# Your lenses wishlist for 2011.



## Cropper (Feb 5, 2011)

Last year I found myself trying to be pissed off at Canon with their choice on the new lenses announced, mostly because I had no need or couldn't afford those new lenses.

However, after that inicial and selfish thought cleared off my mind, I could realize that it was in fact probably one of their best years as far as lenses go. 
The amazing 70-200 f28 II, most of the big whites got redone, they even got time to be creative with the 8-15 fisheye. 

None the less for us mere mortals that are not pros and cannot justify even to ourselves shelling out thousands and thousands for one single lens, it ended up being a bit disappointing.

So for this year we can only hope that things can swing back our way.

Here is my wishlist for 2011 (not based entirely on the rumors and not considering impossible or crazy made up lenses) :

- EF 100-400L II (or something else that replaces it as long as it goes at least up to 400mm )

- EF 14-24 f2.8

- EF 500 or 600 f5.6 (DO or not)

- EF 50 1.4 II or 50L II

- EF 35L II


I'm also looking forward to see what yor wishlists for this year would be.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 5, 2011)

At the risk of repeating myself:


200-500 f/2.8-4 L, with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 from 200 to 350mm

120-300 f/2-2.8 L, with a maximum aperture of f/2 from 120 to 210mm

300-800 f/4-5.6 L, with a maximum aperture of f/4 from 300 to 560mm


----------



## tzalmagor (Feb 5, 2011)

My bet for Canon releases this year is the fisheye zoom, telephoto primes, and TS-E 45mm & TS-E 90mm. Also, I no longer expect Canon to upgrade the non-L primes.

Which is why I quit waiting for Canon to make anything on my wishlist, which is -

* Canon EF 8-15mm, probably the last Canon lens I will ever buy.

* The Sigma 12-24mm, which I already bought.

* Sigma 120-400mm

* Sigma 85mm f/1.4

* Sigma 35mm & Sigma 135mm


----------



## Flake (Feb 5, 2011)

Funny Bob but all those lenses you quote are Sigma ones albeit at a slightly reduced aperture. The question I have though is if Canon did make them would you be able to afford them as they'd probably be twice as much as Sigma if they shared the same aperture. A Â£40K lens is not going to find many buyers though!

On a more down to earth wish list I'd like to see a decent wide angle preferably at a reasonable price, something to rival Nikons 16 - 35mm f/4 VR replacing the 17 - 40mm L which isn't particularly good at the wide end. I don't need f/2.8 at this focal length & judging by the sales of the 17 - 40mm there are plenty of others who don't either.

I'd like to see a 24 - 70mm f/2.8 IS L but then there's a whole thread on that

The 50mm f/1.4 and it's dreadful micro USM motor really needs an update to a ring type, expecially as it's the most unreliable lens in the line up

In terms of other lenses the new 70 - 200mm f/2.8 MkII and 100mm IS L macro have covered those bases, and these are the ones which get the most day to day use. 

As a fantasy wish list (Need to win the lottery too)
A 120 - 300mm f/2.8 IS L to rival Sigmas lovely offering
A cheaper Shift or tilt lens range without the double option which isn't always needed
And a flash system which has wireless instead of IR control (isn't time the ST-e2 died?)

The big problem for me this year would be the possibility of having to finance a 5D MkIII and new wide angle & standard zooms Â£4000 + if the old ones aren't sold to finance it.


----------



## bhavikk (Feb 5, 2011)

On my wish list:

24-70L F/2.8 IS
50L F/1.2 II

To buy either of these I'd have to sell my existing lenses to be able to afford them.


----------



## lbloom (Feb 5, 2011)

bhavikk said:


> On my wish list:
> 
> 24-70L F/2.8 IS
> 50L F/1.2 II



Same here.


----------



## AprilForever (Feb 5, 2011)

I'd Like:

50 1.4 II
7-14 f 4 efs (trying to beat the sigma 8-16!)
400 f4 IS, and NOT DO

maybe a few 1.4 efs primes? (24, 35, 85, 105, 135!)


----------



## lol (Feb 5, 2011)

Rated on do-ability:

Just do it:
EF-S 30mm f/2.8 1:1 macro USM (like the Sony or better)
EF-S 8-16mm f/4 "practically L" USM (like the Sigma or better)

Probably possible:
EF 50mm f/0.95L USM cheaper than Leica!
EF 100-500mm f/5.6L IS USM (not so interested in another 100-400, rather have more reach)

Fantasyland:
MP-E 150mm f/2.8 IS 1-5x macro (just want more working distance than the existing 65mm. Might have a problem with extension unless they can do this in IF design)
EF 300mm f/4L 1:1 macro IS USM (even more working distance please)


----------



## leGreve (Feb 5, 2011)

I wish oh i wish for:

35L
50L 1.2
85L 1.2
And
135L

To compliment my L zooms and 100L.


----------



## ronderick (Feb 6, 2011)

Wishlist?

Only 2

1. 100-400mm II (it's over 10 years old, for crying out loud)
2. 24-70mm II (the ghost refuses to rest)


----------



## calerouxz (Feb 6, 2011)

I want the following:

*On Sale
1. Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II
2. TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt shift (I just wanna see what I can do with a TS :O)

*Wishlist
1.12-24mm f/2.8L (For use with a 1D series body, since there is no 10mm on a 1.6x body equivalent for a 1.3x body, and I want it to be wider than the 16-35mm f/2.8L, as well as getting a 77mm Diameter instead of an 82.

2.50-500 f/4L (there IS a sigma equivalent though, just prefer the Canon glass)
3.100-400 f/4.5L II (yep, our 100-400 is kinda outdated too)
4.17-40 f/2.8L (come on, cheapest L lens, but the Av is high, could be f/2.8 if they wanted.)
5.12mm f/1.4L (Prime, would love something wider than 14mm with a wider aperture.)


----------



## foobar (Feb 6, 2011)

Primes:

EF 28mm f/1.4 USM EF-S 24mm f/1.4 USM
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM II

Both with non-L-but-solid build quality (think 15-85) and ring-USM.


Zooms:

EF 85-400 f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 24-70 f/2.8 IS USM


----------



## Norkusa (Feb 6, 2011)

EF 50mm f/1.0L USM II

DO IT CANON!!


----------



## foobar (Feb 6, 2011)

Norkusa said:


> EF 50mm f/1.0L USM II
> 
> DO IT CANON!!


Worse image quality than the 50mm f/1.2 for a higher price... we've been there before...


----------



## Norkusa (Feb 6, 2011)

foobar said:


> Norkusa said:
> 
> 
> > EF 50mm f/1.0L USM II
> ...



Updated version will be better. Don't hate.


----------



## bvukich (Feb 6, 2011)

foobar said:


> Norkusa said:
> 
> 
> > EF 50mm f/1.0L USM II
> ...



Worse is *very* subjective. If the soft, dreamy, look of the 50/1 is what you're looking for; then the 50/1.2 is the one that looks _worse_.

If you think you need the 50mm f/1L, chances are you're wrong, and would be better suited with the f/1.2. If you know you need the 50/1L, there is no substitute.


----------



## Norkusa (Feb 6, 2011)

bvukich said:


> Worse is *very* subjective. If the soft, dreamy, look of the 50/1 is what you're looking for; then the 50/1.2 is the one that looks _worse_.
> 
> If you think you need the 50mm f/1L, chances are you're wrong, and would be better suited with the f/1.2. If you know you need the 50/1L, there is no substitute.



Exactly. I shoot a lot of concerts in dimly lit clubs where no flashes are allowed. My 50mm f1.4 Sigma @ 6400 is *okay* but I still miss a lot of shots because it just isn't fast enough. A f1.0 in my bag would make a world of difference.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 6, 2011)

Norkusa said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > Worse is *very* subjective. If the soft, dreamy, look of the 50/1 is what you're looking for; then the 50/1.2 is the one that looks _worse_.
> ...



I know the feeling! 1/15 sec, f/1.4, ISO3200 trying to photograph a jazz harmonica player and a similar exposure for yuletide re-enactors in a room lit with three candles. Even in places where flash is permitted, it completely ruins the mood. However, I don't want a 50 f/1.0 lens, I want publication quality ISO51,200. It looks like the Nikon D3s may do it, at least for small prints and Internet use. I'm hoping that Canon will announce something as good tomorrow.


----------



## AJ (Feb 6, 2011)

EF-S 30/1.8 for $100. Even tinier than 50/1.8

EF-S 50-135/2.8 IS ring-USM

EF-S 50-135/2 IS USM (crop version of 70-200/2.8 IS. Pipe dream, I know  )


----------



## bvukich (Feb 6, 2011)

AJ said:


> EF-S 50-135/2.8 IS ring-USM



If it's an equivalent build and optical quality to the 17-55/2.8, and a retail price of under $1800, it would sell like crazy.


----------



## bvukich (Feb 6, 2011)

bvukich said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > EF-S 50-135/2.8 IS ring-USM
> ...



I just realized I've been desensitized by recent "L" pricing. $1400 would be much more appropriate pricing.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 7, 2011)

I'd like to see:

35-70mm f/2 L IS USM or just a new 35mm f/2 USM
135mm f/2 L IS USM
200mm f/4 L IS USM Macro 
500mm f/5.6 L IS USM

realistically, with everything that's dropping already for 2011, I doubt we'll see anything else before 2012.

honestly, I'd hope that canon doesn't release all of these anytime soon, because I wouldn't be able to afford it. maybe if they released one of each of these over the next four years ...


----------



## Son of Daguerre (Feb 7, 2011)

*EF 100-400mm Æ’/4.5-5.6L IS II USM* with twist-zoom.

I know the 200-400 has just been announced but my muscles can't handle that one - or so I think.


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 7, 2011)

Son of Daguerre said:


> *EF 100-400mm Æ’/4.5-5.6L IS II USM* with twist-zoom.
> 
> I know the 200-400 has just been announced but my muscles can't handle that one - or so I think.



My Pocketbook is not heavy enough either. I place my bet on the price at MSRP of $9500 USD.


----------



## Son of Daguerre (Feb 7, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> Son of Daguerre said:
> 
> 
> > *EF 100-400mm Æ’/4.5-5.6L IS II USM* with twist-zoom.
> ...



Sorry, but I don't think it'll be more than $8,000.


----------



## djjohnr (Feb 8, 2011)

35mm f/2 USM 
OR 28mm f/1.8 USM Mark II

Dreaming: 

35mm TS-E


----------



## craigkg (Feb 8, 2011)

Well, my guess is that the 200-400mm f/4 obliterates the chances of a 100-300mm f/4 or a 135-400mm f/4-5. While I frequently use the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L, I'm not a fan of the push-pull design and it just isn't bright enough, but a 200-400mm f/4 is just going to be too far out of my price range. I wish there was a supertelephoto zoom between them.

I also wish for a more affordable stabilized supertelephoto prime. I'd settle for a non-DO 400mm f/4 or 500mm f/5 or f/5.6. The price jump between the 300mm f/4 & 400mm f/5.6 class and the 300mm f/2.8 & 400mm f/4 class is just too great. I'm not going to spend $4000+ for a big white prime or zoom, but if they offered something in the $1800-2500 range better than the current $1200-1600 offerings, I'd be interested.

In the realm of shorter glass, I'd like a 14-24mm f/4L. I want a nice quality super wide for landscape work. Since it will be on a tripod mostly and I have to hike with it, I don't need or _want_ f/2.8 or IS on it. Plus, not being f/2.8 on something that wide increases the chances one could put a neutral grad or other filter on it even if it has to be a 100mm wide rectangular filter.

I expect we'll see replacements for the 45mm TS-E and 90mm TS-E sometime relatively soon. I've thought about pulling the trigger on the current 45mm a few times, but I'll likely wait to see what improvements are made to see if the new version is worth the $600+ price premium the new version will likely have. 

As an other poster said, I've given up on them ever updating the non-L primes for digital. Several of them are over 20 years old and just don't have the resolution for digital. I already have a couple of alt lenses (one prime and one zoom) that despite their age do work well (the C/Y 35-70mm f/3.4 on a 5D2 is just magic). Canon needs to remember that not all of us want to shoot at ISO eleventy billion with an f/0.7 image stabilized zoom with a high zoom ratio. I know landscape photographers are not a huge market compared to the general market, but there is something to be said for smaller, lighter, excellent quality slower primes.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 8, 2011)

djjohnr said:


> 35mm f/2 USM
> OR 28mm f/1.8 USM Mark II
> 
> Dreaming:
> ...



yes, if we don't get a 35mm f/2 USM, a new 28mm f/1.8 USM II would be fantastic as well...

and it sort of raises the question - why not a 35mm f/1.8 USM? should be doable in a very compact form still


----------



## KWSW (Feb 8, 2011)

Mine:

EF 24-70L F/2.8 IS USM but I guess not going to happen since the patent is for what looks to be a 24-70 f/2.8L USM II

50 f/1.4 USM II that uses a proper USM motor (IIRC the current one uses a micro motor or some sort) and is as sharp as the sigma wide open

EF-S 35 f/1.8 USM like the nikon counter part as I dun think I will be upgrading from my 7D anytime soon. Or rather I can't justify the cost of a 1DmkIV


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Feb 8, 2011)

*Lenses I will most probably upgrade to in the near future:*
EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L (Though I'm still holding out for the IS or at least the II version... holding my breath... turning blue, here, Canon!_ Hello_!!???)

*Lenses I would love to see:*
EF 35mm f/1.2L USM
EF 24mm f/1.2L USM

The above poster said that "there is something to be said for smaller, lighter, excellent quality slower primes." To each his own, but I'll take a bigger, heavier, tack sharp quality, super fast prime any day!


----------



## gawainz (Feb 8, 2011)

If you ask me, as a 5D user....
EF 35mm f1.4L II
EF 135mm f1.8L IS

And... for APS-C user
EF-S 30mm f1.4 (or f1.8)
EF-S 21mm f2
EF-S 15mm f2.8

And... a wild dream
A standard f2.8 Pancake!


Too good to be true...


----------



## DuLt (Feb 8, 2011)

Wishlist:

EF-S 15-45 F4 USM

That is be all I really want...


----------



## RichFisher (Feb 8, 2011)

In order of drooling (200-400 and new 500 F4 II are the top of my list)

24-70 F2.8 - don't care about IS, I want it to be sharp - just as sharp as the 70-200 F2.8 II

180 or 200 F4 macro with Tilt shift

TS/E 45, 90, 135 (or similar). TS are great for pans.

Zoom extender (1-1.4). This may be technical very difficult, not impossible, to produce

1.7 extender - when 1.4 is not enough and 2.0 is too much

Other things I want:

- Canon to buy Hassy and get the price of bodies down. 40 MP MF body at $10K. Price of lens reduced by 25-33%. They can not add many more MP to 35mm sensors without getting into (1) serious S/N issues and (2) reaching diffraction limits of lens.

- 1:3 Pan camera (35mm or larger sensor). If 35mm size sensor, adaptor to use Hassy Xpan lens. Manual focus okay. 6x17 size sensor would great, but the price would be over $50K

Enough. I just spent my entire photo budget for the next 5 years.

;D


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 9, 2011)

RichFisher said:


> In order of drooling (200-400 and new 500 F4 II are the top of my list)
> 
> 24-70 F2.8 - don't care about IS, I want it to be sharp - just as sharp as the 70-200 F2.8 II
> 
> ...



Yes the new big whites look stunning. I'm not sure that I would ever choose a 500mm f4 and a 200-400mm f4. They are too close for the cash. I'd prolly have to jump for a 200-400 f4 and a 600 f4. But a 300 2.8 with both extenders is mighty tempting instead....and a lot cheaper ;-) 

My 24-70L is already prime lens sharp, so I guess it varies with copy to copy. My 2nd photographer's copy is just as sharp too. I'm only really interested if Canon adds a cool IS unit, otherwise my current copy is doing just fine.

I'd be all over a 200mm f4 Hybrid IS Macro L.....

I already have a 135L and a 45 TS-e there's not going to be enough in new versions to tempt me.

I've always thought that a 1.6x TC made sense in the Canon world. Perfectly match a 1.6 cropper on a FF.

I'm currently very happy with my 7D and 5DII's although I'd need to play with a 5DIII to seriously tempt me ;-)


----------



## papa-razzi (Feb 9, 2011)

Shipping Product wish list:
- 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L
- 24-105 f/4 L

Wish Canon would release:
- 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II (given the 70-300 L and 200-400 L announcements, I don't think the 100-400 will see an update soon, if ever)
- EFS 15-85 f/2.8 IS USM

And affordable primes - it also appears these won't see any updates in our lifetimes either
- EF 50 1.4 II
- EF 35 f/2.0 II
- EF-S 30 f/1.4 - like the Sigma only Canon


----------



## takoman46 (Feb 9, 2011)

I'm hoping that Canon will update the 100-400... 

But for existing lenses:
24mm f1.4/L II
85mm f1.2/L II
Still undecided about the 17-40 f4/L or the 16-35 f2.8/L (Leaning towards the 17-40 due to price point and I don't think I would make much use of the f2.8 on the wide range of the zoom)


----------



## AJ (Feb 9, 2011)

bvukich said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > AJ said:
> ...


Looks like Sigma is first out of the gate
http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/110208_apo50-150_28ex_dc_os_hsm.htm


----------



## bvukich (Feb 9, 2011)

AJ said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > bvukich said:
> ...



Hmmmm. TC compatible too.


----------



## lol (Feb 9, 2011)

Just for fun, anyone here like a focal reducer? Yup, the opposite of a extender/teleconverter. Reduces focal length and increases effective aperture. You will run out of image circle at some point, so this would only be useful to shrink EF lenses to EF-S image circle really.


----------



## jamied (Feb 9, 2011)

EF-s 10-[17-22] f/4 (and in a compact/sturdy body). I would never carry the current 10-22 into the backcountry..
my other prayer was answered when they announced the 200-400 4

an update to the 20mm 2.8 USM, or make the 24mm non-L a USM lens..


----------



## kubelik (Feb 9, 2011)

jamied said:


> I would never carry the current 10-22 into the backcountry..



what is it about the 10-22 that you don't trust? weathersealing? or general build quality? I've taken some non-L and even non-canon glass on hikes in serious brush with no problem


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 9, 2011)

Cropper said:


> - EF 50 1.4 II or 50L II



I really want an EF 50 f/1.4 II. That micro USM needs to be replaced.


----------



## WJM (Feb 9, 2011)

Please give me:

1: An afordable and fast wide angle prime. For example: 28/1.8 II (USM), 35/2.0 II (USM) or a very cheap 35/2.0 (same as the 50/1.8). Although I think it is very likely that Canon only will make (expensive) L-primes in the future (I hope I'm wrong).
2: 16-50/4L IS
3: 80-400/4-5.6L IS

Those lenses (especially the first two) would be interesting for both crop and full frame users.


----------



## /dev/null (Feb 9, 2011)

(1) 500 f/4 + lottery win 8)
(2) 400 f//5.6 IS, lottery win not completely necessary 
(3) Updates for some of the affordable wide angle primes like 24 f/2.8, 28 f/1.8 or 28 f/2.8, 35 f/2 with USM and better build quality (like 20 f/2.8 and 28 f/1.8 )

Oh, btw, all for full frame of course.


----------



## /dev/null (Feb 9, 2011)

lol said:


> Just for fun, anyone here like a focal reducer? Yup, the opposite of a extender/teleconverter. Reduces focal length and increases effective aperture. You will run out of image circle at some point, so this would only be useful to shrink EF lenses to EF-S image circle really.



Cute idea, but as you say it could only possibly work to put the full frame field of view onto an APS-C size sensor. You would not gain in the aperture, and I don't know what would happen to the DOF either.


----------



## tac (Feb 10, 2011)

24 - 70 L IS f2.0 

or better

28 - 135 L IS f2.8

For fun

50 - 500 L f4 - 5.6 IS (like the Sigma Bigma)


----------



## dicobay (Feb 10, 2011)

Hi, my wishlist:


24-70 2.8 IS USM
50 1.4 II USM
100-400 4-5.6 II IS USM


----------



## p-ivo (Feb 10, 2011)

21mm f4 - canon version of Voigtlander pancake
50mm f1.4 - ring AF and non-extending
400mm 5.6 IS - weather-sealed and weight reduction as in new white tpL


----------



## CJRodgers (Feb 10, 2011)

50mm L 1.2 mkii - with the floating element so it has better autofocus like the 85mm.


----------



## OnteoEOS (Feb 10, 2011)

To be Honest I'm not much into Lens future telling but lets give it a try.

1-Canon 35-70 2.0 L USM
2-Canon 135 1.8 IS L
3-Pancake series of 20 mm, 35 mm, 50 mm

Now, what I want the most from a Canon body is IS for my old lens.


----------



## Randl (Feb 10, 2011)

OnteoEOS said:


> 3-Pancake series of 20 mm, 35 mm, 50 mm


What 4 Canon needs pancakes?
Pancakes are made for mirrorless cameras to make whole camera compact... 1000d won't be so compact even with pancake))))

I'd like 
50mm L 1.2 II
24-70 2.8 IS
14 2.0(if they made 16-35 f/2.0-2.8, it's possible, isn't it?)
EF 100-400L II


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2011)

CJRodgers said:


> 50mm L 1.2 mkii - with the floating element so it has better autofocus like the 85mm.



Do you want it to be as slow as the AF in the 85mm f/1.2L II?!?


----------



## kubelik (Feb 10, 2011)

for those of you who are interested, I compiled a full list of the data gathered from this forum thread and posted it into a new thread:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,591.0.html

enjoy.


----------



## lol (Feb 11, 2011)

/dev/null said:


> Cute idea, but as you say it could only possibly work to put the full frame field of view onto an APS-C size sensor. You would not gain in the aperture, and I don't know what would happen to the DOF either.


You would gain aperture value though, in the same way you lose it using an extender. These are used in telescopes already, but they don't have the mirror getting in the way. A simple design would reduce the back focus distance of the lens, and I can only assume a more complex one required for a SLR system is either too complicated or expensive for anyone to bother making such a converter.


----------



## jsixpack (Feb 11, 2011)

All I really want that doesn't exist are these 2:
1. 60mm Macro IS (i'd prefer EF, but I could handle EFs)
2. 14-24 f2.8 (hell license the Nikon design, it's pretty much perfect from all I've heard)

jSP


----------



## maxxjr (Feb 11, 2011)

Lenses that might get me spending...

400/5.6 IS
500/5.6 IS

30/1.4 EF-S (Have the Sigma, but want something closer to the 50/1.8 in size)

Updated EF primes (or make ef-s versions...looking for small size, here)
20/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2


----------



## deadman (Feb 12, 2011)

I'd like to see a 500mm 5.6 or possibly 6.3 with IS. This could be an EF or EF-S lens. I think one thing missing today is a less expensive, super telephoto with excellent image quality. If you didn't absolutely need a fast 4.0 aperture, I think this would be a great lens. It would be quite a bit lighter as well. I think many photographers who can't afford to spend upwards of 4K on a lens would purchase this.


----------



## S P (Feb 12, 2011)

Here's what I've got as far as Canon lenses:

- 17-40L
- 24-105L
- 70-200/4L non-IS
- 50/1.8II


Here's what I'd like to see:

- 17-40L IS with improved optics, the rumored 17-50L IS?


Really that's about it. I think the optics on the current 17-40L could be a lot better, and especially compared to Nikon's excellent ultra-wide lenses they pale in comparison. Even if they came out with a new one I probably wouldn't buy it though, because I'm not a heavy ultra-wide user. Overall Canon has a very complete line of lenses and there's really very few instances where you "can't get there from here" in their lineup, unlike Nikon. That's why I switched. I'd like to pickup maybe a 300mm f/4L IS within the next year, along with a 1.4x extender to get me out to 420mm for some long landscape shots, and some portraiture work. I've wanted the 135/2L as well, but I already have that range covered with my 70-200/4 and a Nikkor 135mm f/2.8 that I still use, so I think the 300/4L IS will be next. When my kids start doing sports I'll be able to use the 5D2 with the 70-200 for closer stuff, and use the 300 with or without the extender on a crop body yet to be purchased for down the field stuff. Still a year or two away from that though, but planning ahead.


----------



## torger (Feb 13, 2011)

As a landscape photographer I'm kind of obsessed with sharpness. Most of the time there are of course other factors limiting sharpness but I don't like the lens to be too much of a limiting factor when the other conditions are good.

I'd like to see a 24-70/2,8 IS. The current non-IS is really sharp, but with IS it would be a better all-around lens. As it seems we will get a new 24-70, but perhaps without IS and I don't think it is likely that a new lens can be considerably sharper than the old... we'll see.

Then I'd like to see upgrade of the lower cost 35mm and 24mm, those lenses are not really that sharp. I think primes should outperform zooms in sharpness, but the 24-70 is actually somewhat sharper than those at f/8. The L-lenses at 35 and 24 are slightly sharper than the zoom, but really expensive and somewhat heavy - not a great buy (for an amateur that doesn't need the superior build quality) if you intend to shoot at around f/8 most of the time.

The tilt-shift TS-E 24mm II is a great lens, if you're serious about landscapes and have the money - it is one to own. The old 90mm TS-E performs really well too, but the 45mm is not performing so well on a modern high megapixel body, so a new TS-E 45mm would be great. Actually I think TS-E at 35mm would be more useful than 45mm though.


----------



## JoshuaTrottier (Feb 13, 2011)

Definitely excited that Canon has new lenses and hopefully bodies coming out(Canon 5D Mark III please?)
This is my wishlist, which hopefully if all goes according to plan I'll be able to buy by the end of this summer.
That is, if Canon doesn't come out with some new bodies, then this will be revised (;

70mm-200mm 2.8/f IS II USM
100mm-400mm 4.5-5.6/fL IS USM
50mm 1.4/f USM
100mm 2.8/fL Macro IS USM 
Canon 5D mark II with a 24mm-105mm f/4L USM
along with all the accessories I'm getting.

I want to be a photo journalist but considering I'm only 16 right now that isn't the easiest thing to do but I will be a foreign exchange student my junior year of high school(Freshman currently) and I'll be taking most of my gear with me to France so I can work on some stories there as well as working more creatively with photography. Yay for working since you were ten.

My current set up is a Canon T2i with a 18mm-55mm kit lens, 55mm-250mm kit lens, 50mm 1.4/f lens, and a 10mm-22mm lens. Pretty nice set up considering I paid for it all myself but luckily my amazing brother is giving me 20,000$ from this job he got ( Made 150,000$ just for starting!) so he's decided to help me with my career! Hopefully I can also look at some colleges while I'm in France for journalism then look at some art colleges after that!


----------



## axismundi (Feb 13, 2011)

most of all: an equivalent for the Nikkor 14-24 f2.8, apparently Canon has no lense that matches the optical performance of this zoom, even not the 14 f2.8, which is a FFL and more expensive than Nikons zoom.

2nd wish: that the new 200-400 4f with 1.4 Extender will not be too pricy (< 4000 US$ ??)

3nd wish: a 50 f1.4 II being sharp until the corners even wide open.


----------



## IWLP (Feb 15, 2011)

I'd really like a prime, wide-angle (in 35mm-E terms) EF-S lens. Somewhere in the 15-17mm range. F/2 or faster. I _love_ the 28mm-E focal length, and if a fast prime of this lens existed, it would rarely leave my camera.

However, I'm afraid I'm the only person on the earth who wants such a thing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2011)

IWLP said:


> I'd really like a prime, wide-angle (in 35mm-E terms) EF-S lens. Somewhere in the 15-17mm range. F/2 or faster. I _love_ the 28mm-E focal length, and if a fast prime of this lens existed, it would rarely leave my camera.



Not quite as wide as you'd like, but Sigma makes a 20mm f/1.8 that would give you 32mm FF-equivalent and faster than f/2...


----------



## IWLP (Feb 15, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not quite as wide as you'd like, but Sigma makes a 20mm f/1.8 that would give you 32mm FF-equivalent and faster than f/2...



I've looked at that as an option, as well as sacrificing a stop or so and going with the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. As it is, there's no perfect solution yet, so I guess I'll wait. 

Thanks for the reminder - I may have to set my 10-22mm to the 20mm setting and see what I think ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2011)

IWLP said:


> I may have to set my 10-22mm to the 20mm setting and see what I think ...



Always a good idea if you have a zoom covering the range of prime lens(es) you're considering. 8)


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 15, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> IWLP said:
> 
> 
> > I may have to set my 10-22mm to the 20mm setting and see what I think ...
> ...



Another way to see what you like is to review your existing images. Adobe Lightroom will let you look at various combinations of camera and lenses and see how many images were taken at various focal lengths, shutter speeds, and a ton of other things. I did this when considering whether to get the 24mm 1.4 or 35mm 1.4. I had twice as many images at 35mm, so thats what I bought.

I found a older Tokina 17mm prime locally on Craigslist for $150. Its not a crop lens, and not f/2.8, but it fills the need for ultra wide on my Canon 5D MK II and was actually good enough that I sold my Canon 17-40mm L.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> Another way to see what you like is to review your existing images. Adobe Lightroom will let you look at various combinations of camera and lenses and see how many images were taken at various focal lengths, shutter speeds, and a ton of other things. I did this when considering whether to get the 24mm 1.4 or 35mm 1.4. I had twice as many images at 35mm, so thats what I bought.



I did that as well, for the exact same decision - I also bought the 35L (last month, in fact). The caveat about image review is that you have to keep processing in mind, or look at the original RAW files. I'm not sure how LR displays them, but Aperture shows the processed images in the library - and while I have many images shot at 24mm, a lot of them ended up being cropped a bit in post, maybe not quite to a 35mm FoV, but the 35mm lens was clearly the best choice for me.


----------



## DavidST (Feb 17, 2011)

My personal choices for the wish list is a renewed Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6 USM L, preferably at a constant F4 or even 3.5 if possible,
and a replacement for the Canon FD 150-600mm f/5.6 with IS and USM and ideally F4
That extra few mills out to 350 makes so much difference, the other is just a (wet) dream for me.
Be lucky
David


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Feb 17, 2011)

14-24 2.8 or 16-35 f4. At this point, I'll take any updated UWA zoom sharper in the corners.


----------



## rumorotic (Feb 18, 2011)

Wishlist current lenses (want to buy):

- 35L
- 135L
- 300 f/4 L IS or 100-400

Wishlist future lenses (would want to buy):

- 35L II
- 135L IS
- 300 f/4 L II IS or 100-400 II

Unsurprisingly 8)


----------



## Etienne (Feb 18, 2011)

My wish:

24 1.4 II
100 2.8 IS macro

for new lenses:

35 1.4 II
50 1.2 II (or a 50 1.4 II)

PS ... I'd like all lenses to have IS. It's great for video, and sometimes you want deep DOF in low light.


----------



## max (Feb 28, 2011)

lbloom said:


> bhavikk said:
> 
> 
> > On my wish list:
> ...


almost the same for me but I am thinking the 50mm 1.4 with a new longer lasting design is what i would get... and i am going to get a 24-70mm without the IS for now...


----------



## match14 (Mar 1, 2011)

EF-S 30mm 1.4 to rival the Sigma 30mm.


----------



## razorite (Mar 3, 2011)

10-22mm f/3.5-5.6
135mm f/2 L 
24mm f/1.4 L
50mm f/1.2 L

these the lenses i wish for


----------



## archfotos (Mar 4, 2011)

for TSE Lens
35mm tse 
110mm tse
(both the 45 and 90 tse always seem to be the wrong angle of view)

for zooms
35-150 f4 this would be a great portrait range
16-28 F4 would love the size to be small for backpacking the 16-35 F2.8 is a great lens for work but I ain't carrying it for fun

Finally because it's a wish list i would love to see Canon standardize their lens shades, every other one I get any more has a different and confusing way to attach it reminds me of those child proof tops that only a child could open


----------



## clicstudio (Mar 8, 2011)

*24-105 F2.8L IS*

I own a 24-70 F2.8L. My favorite lens but sometimes the zoom falls short...
I rented a 24-105 F4.0 L to test it out. I love the range but the lens is not good enough:
First of all, the hood is badly designed; there is noticeable light leak from backlit sources. I tried using the hood from my 24-70 and it vignettes at 24mm so no can do.
Second, the hood is attached to the front of the lens. You zoom in and out and the whole hood moves with it. The 24-70 has a fixed hood so you don't see the lens expanding when u zoom. Much neater and the lens is more protected from bumping while fully extended.
Sharpness is comparable but I believe the 24-70 at F8.0 is sharper.
Also the 24-70 is heavier.
The 24-105's IS works really well. Shooting handheld at 1/30 is not a problem.

So, my dream lens: 24-105 F2.8L IS priced at around $1500 should be fair...


----------



## stickers (Mar 9, 2011)

135mm F2L and 200mm F2L is all I need.


----------



## biskandar (Mar 9, 2011)

5DMkIII with 24mm L , 35mm L , 85mm L , 200mm L


----------

