Canon's most NEEDED Lenses

What lenses do you feel Canon most needs? Not which lenses do you most want, although, if you are like me, you may not make the distinction. : )

I would say, with the new high pixel density MP DSLRs, they need UWAs that can resolve all those pixels right to the corners. The new TSE lenses are a step in that direction, but an expensive and specialized step. So, I'm thinking number one on the list would be a 12-28 / 4L. On the other hand, perhaps that should be number two, with many clamoring for a 24-70 / 2.8L IS. Then again, if Canon were to implement in-camera IS, then such a lens would not be "necessary", except to improve the optics to better compete with the Sigma and Nikon versions of the lens.

Next, on the long end, would be a 100-300 / 4L IS, 200-500 / 5.6L IS, 400 / 5.6L IS and perhaps even a 500 / 5.6L IS. I have a feeling that a lot of people are waiting for those lenses.

Moving on, I think they need to implement IS on primes below 300mm, or, my preferred option, implement in-camera IS, since the advantage of a stable viewfinder is not as great below 300mm, and all your lenses would get the benefit of IS without additional cost. After all, it seems to work fine on other systems.

In addition, I would say updates on a few primes, to include USM, and improve the optics a bit ala the 70-200 / 4 --> 70-200 / 4L IS. Thus, I would say a 20 / 2.8 USM, 24 / 2.8 USM, 35 / 2 USM, and a new 50 / 1.4 USM.

Lastly, a few new primes would be nice to add to the lineup. My list would be: 12 / 4L (landscape), 17 / 1.8L (street/candid), 17 / 2.8L (landscape), 24 / 2 (street/candid), and a 100 / 1.8L IS (1.4L if it didn't sacrifice AF speed and go overboard on size/weight/price).

So, how say you all?

a better built 50 f/1.4 --- I'm willing to pay up to 420 for a fully functional, smooth USM.

and 35 f/1.2

That is all I wish for.

Something under 70mm, f/2.8, and IS to complement the 70-200 2.8 IS

joe mama wrote in post #7405100
What lenses do you feel Canon most needs? Not which lenses do you most want, although, if you are like me, you may not make the distinction. : )

...Next, on the long end, would be a 100-300 / 4L IS, 200-500 / 5.6L IS, 400 / 5.6L IS and perhaps even a 500 / 5.6L IS. I have a feeling that a lot of people are waiting for those lenses...
So, how say you all?

Agree about tele.. maybe insteed of 100-300 and 200-500, 200-400 5.6L IS?
This will be great combination with 70-200.

Wide-angle primes, and an alternative to the 135L. The 35/2 is ancient, and both it and the 28/1.8 have poor corner performance. Based on reviews, the 20/2.8 doesn't seem very good, and a lack of speed doesn't help, so people on crop sensors don't have a great 35mm equivalent prime. The 24/2.8 is unattractive because it's neither exceptional optically nor faster than a standard zoom. The 135/2.8 is just old, and just about no one think it's worth buying.

The 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 are also a bit disappointing, but I think they're still fine.

Of course this would be nice, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon; they make a killing selling IS lenses. When was the last time you met a former Canon Sony convert for the sake of IS? They'd just tack on an extra $1k to the body, making up for lost revenue on the front end.

toxic wrote in post #7405167
Wide-angle primes, and an alternative to the 135L. The 35/2 is ancient, and both it and the 28/1.8 have poor corner performance. Based on reviews, the 20/2.8 doesn't seem very good, and a lack of speed doesn't help, so people on crop sensors don't have a great 35mm equivalent prime. The 24/2.8 is unattractive because it's neither exceptional optically nor faster than a standard zoom. The 135/2.8 is just old, and just about no one think it's worth buying.

The 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 are also a bit disappointing, but I think they're still fine.

Well, the 35 / 2 and 28 / 1.8 seem to have great performance on FF, even on the corners, by f/4:

http://www.slrgear.com​/reviews/showcat.php/c​at/10

The fact that they don't perform as well on crop indicates that they are not optically up to the higher pixel densities.

The 50 / 1.4 could use a bit of help below f/2 where it is a bit inconsistent, as well as ring USM. As for the 50 / 1.2L, it's my favorite lens:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/50l_gallery

That's not to say that it's perfect, but I have a feeling that its imperfections have more to do with Canon's AF than with the actual lens.

SnapLocally.com wrote in post #7405194
Of course this would be nice, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon; they make a killing selling IS lenses. When was the last time you met a former Canon Sony convert for the sake of IS? They'd just tack on an extra $1k to the body, making up for lost revenue on the front end.

The depressed economy, as well as Nikon stealing a lot of their sales, will hopefully induce Canon to consider otherwise to gain more customers. I'm not saying it will, of course, but they may wish to consider doing something besides sharing their consumer base with Nikon.

Easy, 24-70 IS. That should weigh about 10 pounds instead of 4.

SuzyView wrote in post #7405250
Easy, 24-70 IS. That should weigh about 10 pounds instead of 4.

DOH! I can't believe I forgot to include this! In any event, the IS shouldn't add much appreciable weight or size, ala the 70-200L --> 70-200L IS. However, given the compact size of the new Sigma 24-70 / 2.8 HSM, perhaps Canon could even trim it down a bit.

OK, off to edit the OP! : )

joe mama wrote in post #7405220
Well, the 35 / 2 and 28 / 1.8 seem to have great performance on FF, even on the corners, by f/4:

http://www.slrgear.com​/reviews/showcat.php/c​at/10

The fact that they don't perform as well on crop indicates that they are not optically up to the higher pixel densities.

Looking at slrgear, it looks like they aren't too bad, but take a look at digital picture and compare it to the 50/1.8, and tell me the corners aren't bad. Keep in mind the 28/1.8 is over $400.

I'm looking at wide-open and f/2.8 primarily, since I use them for low light. f/4 still isn't great, though, for either of the wide-angles, according to digital picture.

toxic wrote in post #7405282
Looking at slrgear, it looks like they aren't too bad, but take a look at digital picture and compare it to the 50/1.8, and tell me the corners aren't bad. Keep in mind the 28/1.8 is over $400.

I'm looking at wide-open and f/2.8 primarily, since I use them for low light. f/4 still isn't great, though, for either of the wide-angles, according to digital picture.

I'm not a fan of digital pictures tests, as a few of them contradicted my personal experience. Actually, I was recently thinking of the validity of lens tests in general. I mean, they have to focus pretty closely on those charts for their measurements, and the lens performance may substantially differ at such close focusing distances on a flat surface compared to real life use, no?

Anyway, the reality is that the edges won't matter much until f/4 (f/5.6, more likely) anyway since they'd be outside the DOF almost all the time. In fact, you could almost say that soft edges are a bonus at wider apertures as they might help create a smoother bokeh. On the other hand, they are a problem for shallow DOF off-center composition.

Here is my list that Canon should make:
200-400mm f/4 (IS or not)
24-60mm f/2.0 (won't be too long till Canon or Nikon releases a normal 2.0 zoom)
27-70mm f/2.8 IS
15mm EF-S f/2.8
400mm f/4.0 IS (Not DO)
12-24mm f/4.0
10mm EF-S f/2.8 Fisheye

I think a 100-300 f/4 IS would be a big seller, how many people here have a 70-200 f/4 with a teleconverter..

jetsetkiwi wrote in post #7405435
I think a 100-300 f/4 IS would be a big seller, how many people here have a 70-200 f/4 with a teleconverter..

Yeah you're right, but I'd still probably use the teleconverter with 100-300...