(wish Canon made a) 28-135 f/2.8L IS

[lost]

OMG I wish they made this. It is the answer to what is missing in Canon's Std. Telephoto Zoom Line.

Anyone else would be interested in this? Seems to me to be the absolute best walk around lens. Sell like hotcakes.

No this is not a report of a new lens. Just my biggest wish.

[Andy_T]

:(

Lost,

you'll get a lot of hits on this thread and also a lot of disappointed readers.

Is that what you want?

Best regards,
Andy

[lost]

NO I am just gauging interest and maybe Canon will take notice of what is lacking in their line-up.

[Jon]

They (and everyone else) are also missing full-frame 10-500 mm f/2.0, which mention I'm sure would also get a lot of hits and interest, but I don't expect to see one in my next three lifetimes.

[cmM]

Lost,



you'll get a lot of hits on this thread and also a lot of disappointed readers.



Is that what you want?



Best regards,

Andy

<- Here's one

[lost]

Ok maybe the title is a little miss leading. :lol:

[Citizensmith]

I disagree that it is a key missing item. You need to look at the direction Canon is going. They are pushing heavily on the small sensor digitals. Film cameras will gradually fade away, and full frame digital, at least medium term, will remain an expensive proffessional line. Consequently a 28 to anything lens is too long to really be a walk around lens.

Secondly, look at the $1150 24-70 f/2.8L. You are asking for a lens with a wider range, and IS. Think how expensive it would be.

[lost]

The reasoning behind my statement is that I am investing in glass right now. I recently purchased the 70-200 f/4. Lovely but found the f/4 limiting so probably upgrading.

Canon has the ultra wide end covered with the L-like 10-22. and the 24-70 is really nice but 70 is not nearly long enough for about 25% of my shots. I rarely use anything outside 28-135. Thats just me. But I want L quality! so What am I to do? Yes I can get the 24-70 but then I have to cary 2 lenses. Just my opinion.

Well ask my wife I LOVE TO DREAM!! And this is one for me.

[Jesper]

For my 1.6x crop factor camera (10D), I'd rather have a full frame (not EF-S) 17-85 f/2.8L IS USM.

I have the 17-40 f/4L and the 28-135, but I find I need to swap between them often when I want to shoot the environment (17-40) and when I shoot portraits of people (28-135).

The range of the EF-S 17-85 would be just right for both, but since it's an EF-S it doesn't fit on my 10D.

[webman06]

At first they said that they would only build one lens for the EF-S mount and as it turned out, Mister Canon misslead us and the EF-S lineup is growing and the EF lineup is standstill !!!
My 1DmkII does not accept EF-S and i would like more options to my EF mount to satisfy my x1.3 sensor. What is Mister Canon doing for me ??? Nothing it seems, as they have so much to gain now that they have increased their sales volume with 300D, 20D and now 350D that all accept EF-S and EF !!!

What is the plan now ???

Cheers,

Philippe

[cc10d]

BUMMER !!

[raylks]

God, I read from the title of the thread and misunderstand that there is really a new L lens rolled out and it is of such ideal range!
If it is this, I would more prefer Canon to produce 18-135mm or 18-200mm f2.8L lens. This suits DSLR camera as well.

[Barb42]

:( i was excited for a short little minute.

[pwell]

Yeah I think a 18-135L would be the ticket. Except for Canon it would take the place of multiple other lenses,so I dunno if they would do that (as nice as it would be).

[CyberDyneSystems]

title edited ;)

[pcasciola]

For my 1.6x crop factor camera (10D), I'd rather have a full frame (not EF-S) 17-85 f/2.8L IS USM.Same here. 28-135 is a great range on a full frame, so 17-85/2.8L IS would be perfect for the 1.6x cameras.

[roanjohn]

It's never going to happen..........

.....but I could be wrong...........

In this situation.........I actually wish that I'm wrong.

Ro1

[who me?]

Personally, I would LOVE to see a midrange zoom that would be longer than the 24-70. I have the 17-40 and 100-400 and bought the 24-85 in a pinch (and the recommendation of my salesman). I used this lens for most of a weekend under various conditions and I found the top end too short for me. I had completly forgotten about the 28-105 but I also know this is in the same 'consumer' level as the 24-85.
Even with the 1.6 cameras, a nice 28-105 or 28-135 L lens with a F4 or F2.8-4 would be a nice addition to the Canon line. I know that smacks the 24-70 range and would surely hurt sales of that lens BUT, if Canon made it, I would buy it in a second. That would fill my gap much better and would prove very useful to me.AND it wouldn't have to have IS. IMO, it would probably be a nice lens for the FF sensor crowd too.
I originally was going to buy the 24-70 but an $$ emergency forced the purchase of the 24-85 so the thought of spending $1K+ on a midrange zoom is still a viable option for me now that things are better $$ wise.
BTW, what ever happened to the 35-105 zooms they used to have?