PDA

View Full Version : Poll: What new lens would you like to see Canon Release Next


calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 06:52
After Canon released the 70-200 F/4L IS and 50 F/1.2L, I got to thinking what lens the people want the most.

Pete-eos
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 06:56
10-200mm f/2.8 L USM IS ;)

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 06:59
I would like to see the 400 F/5.6L IS

Khaled
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:00
24-70 L f/2.8 IS USM

grego
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:00
200 f/2 IS.

And of course, we might as well try a 24-70 2.8 IS or 16-35 2.8 IS. ;)

GyRob
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:09
100 to 300 f4is L or a 100 to 300 f2.8is L
Rob.

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:15
200 f/2 IS.

And of course, we might as well try a 24-70 2.8 IS or 16-35 2.8 IS. ;)

That would be a great lens, what kind of price tag though???

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:18
How about a EF-S 18-200 F/3.5-5.6 IS to compete with Nikon's

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:19
24-70/2.8 IS is probably what I'd want them to have the most, then put IS in that damn 400/5.6!

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:19
That would be a great lens, what kind of price tag though???

Probably pretty hefty

The 200/2 VRs from Nikon is expensive in itself

Big WIll
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:21
8-15mm f2 L
24-70 f2 IS
24-200 f2.8 L IS

grego
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:22
That would be a great lens, what kind of price tag though???

For the 2 zooms, something comparable to the 70-200 IS' price tag. As for a 200 2 IS. Maybe 16 to 1800(more than double the price of the 200 2.8L)

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:24
8-15mm f2 L
24-70 f2 IS
24-200 f2.8 L IS

Wishful thinking don't you think? :lol::lol:

24-200 2.8L with IS would end up as HUGE lens

24-70 would probably be extremely difficult to engineer, and even much harder for the 8-15s @ f/2

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:28
For the 2 zooms, something comparable to the 70-200 IS' price tag. As for a 200 2 IS. Maybe 16 to 1800(more than double the price of the 200 2.8L)

I think think a 200 F/2 IS would be much higher. The 200 F/1.8 runs for around $4,000.00. This new lens would be newer technology and have IS.

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:29
24-70/2.8 IS is probably what I'd want them to have the most, then put IS in that damn 400/5.6!

I agree, the 400 F/5.6L is screaming out for IS :cool:

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:30
I think think a 200 F/2 IS would be much higher. The 200 F/1.8 runs for around $4,000.00. This new lens would be newer technology and have IS.

I believe if Canon were to release a 200/2 IS, they'd probably set it close to the value of Nikon's lenses.

I don't really know what kind of "newer" technology that Canon can possibly put into it that would vouch for a significant price diff from the Nikon one that goes for almost 4k (wth was I doing putting 2... I wish!).

Resolution can only go so far for the camera to utilize it effectively, and the ring USM/AF-S system aren't all that different.

Maybe if they were to create a much lighter and compact 200/2 IS (possibly a DO) version, then it'd cost much more.

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:33
good points, so we would be looking at $4,000.00. Now if Canon made it F/1.8 with IS :eek:

grego
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:34
I think think a 200 F/2 IS would be much higher. The 200 F/1.8 runs for around $4,000.00. This new lens would be newer technology and have IS.

I wasn't into photography back when the 200 1.8 existed, but it actually was far less than 4k. It's value has actually gone up since being discontinued. I believe it was like half that price. I hope someone knows. I just am pretty sure that the 200 1.8 was at least 1k cheaper, if not half the current price.

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:38
Even so, Bryan makes a good point about the Nikon 200 F/2. It goes for $4,000.00 http://www.canogacamera.com/detail.aspx?ID=7118. So if Canon released one, it would be in this price range I believe

condyk
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:39
200-500mm 4.0-5.6 IS L ... preferably in black, but I think Sigma will get there first with an OS Bigma!

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:40
200-500mm 4.0-5.6 IS L

Wow, that would be something, whats the prediction on price for this one???

grego
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:40
Even so, Bryan makes a good point about the Nikon 200 F/2. It goes for $4,000.00 http://www.canogacamera.com/detail.aspx?ID=7118. So if Canon released one, it would be in this price range I believe

Yeah, i noticed. I think Canon will price however as long as they make a profit. I tend to see Nikkor brand lens a little more expensive than the Canon brand. 3rd party favors Nikon though. And you see it in Nikon bodies. They are a little pricer. D200 vs 30D/20D for example

200-500mm 4.0-5.6 IS L ... preferably in black, but I think Sigma will get there first with an OS Bigma!

The light color helps with heat reduction, especially when you have a huge chunk of glass in the sun.

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:41
Is it me or does that 200/2 VR remind me of some sort of bug (a caterpillar is the first thing that pops up in my head)

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:42
What's funny is that most of us probably won't even have the assets to purchase these outrageous lenses! :lol:

Fun to put yourself in the situation in where you're releasing particular lenses though.

grego
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:44
Defintely agree, although I am still going ot buy the 16-35. Might as well throw in an IS version. :lol:

Then maybe people will sell the regular one and I'll win. And then I'll rule the world!

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:46
[quote=grego]Yeah, i noticed. I think Canon will price however as long as they make a profit. I tend to see Nikkor brand lens a little more expensive than the Canon brand. 3rd party favors Nikon though. And you see it in Nikon bodies. They are a little pricer. D200 vs 30D/20D for example [quote]

I have noticed that about third party lenses, you would think they would price the same, but Nikon mounts are cheaper :rolleyes:

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:46
I wish I were able to afford the 16-35s :(

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:48
What's funny is that most of us probably won't even have the assets to purchase these outrageous lenses! :lol:

Fun to put yourself in the situation in where you're releasing particular lenses though.

I can't help myself though, if Canon releases the 400 F/5.6L IS, I would buy one.

"You are sick in the head when it comes to buying camera gear" - my lovely wife

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:50
I can't help myself though, if Canon releases the 400 F/5.6L IS, I would buy one.

"You are sick in the head when it comes to buying camera gear" - my lovely wife

I always wondered why they didn't implement it in this particular lens (it only seemed so obvious since the focal length is so long).

What's sad is that I've never tried the 400/5.6s before. All I've read about this lens is that its sharp and has ungodly AF speed. :cool:

grego
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:52
They need to make a 400 f/4L Non DO. Should have IS, but even if it doesn't. So far, the only way to avoid that stupid DO, is tack on a 2xtc to the 200 1.8, which would give you about an f/stop of 3.6(or f/4).

Might go test that out soon with my 2x, if i don't sell it/someone doesn't buy it.

mR_CaESaR
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:55
I personally want a 24-70f2.8IS, i would sell my 24-70 at a drop of a hat the moment they release one.

I would also love a 200-400 f4 IS to complement the 70-200IS

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:55
I always wondered why they didn't implement it in this particular lens (it only seemed so obvious since the focal length is so long).

What's sad is that I've never tried the 400/5.6s before. All I've read about this lens is that its sharp and has ungodly AF speed. :cool:

I use my 400 F/5.6L for birds in flight, probably the best hand held lens for this application there is. IS would make it even better and more versatile

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:57
I personally want a 24-70f2.8IS, i would sell my 24-70 at a drop of a hat the moment they release one.

I would also love a 200-400 f4 IS to complement the 70-200IS

A 200-400 F/4L IS would be really interesting as well, what happens to the 100-400L then

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:58
I think they should release a different line of lenses... one with a blue ring ;p

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 07:59
A 200-400 F/4L IS would be really interesting as well, what happens to the 100-400L then

Probably something that'd never happen :lol:

Too much of an overlap to even consider doing that. If anything, make something equivalent to the Sigmonster. :eek:

condyk
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:00
The light color helps with heat reduction, especially when you have a huge chunk of glass in the sun.

Yes, that's what they say :lol: but I've used a Sigma 400mm 5.6 prime in Africa and really that 'heat thing' was never even remotely an issue, so I prefer black as less obvious.

I do remember a discussion about this here when one guy was so adamant that it was a key feature and especially essential for when you leave your lenses in the heat in a car and how once when he opened his bag the whiteys where cool while the black lenses where practically melting :lol: :lol: Sure man :rolleyes: ... why not stick 'em in the trunk?

Y... And you see it in Nikon bodies. They are a little pricer. D200 vs 30D/20D for example

As we're constantly told here ... you get what you pay for ;-)

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:01
Probably something that'd never happen :lol:

Too much of an overlap to even consider doing that. If anything, make something equivalent to the Sigmonster. :eek:

I like the idea of a 200-500L

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:02
I like the idea of a 200-500L

400-800 ftw :cool:

grego
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:11
Yes, that's what they say :lol: but I've used a Sigma 400mm 5.6 prime in Africa and really that 'heat thing' was never even remotely an issue, so I prefer black as less obvious.

I do remember a discussion about this here when one guy was so adamant that it was a key feature and especially essential for when you leave your lenses in the heat in a car and how once when he opened his bag the whiteys where cool while the black lenses where practically melting :lol: :lol: Sure man :rolleyes: ... why not stick 'em in the trunk?


When I used my old 70-200 from Sigma and when I use my 120-300 2.8. I do feel more heat in the big lens. But then I usually am standing in the heat(with no shade).

Works very similar with wearing a black shirt versus a white/grey shirt. Come, visit LA, Dave. :) There are enough girls with short skirts washing their cars

As we're constantly told here ... you get what you pay for ;-)

For their lower end bodies that are comparable to the Canon's, they do pack more features in. I defintely wish they'd put more in the 20D/30D that's comparable to the D200(and no I don't consider one of them the weather sealing, because I really wouldn't trust that-even if 30D had their version).

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:14
When I used my old 70-200 from Sigma and when I use my 120-300 2.8. I do feel more heat in the big lens. But then I usually am standing in the heat(with no shade).

Works very similar with wearing a black shirt versus a white/grey shirt. Come, visit LA, Dave. :) There are enough girls with short skirts washing their cars



For their lower end bodies that are comparable to the Canon's, they do pack more features in. I defintely wish they'd put more in the 20D/30D that's comparable to the D200(and no I don't consider one of them the weather sealing, because I really wouldn't trust that-even if 30D had their version).

Love those short skirted girls :)

I think the CMOS sensor gives all Canon Camera's a big advantage over Nikon

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:16
Works very similar with wearing a black shirt versus a white/grey shirt. Come, visit LA, Dave. :) There are enough girls with short skirts washing their cars


I love UCLA during the summer time and when school starts (I think its the 25th). The girls there are so hot (then again, who's to talk when my gf actually goes there... gah... can't talk about the honeys)!

But to stay on topic, I have yet to notice the heat issue though. Technically speaking though, white lens do have an advantage over black when it comes to retaining heat. I just haven't actually been in a situation where it was noticable enough (like in Calzinger's situation).

condyk
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:16
Come, visit LA, Dave. :) There are enough girls with short skirts washing their cars

:lol: :lol: Well the thing here is that such sites are just so very unique and a genuine bonus. When those girls are ten a penny the joy just isn't going to be there.

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:17
Love those short skirted girls :)

I think the CMOS sensor gives all Canon Camera's a big advantage over Nikon

I just think its their noise reduction algorithm that gives them the advantage. CMOS sensors intrinsically generate more noise than CCD sensors so Canon must be doing something right to keep the noise level in check.

Nikon is getting there though. The D80 ISO 1600 pictures are very impressive... of course, when the shot is exposed properly.

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:18
:lol: :lol: Well the thing here is that such sites are just so very unique and a genuine bonus. When those girls are ten a penny the joy just isn't going to be there.

I don't know about you, but I'd never get tired of seeing hot women roam around all day long. :lol:

Jim G
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:19
120-300 2.8 IS? Attract some people away from that nice Sigma...

Eh, I'd probably be interested in a 24-70 2.8 IS, realistically speaking. I'd also be interested to see if they ever bring out a 100mm L.

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:20
I just think its their noise reduction algorithm that gives them the advantage. CMOS sensors intrinsically generate more noise than CCD sensors so Canon must be doing something right to keep the noise level in check.

Nikon is getting there though. The D80 ISO 1600 pictures are very impressive... of course, when the shot is exposed properly.

I have an original 1D that has taken some nice ISO 1600 photos, I have also taken some noisy ISO 400 photos with it. Proper exposure is key when it comes to noise

grego
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:20
I love UCLA during the summer time and when school starts (I think its the 25th). The girls there are so hot (then again, who's to talk when my gf actually goes there... gah... can't talk about the honeys)!

Summer time is dangerous. They have all these camps, and lots more underage girls. Jail bait!! :lol:

Hmmmm, I hope i don't run into your gf. :p Or accidently ask her to model for me like I've done with a UCLA student or two.
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1483/crw50350qo.th.jpg (http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1483/crw50350qo.jpg)


But to stay on topic, I have yet to notice the heat issue though. Technically speaking though, white lens do have an advantage over black when it comes to retaining heat. I just haven't actually been in a situation where it was noticable enough (like in Calzinger's situation).

Maybe I'm just very sensitive, but I do feel it. Defintely feel it on the body, too.

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:22
I would not want Canon to switch to black lenses, I like the distinction and attention of the white lenses, a Canon trademark

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:22
I have an original 1D that has taken some nice ISO 1600 photos, I have also taken some noisy ISO 400 photos with it. Proper exposure is key when it comes to noise

Eh, you know what I'm talking about though! ;)

At this point in time, Canon still has the edge in high ISO noise handling even when the shot is properly exposed. What I was trying to get at is that Nikon is getting there (I mean, from the D70, there IS a significant difference in noise handling... and it also applies for the D50 which IMO handles noise better than the D70).

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:23
There are some beauties running around UCLA, can't argue with that

BryanP
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:25
There are some beauties running around UCLA, can't argue with that

I wonder what your lovely and supporting wife would think ;) :lol:

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:26
Eh, you know what I'm talking about though! ;)

At this point in time, Canon still has the edge in high ISO noise handling even when the shot is properly exposed. What I was trying to get at is that Nikon is getting there (I mean, from the D70, there IS a significant difference in noise handling... and it also applies for the D50 which IMO handles noise better than the D70).

Canon really has an edge on noise, ISO 3200 is very usable on the 5D, 20 and 30D and the 1DMIIN

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 08:27
I wonder what your lovely and supporting wife would think ;) :lol:

Well, she is not only beautiful and in great shape (marathon runner), but she also lets me spend thousands on my hobbies (photography and fishing). So, there is no temptation from any woman. I have a great one already :D

Echo_
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 13:52
ef-s fisheye lens under 350

Steve Parr
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 14:03
I'd like to see something that doesn't require a second mortgage to obtain...

AirBrontosaurus
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 14:13
A macro lens that does more than 1:1 (like 2:1 or even 3:1) that doesn't cost half as much as the MPE-65 (who needs 5:1? Honestly?)

Lord_Malone
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 14:26
24-135 f/2.8L IS and a 200-500 f/4-5.6L IS. Wishful thinking, but oh well.

incendy
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 14:32
I would love to see a good WA for the 5d

Adpully
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 14:34
I fancy a EF 250 f3.5L IS

Tom W
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 14:45
I would also love a 200-400 f4 IS to complement the 70-200IS

A 200-400 f/4 IS would be nice. Big and expensive as well, but nice.
The 100-400L would not be in danger as a 200-400 f/4 lens would cost a great deal more than it.

I'd like to also see an 18 mm f/2L lens of great quality.

Lord_Malone
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 14:47
I would love to see a good WA for the 5d

The 17-40 or the 16-35 aren't good enough for you? Or are you wanting an update to the 14mm prime?

Tom W
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 14:48
They need to make a 400 f/4L Non DO. Should have IS, but even if it doesn't. So far, the only way to avoid that stupid DO, is tack on a 2xtc to the 200 1.8, which would give you about an f/stop of 3.6(or f/4).

Might go test that out soon with my 2x, if i don't sell it/someone doesn't buy it.

A 300/2.8 with the 1.4X gives you a nice 420 mm f/4 lens. And it's cheaper than the DO, though bigger and heavier as well.

KevC
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 14:54
24-70/4L IS and non IS. Yes, f/4.

Why? Price for one... think 70-200/4 vs 70-200/2.8. And size/weight... and sharpness. Hopefully being only f/4 the engineers can make it sharper than the f/2.8.

The 50/1.2L is something I want since the f/1.8 is nice but the f/1.4 doesn't sway me enough to buy it. Ring USM and sharp wide open is what the 50 needs, and hopefully the 1.2L will perform.

I'd love to see Canon release all their wider primes updated with RingUSM and sharper. The 28/1.8 is nice... however the 35/2 can use some work.

incendy
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 15:23
The 17-40 or the 16-35 aren't good enough for you? Or are you wanting an update to the 14mm prime?

yep, I was thinking more about a good prime in the 14-21 range! Preferebly a 19mm would be great, but anything good and sharp in that range would be very nice

incendy
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 15:27
24-70/4L IS and non IS. Yes, f/4.

Why? Price for one... think 70-200/4 vs 70-200/2.8. And size/weight... and sharpness. Hopefully being only f/4 the engineers can make it sharper than the f/2.8.

The 50/1.2L is something I want since the f/1.8 is nice but the f/1.4 doesn't sway me enough to buy it. Ring USM and sharp wide open is what the 50 needs, and hopefully the 1.2L will perform.

I'd love to see Canon release all their wider primes updated with RingUSM and sharper. The 28/1.8 is nice... however the 35/2 can use some work.

F4? you are crazy Kev:) The only indoor shots you would ever get would be of someone in a hospital bed=D

I also would love the 50 1.2 but I will have to wait, cause I need something wider first

ACDCROCKS
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 15:32
Canon 300mm f/1.8 L or Canon 200MM f/1.8 L............of course IS would be added but, oh and 35-70mm f/2.4 L IS.

farrukh
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 15:36
50-500L like Bigma

grego
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 16:14
A 300/2.8 with the 1.4X gives you a nice 420 mm f/4 lens. And it's cheaper than the DO, though bigger and heavier as well.

Indeed, you are correct. I guess I'm just looking for a way to avoid the expensive 300. :lol:

I should get a 1.4 tc for my 300.

rrpruett
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 16:23
I would Love Canon to make the 100-300 f/2.8 like the Sigma. I woldl jump on that in a hart beat.

Madweasel
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 16:49
ef-s fisheye lens under 350

If that's USD, it's quite low, but I agree: I'd like to see an EF-S fish-eye. I miss mine (had to give it up when changing from 35mm).

petrolhead
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 17:00
17-70 f/2.8 L IS

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 18:13
Canon 300mm f/1.8 L or Canon 200MM f/1.8 L............of course IS would be added but, oh and 35-70mm f/2.4 L IS.

300 F/1.8L IS huh, what kind of bokeh would that have, and size and price :eek:

grego
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 18:27
300 F/1.8L IS huh, what kind of bokeh would that have, and size and price :eek:

You'd need like a wagon to carry that sucker. Makes me think of those hotdog vendors who use a truck to tow their cart.

I can just imagine something like that with a 300 f/1.8 IS. :lol:

calicokat
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 18:39
Is a 300 F/1.8L practical, are a lot of these lenses we are suggesting practical or dreams or why not lenses. A 10-600 F/2.8L IS would be an end all :)

ACDCROCKS
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 18:41
You'd need like a wagon to carry that sucker. Makes me think of those hotdog vendors who use a truck to tow their cart.

I can just imagine something like that with a 300 f/1.8 IS. :lol:

lol, indeed. But if you photograph sports, I could careless, thats what assistants are for ;). wait that would be me, more correctly, thats what monopods are for. It would be huge, but, can you imgaine the qulaity and pics would turn out?

grego
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 18:52
lol, indeed. But if you photograph sports, I could careless, thats what assistants are for ;). wait that would be me, more correctly, thats what monopods are for. It would be huge, but, can you imgaine the qulaity and pics would turn out?

For most sports you need some kind of mobility. 400 is already a big sucker, but it gives some mobility to move around fairly quickly.

For the big pro stuff, a 300 or 400 2.8 will usually do just fine. Obviously there are always times where you could want more.

CyberDyneSystems
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 19:30
24-70/4L IS and non IS. Yes, f/4.



They just made this last year, they just added 25 mm to the long end :)

I'm another vote for adding IS to the 400mm f/5.6

and also add current generation IS and AF to the 100-400mm for the love of god! (and NO don't make it f/4!!!!!! I want ti to be the saem weight it is now.)

CyberDyneSystems
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 19:33
300 F/1.8L IS huh, what kind of bokeh would that have, and size and price :eek:

Nikon made one 1981- 1985 (manual focus, 300mm f/2) here it is next to the f/2.8
107251

Front element is 160mm and it weighed 16 POUNDS!!!

With a 1.4X it's an f/2.8 420mm :)

Only about 400 were made, and most can be found in the inventories of Holywood 35mm camera rental houses who were the few that could afford the specail order beast.

ACDCROCKS
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 21:03
what a gorgeous lens. Im going back to Nikon.:lol:

mdr
4th of September 2006 (Mon), 15:27
400 f4 L IS to replace 400 f5.6 L

calicokat
4th of September 2006 (Mon), 20:53
400 f4 L IS to replace 400 f5.6 L

It would be too big to hand hold, thats what makes the 400 F/5.6L so nice

fi20100
5th of September 2006 (Tue), 04:45
How about a 16-70mm f/2.8 L IS. Together with the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS it would be a killer combo...Of course with top notch IQ.

calicokat
5th of September 2006 (Tue), 09:07
How about a 16-70mm f/2.8 L IS. Together with the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS it would be a killer combo...Of course with top notch IQ.

This would mean replacing the 24-70L, would Canon do this

SuzyView
5th of September 2006 (Tue), 09:08
I want the 17-200 f2.8 IS. :)

calicokat
5th of September 2006 (Tue), 09:22
I want the 17-200 f2.8 IS. :)

That would take care of both needs, how big and expensive would this be ;)

fi20100
5th of September 2006 (Tue), 09:58
This would mean replacing the 24-70L, would Canon do this

Ok, so, just that they don't need to replace it :) they can make the 16-70 an EF-S L lens :D

petrolhead
5th of September 2006 (Tue), 10:57
How about a 16-70mm f/2.8 L IS. .

You and I are almost on the same wavelength

17-70 f/2.8 L IS

fi20100
5th of September 2006 (Tue), 12:31
You and I are almost on the same wavelength

Ok, I guess I could do with 17-70mm f/2.8 L :D But really, it would be a good lens for a combo with the 70-200mm. Just for kicks you can add a few primes for the extra IQ, and that would be a super-kit ;)

calicokat
6th of September 2006 (Wed), 18:06
Ok, so, just that they don't need to replace it :) they can make the 16-70 an EF-S L lens :D

I do think Canon is committed to the EF-S line so I wouldn't be surprised to see some awesome lenses come out that are EF-S. We already have the 17-55 which is out of this world :)

Longwatcher
6th of September 2006 (Wed), 20:11
I am pretty well set for my lenses as is, but I would like to see these next
1. EF 200/f1.8L II w/wo IS
2. EF 8mm fisheye
3. EF 14-100/f2.8LA and 75-400/f2.8LA (A is for Aqua as in liquid lens)

#3 is probably still more then 6 years out before the first ones show up, but they will provide higher image quality at lower weight then current lenses as they can correct more precisely to the zoom.

BradT0517
7th of September 2006 (Thu), 00:17
I would like to see a 10-600 f/1.0L IS DO
and since i first came up with it I would get a free one and a 20 percent royalty for each one sold

fi20100
7th of September 2006 (Thu), 01:15
I do think Canon is committed to the EF-S line so I wouldn't be surprised to see some awesome lenses come out that are EF-S. We already have the 17-55 which is out of this world :)

Iím sure Canon will release some amazing EF-S lenses within a few years, but personally I doubt that they will ever go for EF-S L lenses. It just doesnít seem to fit the picture. And I also myself think itís quite appropriate that L lenses should fit all Canon cameras with a EF mount. But itís not the L that makes or breaks the lens ;)

grego
7th of September 2006 (Thu), 06:04
Iím sure Canon will release some amazing EF-S lenses within a few years, but personally I doubt that they will ever go for EF-S L lenses. It just doesnít seem to fit the picture. And I also myself think itís quite appropriate that L lenses should fit all Canon cameras with a EF mount. But itís not the L that makes or breaks the lens ;)

Well, EF-S lens tend to be less expensive(although that 17-55 is nice and pricey because of the IS). Generally the build quality isn't up to L level quality. And of course they are compatible with many bodies. I think that's probably the biggest reason it'll never get an L designation. Especially since the pro bodies(at least considered by Canon) are either full frame or 1.3 crop or even film.

calicokat
7th of September 2006 (Thu), 09:10
I would like to see a 10-600 f/1.0L IS DO
and since i first came up with it I would get a free one and a 20 percent royalty for each one sold

Good luck with that one :eek:

calicokat
7th of September 2006 (Thu), 09:12
Iím sure Canon will release some amazing EF-S lenses within a few years, but personally I doubt that they will ever go for EF-S L lenses. It just doesnít seem to fit the picture. And I also myself think itís quite appropriate that L lenses should fit all Canon cameras with a EF mount. But itís not the L that makes or breaks the lens ;)

To me the EF-S 17-55 is an L lens. Optically it stands with the 24-70L and 24-105L. With its F/2.8 and IS its like the best of both worlds. I believe Canon will bring out more of the EF-S lenses with L like optical quality

calicokat
7th of September 2006 (Thu), 09:13
I am pretty well set for my lenses as is, but I would like to see these next
1. EF 200/f1.8L II w/wo IS
2. EF 8mm fisheye
3. EF 14-100/f2.8LA and 75-400/f2.8LA (A is for Aqua as in liquid lens)

#3 is probably still more then 6 years out before the first ones show up, but they will provide higher image quality at lower weight then current lenses as they can correct more precisely to the zoom.

I am totally with you on the 200 F/1.8. I love my 15 Fisheye so I would not be that concerned with the 8mm. #3 is a ways off, we will have to wait and see

DDA
8th of September 2006 (Fri), 04:06
I'd love something in the long telephoto range.. an updated 100-400, a 200-500 or anything like that. As long as it doesn't get more expensive than the current 100-400 ;-)

Lightstream
8th of September 2006 (Fri), 21:40
24-70/4L IS and non IS. Yes, f/4.

Why? Price for one... think 70-200/4 vs 70-200/2.8. And size/weight... and sharpness. Hopefully being only f/4 the engineers can make it sharper than the f/2.8.

I heard that there is this awesome new 24-105 f/4L, that gives you f/4, IS, and 35mm more reach than a 24-70 f/4L.... ;)

And it's 350gm lighter than the 24-70 f/2.8...

There is also the incredibly light 1/3rd the weight 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 non-IS.. well, close enough to f/4. Variable aperture doesn't really disturb me when the apertures are close enough to each other.


In a more general sense, Canon's 70-200 f/4L IS taught me one Very Important Thing.

Be careful of what you ask for, you may actually get it. You may also get some other things that you did not expect, like MASSIVE price tag. I always figured that Canon would price the IS version around $800 when I was speculating, I did not expect it to be $1.2K!! That takes away a lot of its value. If it was $800 I would *SERIOUSLY* consider pitching my 70-300 IS USM in exchange for it, but as of now, the 70-300 IS' place in my bag has been extremely well secured. I personally find the 70-300 IS to be superb value, some may disagree and I respect that, but it doesn't seem like anything in the EF series is gonna knock it off its perch as my favorite travel zoom :)

So....

Please state a reasonable price tag in case Canon is listening ;) (no $100 L zooms please.. they'll ignore it for sure ;)

fi20100
9th of September 2006 (Sat), 07:41
I totally agree with you. If the 70-200 f/4L IS would have had a price tag of about €800, it would had been a great value IS L lens. However, that would probably have meant that the the f/4 L non-IS would had been discontinued. We will NOT bee seeing a L zoom for 500 bucks!

The 70-200 f/4 has been in my aim for a while, and I actually thought that the IS would have been a great thing, but now when we know the price, I don’t really see it as a possibility, so the 70-200 f/4 non-IS will still be the great value L zoom to get.

calicokat
9th of September 2006 (Sat), 14:25
I totally agree with you. If the 70-200 f/4L IS would have had a price tag of about Ä800, it would had been a great value IS L lens. However, that would probably have meant that the the f/4 L non-IS would had been discontinued. We will NOT bee seeing a L zoom for 500 bucks!

The 70-200 f/4 has been in my aim for a while, and I actually thought that the IS would have been a great thing, but now when we know the price, I donít really see it as a possibility, so the 70-200 f/4 non-IS will still be the great value L zoom to get.

I am agreement about the stiff price tag of the 70-200 F/4L IS, too much

calicokat
9th of September 2006 (Sat), 14:26
I'd love something in the long telephoto range.. an updated 100-400, a 200-500 or anything like that. As long as it doesn't get more expensive than the current 100-400 ;-)

Cost is everything with these new lenses, they seem to be on the high end, very high end :eek:

volleybrad
18th of September 2006 (Mon), 14:56
I'd like them to release a TS-E 600mm f/4 Fisheye USM IS Macro (on April 1)
:)

BradT0517
18th of September 2006 (Mon), 16:29
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I'd like them to release a TS-E 600mm f/4 Fisheye USM IS Macro (on April 1)
\:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You must be crazy

BradT0517
18th of September 2006 (Mon), 16:30
o just saw the april first part

calicokat
18th of September 2006 (Mon), 17:10
I'd like them to release a TS-E 600mm f/4 Fisheye USM IS Macro (on April 1)
:)

Me too, as long as its under $1,000.00 ;)

Lightstream
19th of September 2006 (Tue), 05:11
A fisheye telephoto! That would be interesting.... it would put peleng out of business ;)

calicokat
19th of September 2006 (Tue), 15:20
That would be very interesting, is it possible though

BradT0517
19th of September 2006 (Tue), 21:38
That would be very interesting, is it possible though

yeah just as much as the Canon 10-600mm F1.0 DO IS L

calicokat
20th of September 2006 (Wed), 02:45
Even better :eek: