Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions 
Thread started 25 Feb 2009 (Wednesday) 14:06
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon's most NEEDED Lenses

 
chrismid259
Member
Avatar
156 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Liverpool, UK
     
Jul 15, 2013 16:18 |  #241

14-24mm 2.8 would be nice. Nikon have one. It would be nice to see Canon produce this glass.


Fujifilm X-T3, X-H1
Website (external link) | Instagram (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Twitter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Tom ­ Reichner
"That's what I do."
Avatar
16,042 posts
Gallery: 180 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6231
Joined Dec 2008
Location: from Pennsylvania, now in Washington state, road trip back and forth a lot, with extensive detouring
     
Jul 15, 2013 20:42 |  #242

gocolts wrote in post #16111110 (external link)
200-600 f/5.6L.

Essentially a Sigma 120-300 OS with 2X TC, only designed without f/2.8 in mind (obviously), keeping the weight down, and with "L" quality/dependability. Although- I realize you essentially get that with the 200-400 f/4L lens, but I have to believe the price would be significantly cheaper without the need for f/4 or the built-in TC.

Actually, the closest thing is the Sigma 300-800mm f5.6, which does exist. From all accounts, it is a very good lens, but the lack of stabilization greatlly hampers sales. I know I would not buy one unless it had OS, but if it did have OS, I would very seriously consider using it as my primary lens.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
StudioAbe
BAAAAAAN!!!
Avatar
1,933 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 1001
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Westchester County, NY
     
Jul 15, 2013 21:18 as a reply to  @ post 7826693 |  #243

Apologies if has been mentioned already (I did search within thread) but did not see it noted.

EF-S lenses with a red ring (EF-S L)

Or perhaps a blue ring to distinguish it from the L lenses (EF-SL)



If it's in focus, it's pornography, if it's out of focus, it's art.
EOS R & 5DsR | + gear | StudioAbe (external link) | Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,203 posts
Gallery: 37 photos
Likes: 9836
Joined Aug 2010
Location: AL | GA Stateline
     
Jul 16, 2013 08:54 |  #244

I agree with Tom regarding the need/desire for a 400mm f/4L IS USM (optimized for use with 1.4x and 2x extenders that is the equal (IQ, AF, and stabilization performance) of the 500 & 600 f/4L IS II USM lenses. The lighter weight and smaller size would a very nice advantage that a 400 f/4L would have over the 500 and 600mm lenses (or the 200-400mm for that matter). It would still be pricey though. :)

Considering there is already a 300mm f/4L, the absence of a 400mm f/4L is a notable gap in Canon's lens lineup of f/4 supertelephoto primes.


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony: α7R II | Sony: 24GM, 12-24G, 24-105G, 200-600G | Sigma Art: 14-24, 35 F1.2, 105 Macro | Zeiss Batis: 85, 135 | Zeiss Loxia: 21, 35, 85 | Voigtländer: 12

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
virsago_mk2
Senior Member
Avatar
600 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Perth (Australia) & Semarang (Indonesia)
     
Jul 16, 2013 09:36 |  #245

David Arbogast wrote in post #16124799 (external link)
I agree with Tom regarding the need/desire for a 400mm f/4L IS USM (optimized for use with 1.4x and 2x extenders that is the equal (IQ, AF, and stabilization performance) of the 500 & 600 f/4L IS II USM lenses. The lighter weight and smaller size would a very nice advantage that a 400 f/4L would have over the 500 and 600mm lenses (or the 200-400mm for that matter). It would still be pricey though. :)

Considering there is already a 300mm f/4L, the absence of a 400mm f/4L is a notable gap in Canon's lens lineup of f/4 supertelephoto primes.

That's why there's 400mm F4 DO. Give it a try. I absolutely love mine.


Gear: Here | Portfolio: Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommy1957
Goldmember
1,288 posts
Joined Apr 2013
     
Jul 16, 2013 11:21 |  #246

I'd love to two new APS-c lenses. Both f/1.4 (1.2?) primes. One at 10-12 mm, the other at 14-16mm.
Surely, they'd sell a boat-load of them. Oh, I like the idea of EF-sL, too. Let's make it a bright green ring!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shinksma
Senior Member
Avatar
710 posts
Joined Jul 2011
     
Jul 16, 2013 12:12 |  #247

Tommy1957 wrote in post #16125214 (external link)
I'd love to two new APS-c lenses. Both f/1.4 (1.2?) primes. One at 10-12 mm, the other at 14-16mm.
Surely, they'd sell a boat-load of them. Oh, I like the idea of EF-sL, too. Let's make it a bright green ring!

Bright green ring is reserved for the Diffractive Optics (DO) line - all two or three lenses.

Yellow is associated with Nikon. Orange is too close to red (or yellow). Blue is...hmm, is blue taken?

Maybe lavender/purple/plum/v​iolet?

As for EF-S "L"...I guess the gold-ring EF-S lenses are "about as good" as the gold-ring EF lenses (e.g. 28mm 1.8). I'm not sure what Canon could do to an EF-S lens to up the ante to an "L" equivalence: weather sealing would be useless (APS-C camera bodies aren't sealed, AFAIK), maybe they could use more metal vs plastic (I'm not sure that truly increases quality, but it is certainly a perception). I guess they could include the hood like they do with L lenses.

shinksma


5DII | T3i | EF 17-40 L | EF 24-105 L | EF 24 1.4 L II | EF 28 1.8 | EF 85 1.8 | EF 70-200 2.8 L IS II | EF 100-400 L | EF-S 15-85 IS USM | EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM | EF-S 10-22 USM | EF 100 2.8 Macro USM | EF-S 18-55 IS | EF 35-80 III | EF-S 55-250 IS | Rokinon 8mm FE | EF 75-300 non-USM III | SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 | Tamron 70-210 | 430EX II | Kenko 2x MC4 and 1.4x Pro300DGX TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommy1957
Goldmember
1,288 posts
Joined Apr 2013
     
Jul 16, 2013 14:12 |  #248

Thanks, I forgot about the DO lenses. OK, forget EF-sL. Just give me a smaller, lighter 12mm f/1.2 prime and a 15mm f/1.2 prime. I'm down on the 15, for sure.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
brettjrob
Dr. Goodness PHD
Avatar
470 posts
Likes: 30
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Norman, OK USA
     
Jul 16, 2013 15:13 |  #249

Tommy1957 wrote in post #16125214 (external link)
I'd love to two new APS-c lenses. Both f/1.4 (1.2?) primes. One at 10-12 mm, the other at 14-16mm.
Surely, they'd sell a boat-load of them. Oh, I like the idea of EF-sL, too. Let's make it a bright green ring!

I wonder whether relatively expensive, fast UWA primes for APS-C would sell that well, though. It seems like the type of lens that more experienced/pro/high-budget users would be after, and a lot of them have moved or are planning soon to move to full-frame. Maybe I'm off-base, though.


Nikon D610, D5100
Samyang 14/2.8 | Nikon 18-35G, 24-85G VR, 70-200/4G VR

Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | skyinmotion.com (external link)
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"That's what I do."
Avatar
16,042 posts
Gallery: 180 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6231
Joined Dec 2008
Location: from Pennsylvania, now in Washington state, road trip back and forth a lot, with extensive detouring
     
Jul 16, 2013 15:32 |  #250

brettjrob wrote in post #16125864 (external link)
I wonder whether relatively expensive, fast UWA primes for APS-C would sell that well, though. It seems like the type of lens that more experienced/pro/high-budget users would be after, and a lot of them have moved or are planning soon to move to full-frame. Maybe I'm off-base, though.

You're not off-base at all. Very fast lenses are very expensive. The people who have the money and the desire for such a fast lens usually know that when shooting that wide (10mm to 16mm), it makes the most sense to use a full frame camera.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommy1957
Goldmember
1,288 posts
Joined Apr 2013
     
Jul 16, 2013 15:34 |  #251

You could be right about a lot of people who would buy those lenses moving to FF, instead. I tried a 5D. Nice. But the move completely to full frame would require: body, 16-35 II, or 17-40 and one of the fast primes. Plus a 24-70 II. It just started to get prohibitively expensive for a hobby shooter like me. And I would have to give up my 10-22 & 15-85 to be able to afford the move. The 24-105 would be a downgrade, IMHO, hence the two lenses I chose. I already have 70+ covered with EF glass. I don't see moving to FF until I can afford the latest incarnation of the 5Dn series, maybe never. The 6D sure was tempting, though. I, for one, would love a 15mm f/1.2 APS-c prime. Especially since with no weather-sealing and the smaller glass, Canon could probably sell it for $1,100. I'd take the first one.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frankchn
Senior Member
460 posts
Likes: 158
Joined Jun 2009
     
Jul 19, 2013 12:38 |  #252

Tommy1957 wrote in post #16125916 (external link)
You could be right about a lot of people who would buy those lenses moving to FF, instead. I tried a 5D. Nice. But the move completely to full frame would require: body, 16-35 II, or 17-40 and one of the fast primes. Plus a 24-70 II. It just started to get prohibitively expensive for a hobby shooter like me. And I would have to give up my 10-22 & 15-85 to be able to afford the move. The 24-105 would be a downgrade, IMHO, hence the two lenses I chose. I already have 70+ covered with EF glass. I don't see moving to FF until I can afford the latest incarnation of the 5Dn series, maybe never. The 6D sure was tempting, though. I, for one, would love a 15mm f/1.2 APS-c prime. Especially since with no weather-sealing and the smaller glass, Canon could probably sell it for $1,100. I'd take the first one.

A Rokinon 16mm f/2 (external link) sells for $480 on Adorama. One and a half stop faster + autofocus + Canon premium and you are looking at a lens is going to cost the same as a 24L II.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shuter113
Member
50 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 124
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Schererville, IN
     
Jul 19, 2013 18:18 as a reply to  @ StudioAbe's post |  #253

I agree. I would love to see a 17-55 L for my 7D.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BrickR
Cream of the Crop
5,935 posts
Likes: 115
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Dallas TX
     
Jul 21, 2013 15:42 |  #254

I don't really get the desire for L EF-s glass.
It will come with a Luxury price boost and may or may not get true weather sealing (not all L glass is weather sealed). Why pay so much more for a lens that only works on crop bodies? At least current L lenses work on FF AND crop. A 17-55L would add @$400-$500 and extra weight and only be usable on crops...and as mentioned, the majority of crop bodies are not weather sealed anyway.
I'm just curious why the craving for the red ring on EFs glass??? Does the title matter that much?


My junk
The grass isn't greener on the other side, it's green where you water it.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MrMitch
Member
Avatar
193 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 39
Joined Apr 2013
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jul 21, 2013 18:27 |  #255

200-800L? Basically like the 100-400L with longer reach. Then a new 100-400L which would include better IQ which the 200-800L would have also. :D


Mitch
Trying to make a commercial passenger jet mega-thread: https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=15968272#po​st15968272

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

41,230 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon's most NEEDED Lenses
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
871 guests, 257 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.