Canon 40-100mm 1.8 L IS

I've determined that this lens:

Canon 40-100mm 1.8 L IS

A. Would be absolutely perfect and would replace my primes
B. Would literally cost $3,000-$4,000
C. Would weigh a ton... (I suspect similar to the 200F2)
D. Will never be produced

Just to think.... this would sell like crazy.

Maybe Sigma will do it. They did make the 200-500 2.8 after all.

IMHO to be viable this lens would have to be wider (24mm or 28mm at most). Figure it would be twice the size of the 24-70 2.8s out there, and three or four times as expensive.

Anxiously waiting for the press release announcing this lens.

EF-S?

jrbdmb wrote in post #17230600
IMHO to be viable this lens would have to be wider (24mm or 28mm at most). Figure it would be twice the size of the 24-70 2.8s out there, and three or four times as expensive.

Anxiously waiting for the press release announcing this lens.

I would be big for sure. Heavy for sure.

You don't want wide. You want the ultimate portrait zoom. 40-100 would take the cake and it being 1.8 would be even better. I'd give up my 35 and my 85 and my 135 for this. It would be expensive but for most they could sell off these three and have 3200 bucks to buy it. I'd say it'd be similar in size/price as the 200 F2.

Why would you want it?

Presumably, it's a portrait lens. Given that you've specified f/1.8, you probably aren't doing studio-style shooting against a backdrop, and care about bokeh quality.

But the primes will almost certainly give you a better bokeh quality than the zoom and are faster. They'll probably also weigh less together than this single lens.

As for the zoom's advantage in framing, in the case of portraits at these focal lengths, it's just one step forwards or backwards with a prime. It's not like you're trying to frame landscapes with the lenses, where to correctly frame a prime could mean kilometres of movement (up into the air and over cliffs too) and a completely different foreground.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17239132
Why would you want it?

Presumably, it's a portrait lens. Given that you've specified f/1.8, you probably aren't doing studio-style shooting against a backdrop, and care about bokeh quality.

But the primes will almost certainly give you a better bokeh quality than the zoom and are faster. They'll probably also weigh less together than this single lens.

As for the zoom's advantage in framing, in the case of portraits at these focal lengths, it's just one step forwards or backwards with a prime. It's not like you're trying to frame landscapes with the lenses, where to correctly frame a prime could mean kilometres of movement (up into the air and over cliffs too) and a completely different foreground.

Well I say portraits but going out and about covering events or whatever.

Talley wrote in post #17239631
Well I say portraits but going out and about covering events or whatever.

You mean "out and about" with a dolly, right?

I don't see why it would have to be that big and heavy. 100mm f1.8 wouldn't be that big of a dia and only going to 40mm on the wide end shouldn't have to add on an outrageous amount of length/size/weight. I'd think it could easily be smaller than a 70-200 f2.8.

Take the relative size difference between the 200 f/2.8 prime and the 70-200/2.8 zoom and scale the 100/2 up accordingly.

40-100 f/1.8 IS looks like a solution searching for a problem.

Give me a 100mm f/1.8 IS Macro and I'm sold!