Updated lenses I'd love to see from Canon

[TimothyHughes]

24-70mm f/2.8L IS

24-105mm f/2.8L IS

85mm f/1.4 EF

35mm f/1.8 EF

[FretNoMore]

Other than the 24-70/2.8L IS I wouldn't call that "updates", the other three would be new lenses.

[Double Negative]

24-70mm f/2.8L IS
This lens would have the density and mass of a small neutron star... :D

[TimothyHughes]

This lens would have the density and mass of a small neutron star... :D

Well they can do it with the 70-200 so they'll just have to try harder. :)


Other than the 24-70/2.8L IS I wouldn't call that "updates", the other three would be new lenses.

True. I guess I meant to say "out with the old, in with the new".

Nikon already makes an 85mm f/1.4 and we don't want them to win now do we? :-) :-)

[Mr. Clean]

lol - that 24-70l 2.8 IS would be like 2k! :rolleyes:

[surfologist]

24-70mm f/2.8L IS

24-105mm f/2.8L IS

85mm f/1.4 EF

35mm f/1.8 EF


I would like this one 24-70mm f/2.8L IS
I havent bought the non IS, because of that reason. I still want it thought!!

[ed rader]

lol - that 24-70l 2.8 IS would be like 2k! :rolleyes:

i wouldn't want it. i paid less that half that for my 24-70L and IS wouldn't benefit me much and probably would adversely affect IQ.

ed rader

[Ronald S. Jr.]

24-70mm f/2.8L IS- Might happen. It'd be awful heavy for a standard zoom, though. Close to the 70-200L IS, I'm sure.

24-105mm f/2.8L IS- Too close to the first lens. It's the same thing with more reach. More reach= more weight, and I don't think even the first would fly with most people.

85mm f/1.4 EF- Won't happen. Already a 1.2 and a 1.8. No need for a third.

35mm f/1.8 EF- Same as the 85...there's already a 1.4 and an f/2.

[TimothyHughes]

I think Canon should the replace the old models with new ones (hypothetically). The Canon EF line hasn't been updated in years and digital bodies have different needs than 35mm. For example the 35mm f/2.0 EF supposedly is prone to CA, flare, and evidently is soft wide open. It's time for updates to the EF line IMO.

85mm f/1.4 EF- Won't happen. Already a 1.2 and a 1.8. No need for a third.

I agree it won't likely happen, but it sure would be nice to have an alternative to the $2000 f/1.2L.

[FretNoMore]

What do you mean by "EF line"? All their lenses (except the EF-S) are "EF lenses".
Do you perhaps mean "non-L" or "consumer grade lenses"?

[Jamie Holladay]

I would like too see a 24-70L IS as well. But jeeze that thing is already a brick and what a price tag it would have then.

[Billginthekeys]

This lens would have the density and mass of a small neutron star... :D
i bet if u dropped one it would form its own small black hole aswell :lol:

its also highly unrealistic to say "canon needs to update the EF line" most of the best lenses canon makes are five years old or more. The fact is most lenses work fine like they are. also, the 85 1.4 wouldnt serve much of a purpose, the 85 1.8 is already a great lens, and the 1.2 is a specialty lens for portraits and the like.

[sboerup]

I'd rather have a 24-105 f2.8 than a 24-70 L IS. The IS on the 24-70 would increase the weight significantly. Plus, i would rather have a sharper lens than IS, the 24-70 is a great lens, but my primes just beat it hands down every time.

A 200 f2 would be great (maybe a revision of the 200 1.8) but without the rediculous pricetag (and weight, but thats a dream). I'd love to see some better WA options for the EF line from Canon. Not to pleased with any of their WA lenses. 17-40 not wide enough, 16-35 not a real improvement on price. Maybe a 14-24 L? That'd be cool.

The only REAL revision that I'd like to see from Canon is a 135L IS. That'd be Fn awesome. Maybe the 85 1.2L IS as well to help with those tricky f1.2 shots.

[Jaetie]

85mm f/1.4 EF- Won't happen. Already a 1.2 and a 1.8. No need for a third.

35mm f/1.8 EF- Same as the 85...there's already a 1.4 and an f/2.

not going to happen?
canon has 4 of those 50mms! f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2, f/1.0
even if you discount the discontinued f/1.0, there's still 3 of those around.

[Jaetie]

A 200 f2 would be great [maybe a revision of the 200 1.8] but without the rediculous pricetag (and weight, but thats a dream).

I'd love to see some better WA options for the EF line from Canon. Not to pleased with any of their WA lenses. 17-40 not wide enough, 16-35 not a real improvement on price. Maybe a 14-24 L? That'd be cool.

The only REAL revision that I'd like to see from Canon is a 135L IS. That'd be Fn awesome. Maybe the 85 1.2L IS as well to help with those tricky f1.2 shots.

the 200mm without the pricetag and weight, will never happen.

and a 14-24L? i guess it will be kind of slow eh, like the sigma 12-24mm. on a full frame, besides fun and unique shots, the only use of the lens will be landscapes. and for landscapes, there are L primes already. plus if people are going to use it on aps-c bodies, there's already a efs 10-22mm boasting L optics.

lastly, i don't think tricky f/1.2 shots needs IS. how fast is the shutter speed with f/1.2 already?

[Tom W]

I think that Canon should periodically replace their entire lens lineup, if only to add the "Mk II" nomenclature. After all, it's not image quality that matters - it's fashion. And new is in fashion. </sarcasm>

Really, unless a marked improvement in IQ is to be had, it is silly to replace existing lenses. One of Canon's oldest designs is the 50/1.4. It's unbeatable at its price. Same with the 15 mm fisheye and the 35/2. Good lens designs that are simple, and provide good results.

There are plenty of older lenses of many brands out there that are working just fine (and none of those 30-60 year-old lenses are "digital ready" either). People are paying a premium to buy certain older lenses and adapting them to their Canon cameras.

[FretNoMore]

I agree in principle though I wouldn't mind if the 35/2 and 50/1.4 were updated with silent USM focusing. Optically they are fine lenses but the focusing of the 35/2 is buzzy and the 50/1.4 not all that precise.

[chris clements]

As has been said, the original nominations aren't updates and/or need weightlifters to use.

IMHO the most overdue for a redesign is the 100-400 dust trombone.

[Salleke]

24-70mm f/2.8L IS

24-105mm f/2.8L IS

85mm f/1.4 EF

35mm f/1.8 EF

You make me drool just like pasta e fazul ... ;) ;) ;)

[BryanP]

a 24-105 would be a hefty lens since it needs a lot more glass to keep the aperture constant throughout that longer focal range.

integrating IS into a lens like that would also add more weight

[OiPaz]

canon has 4 of those 50mms! f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2, f/1.0
even if you discount the discontinued f/1.0, there's still 3 of those around.
And don't forget the 50mm f/2.5 Macro!

[OiPaz]

a 24-105 would be a hefty lens since it needs a lot more glass to keep the aperture constant throughout that longer focal range.

integrating IS into a lens like that would also add more weight
Not so much.
Look at the 70-200s: weight difference between IS and non-IS version is about 10%, while weight difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is about 90%. And that makes sense as adding IS just means to add one moving glass and some electronics, while to gain one stop you have do double the area of every glass in the lens.

[Lightstream]

Updates I'd like to see:

35 f/2 converted to ultrasonic while retaining similarly low price tag
300 f/4L IS with state-of-the-art updated IS and weathersealing (again at same price point)
400/5.6L with same IS above (make it a couple hundred more to cover the cost of the IS)

New glass:
14-24L sounds fantastic. Heck make it F4, I would be happy enough to have a truly staggeringly ULTRA-wide. Would like it to take CPLs but this is optional. I hear there is a Sigma version, but come on Canon - sell me an L! :D

[In2Photos]

Updates I'd like to see:

35 f/2 converted to ultrasonic while retaining similarly low price tag
300 f/4L IS with state-of-the-art updated IS and weathersealing (again at same price point)
400/5.6L with same IS above (make it a couple hundred more to cover the cost of the IS)



Yes please! If the 400 had IS my decison between it and the 300 would be even harder. Right now the 300 has the edge because of the IS and close focus distance. So make the 400 w/ the new 4-stop IS and shorten the focus distance to like 5 or 6 feet would be awesome. I would definately buy it over the 300 then.

[lensview]

I agree in principle though I wouldn't mind if the 35/2 and 50/1.4 were updated with silent USM focusing. Optically they are fine lenses but the focusing of the 35/2 is buzzy and the 50/1.4 not all that precise.

I think there are more important issues to fix rather than go after "buzzines" in some micromotor lenses:

* 50 f/1.4....improve MTF performance in the aperture range f/1.4-f/2.8. (retrofit ring USM).
* 28 f/1.8...improve MTF performance, scrap the other 28mm prime.
* 20 f/2.8...scrap the existing lens, develop a brand new world class 20 f/2.8.
* 400 f/5.6...retrofit with IS.

[Double Negative]

Many lenses in the EF line are based on tried-and-true FD lenses and some even FL. The optical design has improved somewhat over the years using new technologies and packaged in a new shell - but there's only so much you can do when it comes down to it.

The new things, especially for L's like weather/dust sealing and distance information plus maybe a USM revision are welcome changes.

There are definitely some lenses that could use a little love. My favorite, the ol' 35mm f/2.0 lens is actually a very, very good lens. It's just a bit low-end and long in the tooth.

[lensview]

My favorite, the ol' 35mm f/2.0 lens is actually a very, very good lens. It's just a bit low-end and long in the tooth.

I also think it is, more than some people realize. The other day I did yet another very casual 35mm comparative shootout: f2.0 and f1.4 lenses wide open in a shady woodlot. The f2.0 stood its ground well IQ wise and AF wise, even when pushed.
These two 35 f/2.0 JPG images have not been cropped nor processed, unsupported 20D, flash not used.

[rklepper]

Not sure what the need to have IS on a short lens is. Seems it really only helps when on a longer lens.

[homera1]

I would like to see the Canon 400m f2.8 L updated to £987.91 please ;-)

[lensview]

Not sure what the need to have IS on a short lens is. Seems it really only helps when on a longer lens.

Try handholding a shot at 50 mm and 1/10 sec....see what you get.;)
Obviously, camera shake induced blur is a not only a function of FL but shutter speed as well.

The issue of IS on standard and WA lenses is that it becomes effective on very low shutter speeds at which much of the action around us (except very slow action like grass growth), can not be stopped any more. However, IS helps on static objects like low light architectural scenes etc..

[TimothyHughes]

Most useful to me would be an 85mm f/1.4 in the $800-$1000 range. I'm just sayin'...

I suppose I could get by with a 24-70mm L. The 24-105mm sounds great on a FF body except... I shoot alternative sports (roller derby and aerial dance) in very low light conditions. I'm sure the f/4.0 would give me focus issues with the moving subjects.

[Chris L]

lol - that 24-70l 2.8 IS would be like 2k! :rolleyes:

Is that $2000 or 2 kilogrammes? :lol:

[OiPaz]

14-24L sounds fantastic. Heck make it F4, I would be happy enough to have a truly staggeringly ULTRA-wide. Would like it to take CPLs but this is optional. I hear there is a Sigma version, but come on Canon - sell me an L! :D
Actually the Sigma one is better than that: it's a 12-24mm! :)
And with a god reputation, as well (except for some inevitable corner softness on FF).

[Lightstream]

Actually the Sigma one is better than that: it's a 12-24mm! :)
And with a god reputation, as well (except for some inevitable corner softness on FF).

Oh yeah, I forgot. I have actually handled and shot that lens before, though not under optimal conditions. Nice lens, just that you can't use a CPL on it.

Corners are a little soft at full frame, but I didn't have enough light to stop it down to f/8, which I usually do. I'm sure they will clean up just like my 17-40.

[DrPablo]

85mm f/1.4 EF

What's wrong with the 85 f/1.8?

Sharp, good build, compact, great bokeh, and unbeatable price.

f/1.4 is less than half a stop faster than f/1.8, and your DOF will effectively change from 1 inch to 3/4 of an inch.

If you're looking for something in the $1000 range you could get a used 85 f/1.2L Mk I somewhere, or adapt an 85 f/1.4 Summilux.

[Sprout Crumble]

Amazing how many people seem to be crying out for faster versions of existing lenses or just updates.
Given Canons curent predeliction for ripping the ass out of us on pricing are you all hoping to be priced out of your hobby?

Some sensible updates are IS on the 400/5.6 and a new 200/1.8 but why a 24-70/2.8 with IS? Benefits are marginal and the price would make you weep. Same with a 24-105/2.8. Thats a three grand lens.
One lens that needs updating is the 100-400L.

[lensview]

Amazing how many people seem to be crying out for faster versions of existing lenses or just updates.
Given Canons curent predeliction for ripping the ass out of us on pricing are you all hoping to be priced out of your hobby?

Some sensible updates are IS on the 400/5.6 and a new 200/1.8 but why a 24-70/2.8 with IS? Benefits are marginal and the price would make you weep. Same with a 24-105/2.8. Thats a three grand lens.
One lens that needs updating is the 100-400L.

Well, Sprout, I agree with you on:
(1) 400 f/5.6 IS
(2) 200 f/1.8 IS
(3) 24-70 f/2.8 needs no IS.

However, what's wrong with your 100-400 ? Mine works just fine.:)

[DrPablo]

If I'm craving anything, it's just optically better versions of what they already have.

For instance, I'd LOVE it if my 24mm TS-E were actually sharp and didn't have awful CA

I'd love it if the 17-40L were as sharp as the Nikon 17-35 in the corners (very sad that a number of pro Canon landscape photographers on FM felt they had to adapt the Nikon 17-35 to their 5D and 1DsII).

I'd take a sharp 14mm f/4L for $1000 over a soft 14mm f/2.8L for $1700 any day of the week

[Double Negative]

100-400mm f/4L IS. Rings, not push-pull. :D

[lensview]

100-400mm f/4L IS. Rings, not push-pull. :D

Righto, at 5k$+ those lenses would fly off retailer shelves like there wouldn't be tomorrow.:rolleyes:

[volleybrad]

I think an update to give the 100-400 the most recent version of IS would be nice. I think it currently has the 1st gen which is good for 2 stops. I think the third gen. is good for 3 stops..

[Double Negative]

Righto, at 5k$+ those lenses would fly off retailer shelves like there wouldn't be tomorrow.:rolleyes:
Well hey, we can dream - right? :D

[lensview]

Well hey, we can dream - right? :D

Hey, switch to Nikon and presto, a dream becomes a reality.:lol:

[Double Negative]

Hey, switch to Nikon and presto, a dream becomes a reality.:lol:

I'm not THAT desperate. :D

[OiPaz]

I think an update to give the 100-400 the most recent version of IS would be nice. I think it currently has the 1st gen which is good for 2 stops. I think the third gen. is good for 3 stops..
You think right!
And, by the way, the IV generation IS (out soon, with the brand new 70-200/4IS) should be good for 4 stops, after 3 seconds. Actually i LOVE my 100-400 and its push-pull zoom, and the IS is the only aspect they can improve on that lens (make it f/4 would mean a 3 o 4 kg huge lens, so a completely different one as the good thing about the 100-400 is its easy hand-holdability).

[kevinsyn]

Still holding out for my EF 1-600mm f1.2L IS....... fingers crossed!

Actually the 24-70 f/2.8 L IS would be amazing and i would snatch that up. Or EF 17-55mm L IS. I shoot a lot of low light conditions and the 2.8 and IS would be both amazing to have a long with the L build.

[DrPablo]

Those would both have a pretty steep price tag. I'd imagined that 24-70 f/2.8 is to 24-70 f/2.8 IS what the 70-200 f/2.8 and IS versions are to one another. So you're looking at a $1700 or so lens.

I could see the 17-40 f/4L or 16-35 f/2.8L with IS, but you'd probably be looking at $1000 and $1500 respectively. I mean the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is over $1000, and the EF-S lenses have less glass than the EF lenses.

[DEMO]

I would like to see a 24-105 f2.8L NON IS. I have a sigma 24-70 and I find it alittle short at times. I was thinking of going with the current 24-105 f4L but I need the faster of the lens for low light and sports. AHHHHhhh... one could only wish.

[kevinsyn]

I would like to see a 24-105 f2.8L NON IS. I have a sigma 24-70 and I find it alittle short at times. I was thinking of going with the current 24-105 f4L but I need the faster of the lens for low light and sports. AHHHHhhh... one could only wish.


Well since this is theoretically what lenses we want, might as well throw in the IS for the 24-105 f/2.8L too?

[DEMO]

It would be nice combo but I could do with out on the IS especially for the price.

[Billginthekeys]

It would be nice combo but I could do with out on the IS especially for the price.
a 24-105 2.8 would already be Massive in size and price to begin with.

[NBEast]

The 300 f4.0 IS hasn't been mentioned. Simply updating the AF and IS systems on that lens would be a nice improvement to a decent, but aging solution.

I'd cry a little because the value of mine would drop, but I'd also probably sell and get the new one.

[AdamJL]

a 24-105 2.8 would already be Massive in size and price to begin with.

I won't be TOO big. It would be a good lens to be honest, and I'd definitely look into it.

Personally, I'd love a replacement to the 100-400, simply with Canon's latest IS. One stop vs the latest of 4 is a big difference!

[Lightstream]

I'd like mine internal zoom, internal focus, weather hardened, and dust-pump-free. No joking. I am fully aware this will make the lens the size of the 70-200 f/2.8 ISL. Bring it on!!!! :D

(and I wish I could afford it, period! Betcha Canon will charge me an arm, a leg, and other unmentionable bits n pieces..)

[OiPaz]

I'd love a replacement to the 100-400, simply with Canon's latest IS. One stop vs the latest of 4 is a big difference!
Actually it's two stops vs four, but I agree: it would be a big (and welcomed) difference anyway!

BTW, a 24-105/2.8IS could be about 1.3 kg, considering the difference between the 70-200s. That's too heavy for a walk around lens, imho.

[TimothyHughes]

There is a rumor Canon is redesigning the 35mm EF (non L) lens (source: somewhere on the POTN forums). My guess is they would design it with a USM motor this time around. Here's what I'd love to see in the hypothetical redesign in order of importance :idea:

1) 7-blade aperture
2) Spot on autofocus right out of box (wide-open)
3) f/1.8 speed
4) Sharper at corners
5) Less vignetting
6) USM motor

I'm feeling very optimistic today!

[fi20100]

There is a rumor Canon is redesigning the 35mm EF (non L) lens (source: somewhere on the POTN forums). My guess is they would design it with a USM motor this time around. Here's what I'd love to see in the hypothetical redesign in order of importance :idea:

1) 7-blade aperture
2) Spot on autofocus right out of box (wide-open)
3) f/1.8 speed
4) Sharper at corners
5) Less vignetting
6) USM motor

I'm feeling very optimistic today!


Would you say that 7-blade aperture is better than for instance 8-blade aperture?

[Double Negative]

Would you say that 7-blade aperture is better than for instance 8-blade aperture?

No - eight is better as it produces a rounder aperture and thus, better bokeh. It's better than the usual five in the low-end lenses, though.

As for a refreshed 35mm, that would be awesome. The lower-end one needs USM (badly) and the L could use weather sealing.

[fi20100]

Well, that's what I thought :) Usually an even number blade should be better :)

[TimothyHughes]

My mistake. 8-blades would be preferred. Both the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8 EF lenses use eight.

[exerda]

I would like an update to the 300f4L. Add weather sealing, updated IS, improve AF if possible.

A 400f4L would be nice, as it could be used with a 1.4x TC on prosumer-level body, but it would be fairly large and pricey, and there's always the 500 already there, and given the way prices are running these days, probably not a significant amount more.

[Lightstream]

I would like an update to the 300f4L. Add weather sealing, updated IS, improve AF if possible.

A 400f4L would be nice, as it could be used with a 1.4x TC on prosumer-level body, but it would be fairly large and pricey, and there's always the 500 already there, and given the way prices are running these days, probably not a significant amount more.

Definitely.. 300f/4L is so nice and small and easy to carry. Improvements all round would be wonderful. MkII!!

400 - Canon's got one offering there, and it's the Dffractive Optics version. It's practically the 500's price, though!

But it's surprisingly small. I saw one in person and it is even a bit smaller than the 300 f/2.8.

[Sprout Crumble]

I'd take a sharp 14mm f/4L for $1000 over a soft 14mm f/2.8L for $1700 any day of the week

Now thats a cool idea.



35 f/2 converted to ultrasonic while retaining similarly low price tag
300 f/4L IS with state-of-the-art updated IS and weathersealing (again at same price point)

Thats the prediction in this thread LEAST likely to come true mate... :D

[Lightstream]

Now thats a cool idea.




Thats the prediction in this thread LEAST likely to come true mate... :D


Ahahaha yeah :D

Just making a point to Canon.. they were kind enough to give me my 70-200 f/4L IS USM, the problem is, the price tag sticker shocked me into forgetting I ever wanted it :p

At $700-$800 it would be a compelling alternative, but it turns out at $1200, the 70-300 IS gives me MOST of the capabilities (90-95%) at $550..!

[MeanGreeny]

I think of all the responses the 400mm f5.6 IS would be a fantastic addition to the line up.

A relatively low weight, hand-holdable 400mm with high IQ, fast focus and 3-4 stops of IS would be an awsome piece of kit for all sorts of 'togs who need something a bit better than the slow, long end of a 70-300 zoom.

ARE YOU LISTENING CANON ?

:)

[Double Negative]

I think of all the responses the 400mm f5.6 IS would be a fantastic addition to the line up.

A relatively low weight, hand-holdable 400mm with high IQ, fast focus and 3-4 stops of IS would be an awsome piece of kit for all sorts of 'togs who need something a bit better than the slow, long end of a 70-300 zoom.

ARE YOU LISTENING CANON ?

:)

I can get behind this also... Though if I had a choice, f/4 would be nice. :p

[MeanGreeny]

I can get behind this also... Though if I had a choice, f/4 would be nice. :p

I'm not sure that f4 would make it as 'hand-holdable' ;)

[Double Negative]

I'm not sure that f4 would make it as 'hand-holdable' ;)

True... And the price would jump a bit. But the DO is expensive. :(

[Billginthekeys]

True... And the price would jump a bit. But the DO is expensive. :(
you know i saw once a picture showing a 400 F4 nonDO and DO in it while they were in planning. I guess canon decided to go with the DO, and not produce the Non DO. probably the best way to get a 400 F4 is the 300 2.8 and extender.

[Double Negative]

you know i saw once a picture showing a 400 F4 nonDO and DO in it while they were in planning. I guess canon decided to go with the DO, and not produce the Non DO. probably the best way to get a 400 F4 is the 300 2.8 and extender.

Agreed... That's the conclusion I'm pretty much arriving at, considering the 300mm and 400mm f/2.8 lenses.

[Myles7]

Glad we finally got onto the 300 2.8...:)

I'm sooo close to buying one - but it would be great if they released the latest 3+ stop IS for it - rather than the somewhat ageing 2-stops kit.

It's one of those changes that you'd think would be technically easy and cheap to implement.

The main reason (other than plain lens-lust) for wanting the 300 2.8 is the ability to put a TC on it and still get AF with sub-pro bodies. I'd probably be happier with a step-up from f5.6 AF capability to f8 across the range;)

[gardengirl13]

There is a rumor Canon is redesigning the 35mm EF (non L) lens (source: somewhere on the POTN forums). My guess is they would design it with a USM motor this time around. Here's what I'd love to see in the hypothetical redesign in order of importance :idea:

1) 7-blade aperture
2) Spot on autofocus right out of box (wide-open)
3) f/1.8 speed
4) Sharper at corners
5) Less vignetting
6) USM motor

I'm feeling very optimistic today!


With 8 blades I would buy this right away without hesitation! I love my f/2 but it's loud, a little slow with the AF and the bokeh is only ok.

[AdamJL]

28-300 IS, but upgraded to constant f/4 :lol:
Or if not, same lens currently, with no push/pull system but improved AF and IS.

[Double Negative]

With 8 blades I would buy this right away without hesitation! I love my f/2 but it's loud, a little slow with the AF and the bokeh is only ok.

They'll never put 8 blades or likely even 7 in this lens. That's what the L is for. ;)

However, USM might be a possibility.

[canoflan]

I'd love to see...10-200 f/2L IS for around $100.

[wsmith]

Hey guys !

What about a small and flat 10-800mm IS F/1.0-8.0 zoom, with one adaptive lens made of newkindium, some kind of living organic adaptive refractive material, all controlled by a neuronal to electronic interface, monted on an EF full frame system (reserved for full frame and incompatible with EF-S).
Would put to shame Nikon.

[jdos2]

I bought the 50 f/1.2 because I was hoping it would be an upgrade for the 50 f/1.4.
It is, in the areas I care about, but an expensive (and by some: dubious) option. It doesn't have the veil flare that the f/1.4 does when wide open, and I like that, and that's where I use the lens. It does a nice job with what I need.
Sadly, I think it's overpriced by quite a bit for the performance it returns. It most certainly doesn't seem as nice of a lens as even the 35mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.2, all things considered (build quality is "okay," but not solid like the 35mm, seems to share some 85mm plastic). I've occasionaly had doubts about its ability to focus accurately.

So my vote? I wish they'd update the 50 f/1.4 optically speaking, at the wider-open end. Better MTF, get rid of more of the veil, and keep the price lower. That's what I wanted in the first place.

35mm f/2 is dated. update it, please, and keep the price down.

Update the 28mm f/1.8 please, and do a better job with the quality contol! It took me four before I found one that would work well with two different 10D's (they are long gone- I mighta got a horrible batch of lenses, but they were indeed bad!)

Long glass is good. Pretty stuff.


Make a nice, sharp, wide prime. Current 20mm? Um... Nice and sharp at f/8, but this isn't 1959, and even my Metrogon-design lens (4 elements, 2 difficult to make) from the era seems to behave better.

Then again, I spoiled myself. I had a Leica and Contax G2 with the Good Lenses. Shame on me. :-)

[Double Negative]

Since this thread popped up again... How about a sharper 14mm f/2.8L for us croppers?