# What Lenses are missing from Canon's range



## Haydn1971 (Jul 16, 2014)

Whilst we all have some idea in our heads about what might get replaced next, we all have some idea of 50/85mm IS lenses, a 35mm f1.4 II L or 100-400L - but what realistically is missing from Canon's EF range at the moment ?

Here's my thoughts on omissions that could realistically be made - as to them being economic, that's a whole different story ;-)
- A fast wide, Nikon style like a 12/14-24mm f2.8
- A premium medium zoom, perhaps 20-135mm f4.0 IS to replace the 24-105L
- An affordable 500mm - f5.6 with IS for £2000 ?
- An EF pancake zoom, covering something like 20-50mm ?

Over to you... What's missing ?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 16, 2014)

Canon EF 135mm f/1.8L IS


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 16, 2014)

400 mm f/4 IS
400 mm f/5.6 IS

I would be seriously interested in either of these if they were to come to market.


----------



## tculotta (Jul 16, 2014)

Me too for the 14-24 f/2.8

Ted


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jul 16, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> 400 mm f/4 IS
> 400 mm f/5.6 IS
> 
> I would be seriously interested in either of these if they were to come to market.



Canon already produce the 400mm f4 DO IS lens and it is similarly built to L class. 400mm f5.6L with IS is my dream for travel light.
I miss a light-weight do-it-all zoom like the Nikon 28-300mm VR, it delivers very good IQ and sharpness. I have not tried the new tammy.

I also support the 12-24mm f4L and a low-CA 50mm f1.8-2 IS lens with similar built, IQ and sharpness to the excellent 35mm f2 IS.


----------



## DRR (Jul 16, 2014)

A small lightweight ultra wide prime.

Remember the old FD 17mm f/4? I'd love that in an EF mount. And a little faster also. I know Tokina has a 17mm f/3.5 in EF.

Currently for Canon there's only 14mm f/2.8 II (expensive and large-ish) and then 20mm f/2.8.

The 15mm is a fish.

There is a 17mm but it's tilt-shift.

There are zooms, 8-15, 16-35, 17-40, but no primes.

I'd also round out the selection for EF-M but that's probably a different thread.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jul 16, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > 400 mm f/4 IS
> ...



+1 on the 400mm (Nikon should add one of these too), Canon could add a non-tank like 28-300 similar in price and quality to the Nikon 28-300 as well as the Nikon 18-300. I use the 18-300 on my D7100 and that has replaced by for my event camera which was a 60D with 18-200. I've been surprised just how good the 18-300 and D7100 combo is. They have been a joy to use.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 16, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > 400 mm f/4 IS
> ...



Like I said, the (non-DO) 400mm f/4 IS is missing. Diffractive Optics aren't for everyone. You're right of course, the DO is built like an L-lens eventhough it is not branded as an L-lens


----------



## RobertG. (Jul 16, 2014)

A really good TS-E 45mm Mark II or another TS-E lens in the range of 40 mm till 60 mm would be great. It can be f2.8 because there is no real need for a faster TS-E lens. But a really good lens for product photography is missing. The gab between 24mm and 90mm is too large. It would also be useful for architecture, landscape, fashion, art reproduction etc.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 16, 2014)

I would like to see a high quality full frame rectilinear lens wider than 14mm. I had the Sigma 12-24 II and miss that 12mm focal length, which has a FOV nearly 1/3 wider than the 14mm. Sometimes 16mm for a zoom or 14mm for a prime just isn't wide enough for really dramatic shots.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 16, 2014)

Two: A GREAT fast-wide zoom, sharp edge to edge, minimal distortion. 

A 50mm1.2 with Sigma Art sharpness, and kickass AF.

Fast-wide zoom is my top wish.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 16, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > 400 mm f/4 IS
> ...



Only problem is the 400 F4 DO performs similarly to the 100-400mm... so its not really a serious option for many especially seen as tho its £3,500 more


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> The 50-500/f1.4 is missing from Canon's lineup.



You're wrong. My source confirmed "24-500 f1.2 IS is coming. IQ is slightly better than current 70-200 f2.8 IS II through out focal lenght"


----------



## Khufu (Jul 16, 2014)

I wasn't too thrilled with these newer sub-35mm IS primes all coming in at over f/2.8, though the older, small 24 & 28mm primes, if I recall correctly, have hideous vignetting which can only be considered "arty" or poor on ff... maybe some faster, small but affordable and ff-usable 16/20/24/28mm primes? 

If you guys reckon the 400mm f/5.6L could have the IS treatment without adding too much weight or bulk I'd be into that! I do love that as it is its not much different to just chucking a flask of soup in my bag though, if a little less chickeny and nourishing...


----------



## traingineer (Jul 16, 2014)

Canon is still missing an updated version of the 1200mm F5.6 L USM.  It needs an improvement in it's optical quality, it's auto focusing system, and it's weight.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 16, 2014)

Khufu said:


> ...though the older, small 24 & 28mm primes, if I recall correctly, have hideous vignetting which can only be considered "arty" or poor on ff... maybe some faster, small but affordable and ff-usable 16/20/24/28mm primes?



They're not too bad if you stop them down and besides, the vignetting correction works like a charm (5D2 and 3). These lenses are becoming underappreciated I think. Yes they're old and maybe not perfect, but they're tiny! And that's an increasingly rare advantage.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jul 16, 2014)

70mm 2.8 IS - which is equally or better than 70-200 2.8 IS II - but with a weight of 200 gramm. I often use 70mm (portrait mode) for panorama stitching. The quality of the 70-200 is very good, but the weight.... If I use the zoom range, its very good, sure - but 70mm would be sufficent some times.
And I don't need a 2.0, which should be very easy to build, but I would prefer compact design and very good sharpness....


----------



## keithcooper (Jul 16, 2014)

Expensive stuff that would be of direct benefit to my business (so all 'L' and EF) and fun to use too ;-)

A fast wide top quality zoom EF12-20(or 24)

TS-E lenses ~14mm, mid range (40-60), 100mm - all to have encoders for movements (I get told often enough that this feature is on its way, but no sign yet).

I'd have no problem paying £2k+ if these were good enough (particularly a TS-E14 ;-) and weight is just not a factor.

I remember people saying (when first announced) that the TS-E17 was not really needed - it took just a month or two of owning one to more than recover the cost ;-)


----------



## ecka (Jul 16, 2014)

EF 35/1.2L USM
EF 135/1.8L IS USM
EF 150/2.8L IS USM Macro
EF 100-300/4L IS USM

EF 20/3.5 STM Pancake
EF 60/2 IS USM Macro
EF 85/1.4 USM
EF 24-135/3.5-5.6 IS STM (new cheap kit lens)

EF-S/M 30/1.4 STM
EF-S/M 75/1.4 STM


----------



## tomscott (Jul 16, 2014)

As described in the looking for big whites thread...

The problem with Canon updating the 400mm F5.6 is that currently it pretty much equals sharpness of all the other big white primes and 200-400mm at 400mm F5.6, its much smaller, lighter and 1/10th the price of many. With high ISO capabilities of the new gen of cameras high ISO you can get away with F5.6 its also useful when you need a little more DOF on FF. If they made a new one with weather sealing and IS it would reduce sales of the bigger whites even more. But then again would probably cost 200% more.

Same reason I'm guessing there is no 400mm F4 IS non DO because it would be smaller and lighter than the F2.8 and probably considerably cheaper, again with high ISO is F2.8 needed especially with the weight trade off. Only other reason for the F2.8 is for use with tele converters, that you can have a 800mm F5.6 or a 640 F4.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 16, 2014)

tomscott said:


> As described in the looking for big whites thread...
> 
> The problem with Canon updating the 400mm F5.6 is that currently it pretty much equals sharpness of all the other big white primes and 200-400mm at 400mm F5.6, its much smaller, lighter and 1/10th the price of many. With high ISO capabilities of the new gen of cameras high ISO you can get away with F5.6 its also useful when you need a little more DOF on FF. If they made a new one with weather sealing and IS it would reduce sales of the bigger whites even more. But then again would probably cost 200% more.
> 
> Same reason I'm guessing there is no 400mm F4 IS non DO because it would be smaller and lighter than the F2.8 and probably considerably cheaper, again with high ISO is F2.8 needed especially with the weight trade off. Only other reason for the F2.8 is for use with tele converters, that you can have a 800mm F5.6 or a 640 F4.



Grrrrr...  Marketing.


----------



## mrzero (Jul 16, 2014)

Bruce Photography said:


> Canon could add a non-tank like 28-300 similar in price and quality to the Nikon 28-300 as well as the Nikon 18-300. I use the 18-300 on my D7100 and that has replaced by for my event camera which was a 60D with 18-200. I've been surprised just how good the 18-300 and D7100 combo is. They have been a joy to use.



Agreed. I'd like to see the 28-300L remade along the lines of the 70-300L - compact, twist zoom, light, great IS. It would be great to have a full-frame all-in-one with L quality that didn't break your neck for hiking, kids sports, etc. Although if they're gonna list it at $3k, don't bother.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jul 16, 2014)

mrzero said:


> Bruce Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Canon could add a non-tank like 28-300 similar in price and quality to the Nikon 28-300 as well as the Nikon 18-300. I use the 18-300 on my D7100 and that has replaced by for my event camera which was a 60D with 18-200. I've been surprised just how good the 18-300 and D7100 combo is. They have been a joy to use.
> ...



+1, and maybe an L-quality 28-200 f/2.8-4.5. From what i understand, the 28-300's are popular with paparazzi taking red carpet shots at premieres and award ceremonies. My guess is that 200mm would suffice on the long end.


----------



## seamonster (Jul 16, 2014)

200-500mm 5.6 (IS USM of course) please. And make it cost the same as the 70-300L.

For those who came from 70-300mm lenses on APS-C bodies we are used to the ~480mm equivalent so a 200-400mm isn't enough. The Tamron 150-600mm is the only one they need to be concerned with beating and even that lens isn't the best at 600mm so Canon making theirs stop at 500mm will be sufficient if it is better at 5.6 than the Tamron is at f8.


----------



## RGF (Jul 16, 2014)

if you are talking focal length very little

If you are talking about quality and F4

Then killer UWA such as Nikon 14-24. I consider the 70-200 F2.8 II to be a killer lens

Killer 100-400, current model is okay at best

How about a 400 F4 non-DO but IS.
Also a 400 F5.6 IS and 300 F4 IS

I dream about a extender that either a zoom (1.0 to 1.7) or discrete - imagine an extender with 3 positions - 1.0 (none), 1.4 and 1.7

How about 1.7 extender

Lots of lens need to be updated, 180 macro (perhaps TS-E).


Overall, a few holes when you look at focal length and aperture combined but major challenge is quality of some of the L lenses are simply as good as many of us expect.


----------



## geonix (Jul 16, 2014)

So far, all lenses I missed from Canon's range I found in Tamron's or Sigma's range.
Good example: Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di VC USD.

I would like to see a 200-600mm f5.6 tough, or an updated version of the 400mm f5.6 with IS.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 16, 2014)

EF 200mm F4 MACRO or so... EF 300mm F5.6 MACRO
EF 28-200mm F4 IS 
EF 24-85mm F4 IS
EF 35-70mm F2 (Sigma will do it someday) 

EF-S 15-50mm F2.8 IS 
EF-S 18-70mm F2.8 IS 
EF-S 50-150mm F2.8 IS 
EF-S 15mm F2 
EF-S 22mm F1.8 
EF-S 30mm F1.4


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jul 16, 2014)

Both Canon and Nikon need primes for their crop-cameras (APS-C/DX).

I'd like to see these *EF-S lenses*: 
1) An ultra-wide, non-fisheye, 8.75mm = 14mm FF, or a 10mm = 16mm FF.
2) A wide 14mm = 22mm FF.
3) A long wide 17mm = 27mm FF or 18mm = 29mm FF.
4) A 22mm = 35mm FF

Why not just use an EF-S 10-22mm you ask. Because it's big/bulky and doesn't open up to *f/1.8*

I'm not interested in impressing people with the size of my zoom. I'd rather disappear into the background with a small camera (SL1 maybe) and a small/light prime.


----------



## Besisika (Jul 16, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Canon EF 135mm f/1.8L IS


+1


----------



## Click (Jul 16, 2014)

One more vote for the 14-24 f/2.8 and the 135 f1.8 IS


----------



## mrzero (Jul 16, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> mrzero said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce Photography said:
> ...



I would accept 200 on the long end but you can always hope for more! If they did a 28-300L remake, though, it would be harder to justify alongside the 70-300L unless there was a significant variant in terms of cost or focal length. I'd even be happy with a quality non-L 28-200 or 28-300 with current technology.


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 16, 2014)

So a good few of the latest Canon zooms are said to have prime like IQ. I would then say that the next primes should be phenomenal bokeh beasts with fast AF. 

Canon 50mm f/1.2 IS
Canon 135 f1.8 IS
Canon 85mm f/1.2 IS


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 17, 2014)

EF-S 22mm f/2.8 Pancake
EF-S 35mm f/1.8 STM
EF-S 85mm f/1.8 STM
EF 100mm f/1.4 USM
EF 200mm f/4 L IS macro (1:1)
EF 35-85mm f/1.8 L USM
EF 100-300mm f/4 L IS USM (1.4xInt)


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 17, 2014)

By far the biggest hole is a lens between the sub $2,000ish 100-400 / 400/5.6 / 300/4 etc. and the over $7,000 300/2.8.

That hole is absolutely gaping, and only filled by third parties with lenses like the Sigma 120-300/2.8.


----------



## lo lite (Jul 17, 2014)

Haydn1971 said:


> Whilst we all have some idea in our heads about what might get replaced next, we all have some idea of 50/85mm IS lenses, a 35mm f1.4 II L or 100-400L - but what realistically is missing from Canon's EF range at the moment ?
> 
> Here's my thoughts on omissions that could realistically be made - as to them being economic, that's a whole different story ;-)
> - A fast wide, Nikon style like a 12/14-24mm f2.8
> ...



+1 for a EF 12-24mm f/2.8L, a good EF 20-135mm f/4.0L IS would be great too. 

And then I have a special wish, but I doubt any manufacturer is ever going to make it, I even don't know if this would be doable at all: a full frame 20mm with f/1.4 and a close focusing range of 19mm or even less with great bokeh. I have a CZJ Flektogon 20mm f/2.8 which is focusing up to 19mm so at least this part is doable. But I guess this is just a pipe dream …


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 17, 2014)

Need to have: 85/1.4 (but no one else mentioned it, so I suppose Canon has little market for it... 
Want to have: 135/1.8-2 IS (that will essentially lock my 70-200 II to non-travel use)
Would be nice to have: 12orwhatever-24/2.8 

I am not sure any of these will come out this year though...


----------



## Eagle Eye (Jul 17, 2014)

Being a landscape guy, I'm loving the 16-35 f/4 right now, but I'd like to see some love for 85mm, my favorite prime focal length, incorporated into the zoom lineup though. For me, the 16-35mm f/4, a 24-85mm f/4, and a 70-200mm f/4 with a focal length marker for 85mm (which I plan to manually add to my existing model), along with an EF 1.5x would be an ideal kit. Full coverage 16-300mm, with two overlapping focal lengths between each zoom. Plus easier math on the tele-extender front; I didn't get into photography to think about numbers, dammit. The 24-85mm would be optional kit for a lot of shoots, particularly with a 50mm f/2.8 pancake in the bag. I imagine they went with 40mm because it makes for a similarly useful lens on full frame and APS-C, at 50mm, APS-C crop pushes it a little too much towards telephoto. I think the the 24-85mm is a possible replacement to the 24-70 f/4 in 5-10 years. I doubt the extenders are going to change and I also doubt we'll see another 50mm added to the lineup. Anyone have insight into why 85mm gets no love in the zooms? I don't have a mark for it on my 24-105 or my 70-200.


----------



## sanj (Jul 17, 2014)

24-105 f2.8 IS


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 17, 2014)

Click said:


> One more vote for the 14-24 f/2.8 and the 135 f1.8 IS



I would rather a 12-24mm f2.8 and a 135 f1.8 LIS. A 14-24mm is only 2mm wider than a 16-35 and looses a major focal point at the long end.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 17, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Need to have: 85/1.4 (but no one else mentioned it, so I suppose Canon has little market for it...
> Want to have: 135/1.8-2 IS (that will essentially lock my 70-200 II to non-travel use)
> Would be nice to have: 12orwhatever-24/2.8
> 
> I am not sure any of these will come out this year though...



If canon releases a 135 f1.8 LIS, I would get one and swap out my 70-200 f2.8 LIS II for an f4. I would use the prime for the dark stuff and the f4 for the bright stuff. I wouldn't need to lug the big 2.8 about anymore.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 17, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Need to have: 85/1.4 (but no one else mentioned it, so I suppose Canon has little market for it...
> ...


I would keep my 2.8 IS II for low light wildlife shooting, but can completely understand - the f/4 IS is a brilliant lens. Even if it's a _mere_ f/2, 135 IS, I'd be first in line to buy it.


----------



## zlatko (Jul 17, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> EF-S 15-50mm F2.8 IS
> EF-S 18-70mm F2.8 IS
> EF-S 50-150mm F2.8 IS
> EF-S 15mm F2
> ...



I agree with the above. Those would be very nice additions for EF-S cameras. I'd also like to see:

EF 85/1.8 IS


----------



## surapon (Jul 17, 2014)

Just in my idea, Canon miss 8 mm F/ 2.8 Fish eye , Prime Lens---No, I do not need " L " lens, just similar to EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, but = 8 mm. prime
Surapon
PS. The Photos below = Bower 8 mm. F/ 3.5 Fish eye Lens( Made in Korea) = $ 299 US Dollars , at 3 years ago


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 17, 2014)

surapon said:


> Just in my idea, Canon miss 8 mm F/ 2.8 Fish eye , Prime Lens---No, I do not need " L " lens, just similar to EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, but = 8 mm. prime
> Surapon
> PS. The Photos below = Bower 8 mm. F/ 3.5 Fish eye Lens( Made in Korea) = $ 299 US Dollars , at 3 years ago



I used to think that way until trying the 8-15. Love that you can get similar results with FF (15mm) and APS-C (8mm) with one lens.


----------



## surapon (Jul 17, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Just in my idea, Canon miss 8 mm F/ 2.8 Fish eye , Prime Lens---No, I do not need " L " lens, just similar to EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, but = 8 mm. prime
> ...



Dear Friend, Mr. Random Orbits---Thanks for your response.
Yes, I love Faster lens for the wide angle lens, for take the Photos in the dark of the night. For the day light are not matter, Because I try to use F 8.0 =90% of my ob any way.
Have a great day, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## bholliman (Jul 18, 2014)

I'd like to see a new fast IS primes: 35, 50, 85 and 135mm. Especially the 50.

Of course a 100-400 II L would be awesome, but the price needs to be reasonable given the quality of the Tamron 150-600.


----------



## Niranjan B Venkatesh (Jul 19, 2014)

EF 800 F/2.8 or F/4.0


----------



## stefsan (Jul 19, 2014)

I'd like to see UWA lenses for both FF and APS-C that are 

fast
sharp (even if wide open)
and do not suffer from the beastly coma aberration that turns stars into wedge-shaped UFOs like the EF-S 10-22 does.


----------



## stefsan (Jul 19, 2014)

… oh, and I forgot the EF 24-105L II with better IS, coatings and really good sealing 8)


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 19, 2014)

I'd like to see an ultra wide zoom to compete with the Sigma 12-24mm & Nikon 14-24mm, or rather as wide as the prior and high IQ as the later.


----------



## PhotoCat (Jul 19, 2014)

85 f1.4, 85 f2.0 IS, 135 f2.0 IS, EF 50- 135 f2.8 portrait zoom.


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 19, 2014)

Extenders equipped with a switch to flip them into / out of the optical path (like the built-in extender in the 200-400 f/4 L IS). 

Sure, they'd be larger and more expensive than the current models, but the technology is now proven, at least with the 1.4x.

When I replaced my 70-200/2.8 L IS with the II version recently, I also sold my 1.4x II, which I'm not replacing. It's just too much hassle to insert and remove. For the extra reach, I'm hopeful for a 100-400 II this year, with reviews as glowing as the new 16-35/4.


----------



## candyman (Jul 19, 2014)

sanj said:


> 24-105 f2.8 IS



That would be nice but too heavy and too big.
What about a 24-70 f/2.8 IS?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 19, 2014)

Don't know if anyone else has suggested something on these lines already:
EF 58mm f/1.2 L USM
EF 300-500mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 20, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> Extenders equipped with a switch to flip them into / out of the optical path (like the built-in extender in the 200-400 f/4 L IS).



Taking the optics out of an extender turns it into an extension tube, and the later has an effect on how far the lens attached to it can focus.

Don't know how Canon solved the issue with the EF 200-400mm, but I can only conclude it was tailored into this specific lens.


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 20, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> Taking the optics out of an extender turns it into an extension tube, and the later has an effect on how far the lens attached to it can focus.



Good point.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 20, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > Extenders equipped with a switch to flip them into / out of the optical path (like the built-in extender in the 200-400 f/4 L IS).
> ...



It's probably replaced by non-magnifying optics when the 1.4x extender is swung out.


----------



## IsaacImage (Jul 20, 2014)

14-24 and I'll sell this shitty D810.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 20, 2014)

With regards to the 12/14-24 idea, would people prefer f4 and greater sharpness or f2.8 and take a slight hit on absolute sharpness - I don't believe you can have both - personally, I'm holding out for 12-24 to replace my 16-35II, I'd take a hit on absolute sharpness for a f2.8 aparture.


----------



## tron (Jul 20, 2014)

Haydn1971 said:


> With regards to the 12/14-24 idea, would people prefer f4 and greater sharpness or f2.8 and take a slight hit on absolute sharpness - I don't believe you can have both - personally, I'm holding out for 12-24 to replace my 16-35II, I'd take a hit on absolute sharpness for a f2.8 aparture.


Can you please elaborate? (about absolute sharpness). Also I believe we can have both sharpness and 2.8 judging from 24-70 2.8 II lens.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 20, 2014)

The 24-70mm range is "easier" to get right, the extremes of 12-14mm are less easy to engineer, thus more likely to be a compromise solution.


----------



## DRR (Jul 20, 2014)

Not my first choice for missing lens but I could use a 12-24 to replace my 16-35. My preference would be f/2.8 at the expense of absolute sharpness. IMO if you need that level of sharpness - you'd already be using primes and MF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2014)

DRR said:


> Not my first choice for missing lens but I could use a 12-24 to replace my 16-35. My preference would be f/2.8 at the expense of absolute sharpness. IMO if you need that level of sharpness - you'd already be using primes and MF.



There's a rather substantial difference in IQ between images from my 24-70/2.8 II and my 16-35/2.8 II. Reviews suggest the 16-35/4 IS approaches the 24-70 II in sharpness and has very low CA. For _my_ shooting needs, I'm willing to trade the stop of light for a substantial gain in sharpness. Time to say goodbye to the 16-35/2.8 and hello to the 16-35/4.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 20, 2014)

Out of interest Neuro, do you have the 8-15mm ?


----------



## Perio (Jul 20, 2014)

Maybe something like 50-150mm f2.8 to cover 50, 70, 85, 100 and 135mm. Although it may be that 70-200mm is more appropriate for most people.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2014)

Haydn1971 said:


> Out of interest Neuro, do you have the 8-15mm ?



Nope...I have no real desire for a fisheye lens.


----------



## wtlloyd (Jul 20, 2014)

No doubt, to be announced in August.




RLPhoto said:


> Canon EF 135mm f/1.8L IS


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 21, 2014)

Haydn1971 said:


> With regards to the 12/14-24 idea, would people prefer f4 and greater sharpness or f2.8 and take a slight hit on absolute sharpness - I don't believe you can have both - personally, I'm holding out for 12-24 to replace my 16-35II, I'd take a hit on absolute sharpness for a f2.8 aparture.



I'm pretty sure you could have both in that range, but it would weigh as much as a big white, and you wouldn't be able to fit any other lenses in your camera bag. 

But in all seriousness, f/2.8. I can always stop down if sharpness is critical, with the exception of last-second "ooh, neat" shots, but nothing can make a slow lens faster (other than cranking the ISO).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 21, 2014)

A LOT of primes, 10mm,11mm,12mm,13mm,18mm,19mm,20mm,21mm,22mm,23mm,25mm,26mm,27mm,29mm,30mm,31mm,32mm,33mm,34mm,36mm,37mm,38mm,39mm,41mm,42mm, etc. etc.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Jul 21, 2014)

Niranjan B Venkatesh said:


> EF 800 F/2.8 or F/4.0



You are a real troll. 

I'd suggest that you be a little more realistic. 
You would need a self-propelled tracked howitzer chassis to move the 800/F2.8 around and provide a stable base for it. Depending on quality it could weigh between 200 and 400 kgs and may cost between $2,000,000 and $4,000,000, however, the self-propelled tracked howitzer chassis is not included.

Note that similar lenses were made, albeit not F2.8:

1. 
Leica APO-Telyt-R 1:5.6/1600mm - note - *only* F5.6
Price: $2,000,000, weight 60kg

http://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/leica-most-expensive-lens

2.
Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 1700 mm F4 - note - *only* F4
Price: undisclosed - probably ~5,000,000, weight 256kg.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3865393209/zeiss1700f4

Would you like to purchase both? I can facilitate it for a quite reasonable 10% commission


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 21, 2014)

Would be interesting to see if the flip in 1.4x extender gets rolled out on any other lenses, 300mm f4 IS with 1.4x perhaps ?


----------



## markwilliams279 (Jul 21, 2014)

Image stabilization is missing

Next, EF-S 55-250IS can go with small (APS-C) sensor Canon cameras. It is not for larger sensors (EOS 5D, EOS 1D(s) series), APS-C DSLRs such as the EOS D30, D60 and 10D.


----------



## steliosk (Jul 21, 2014)

lens missing?

NEW 1.2 and 1.4 glasses
24mm
35mm
50mm
85mm

24-120 f/4
28-135 replacement 

14-24 a MUST

a 12mm prime would be nice too
Sigma's 12-24 is a nice toy but way too soft in term of sharpness


----------



## Ophthaltographer (Jul 21, 2014)

150mm f/2.8 IS macro

400mm f/5.6 IS


----------



## Hannes (Jul 21, 2014)

EF-S prime in the range 20-24mm
EF-S 50-150 f2.8 IS
200mm f2.8 IS
100-300 f4 IS
A replacement to the 22-55mm would be nice, it is a very handy focal range. 20-50 f4 IS would be ideal and would make a killer holiday lens


----------



## DRR (Jul 21, 2014)

Hannes said:


> EF-S prime in the range 20-24mm



Why not just use the EF 35mm or the EF 40mm?


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 21, 2014)

DRR said:


> Why not just use the EF 35mm or the EF 40mm?



Because that wouldn't give the required 20-24mm the OP desires ?

Think you may have got your crop factors the wrong way around. ;-)


----------



## bseitz234 (Jul 21, 2014)

Hannes said:


> EF-S prime in the range 20-24mm
> EF-S 50-150 f2.8 IS
> 200mm f2.8 IS
> 100-300 f4 IS
> A replacement to the 22-55mm would be nice, it is a very handy focal range. 20-50 f4 IS would be ideal and would make a killer holiday lens



Oh how I would love an EF-S 22mm 1.4. Or even 1.8. That would be awesome. I just can't justify the cost of the 24L, but if there were an EF-S version for $500 or $600 I'd be all over it.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 21, 2014)

bseitz234 said:


> Hannes said:
> 
> 
> > EF-S prime in the range 20-24mm
> ...




I lusted after a fast lens in that range for APS-C for a long time, and the 24L was too expensive for what it offered. So I decided to go full frame. I have the 35/1.4, but even the 35/2 will give you better angle of view and depth of field than a 22/1.4.


----------

