perhaps through more exotic optical materials and better design techniques, over time this may be bought into commercial viability.



I would expect it to be in the region of the 200 f/2 which is handholdable


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 17, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I would expect it to be in the region of the 200 f/2 which is handholdable


You know it's a ridiculous idea for a lens when you have to state that yes, indeed, it would be hand holdable when on the short end it's standard lens and on the long end it's a short telephoto. The 200/f2 is like five and a half pounds! A 5.5 pound portrait lens you're whipping around the studio!

It would cost less and weigh less if you just bought a whole 'nother camera and carried both. Just get an extra 5D2 with a 135/f2 to go along with the 50 prime you probably already have.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 17, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I would expect it to be in the region of the 200 f/2 which is handholdable
> ...


thats a pretty good point actually unless you are already carrying 2 cameras of course


----------



## LACityPhotoCom (Feb 17, 2012)

Just go ahead and ask for a 1-200mm F/1.2L IS zoom while you're at it! ;D


----------

