Your Canon lens wishlist?

I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I seriously see the benefits of the push pull. I certainly don't fancy the idea of a non push pulll 100-400

I believe that is down to the camera body and the lens it is mounted on. the 2x just tells the camera it is there...

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Are we ignoring physics and optical properties in this wish list here?
Like are these "M" lenses for "Magic"

Most of these fantasy long zooms would be waaaaaay too heavy if they were actually made with modern techniques!

There are allready 500mm f/4.5 primes.. and they weight 7 pounds or more... and cost about $3K
Not likely to replace the lightweight and affordable 100-400mm with a 500mm zoom @ f/4.5. (all the current fairly carriable and affordable 500mm zooms are at f/6.3 at the long end)

F/4.5 & 6.3 don't bode well with Canon teleconverters. I know that the 200-400 f/4 would be big and heavy (just like Nikon's) but it would also be compatible with both the 1.4X and 2X (on 1-series bodies) and retain autofocus. Something intriguing about a clean 800 mm lens.

I'd like to break the 400 mm f/5.6 barrier (and I know that some day, I'm going to have to bite the bullet and snag a 500/4).

A zoom @ f/4.5would be even heavier than the prime,.. and 500mm @ f/2.8 Or 560mm @ f/2.8 ??

Yeah, 500/2.8 would be huge. 560/5.6 would share the diameter of the 400/4. In fact, the 400/4 DO with the 1.4X TC is 560/5/6, so I guess that lens is already available.

That's a lot of telescope!

Yes, that focal length is high on my list. I know it isn't as portable as the 100-400 (which really is pretty compact for its focal length), but it is a logical progression from the 70-200 lens.

What I would like to see?

400mm f/5.6L IS with focus speed of the current 400mm and modern IS
AND/OR
Update the 100-400mm (you can knock 100mm off of the wide end and make it 200-400)
Keep it f/5.6 at the long end so it's just as light as the current one,. BUT update the AF so it is closer to the 400mm primes speed,. and replace the IS with the 3rd gen standard.

Make a decent 100-300mm for gods sake,.
Emulate Sigmas 100-300mm f/4 EX but add IS

How about a 70-300 f/4 IS.
Naw, Canon won't make that, since it would compete with the DO lens.

Yes, that would be a very useful focal length at that aperture. I would expect it to be more expensive than the 300/2.8 prime though.

Salleke,..

I think your 24-135mm f/2.8 should be aa bit smaller than the 70-200mm f/2.8.. so yes,. certainly "doable"

Probably doable, but I can almost see the barrel distortion and CA from here!

Tom W wrote:
Probably doable, but I can almost see the barrel distortion and CA from here!

Tom, I was so happy that CyberDyne finds "my lens" doable and ready to go to bed and hava plesant dreams about it and now you spoiled my dreams whit your CA.
Can you please take away your "CA, BARRELDISTORTION? FRINGING"? And so on?
So at least for one night I will have nice dreams!!! ...

LOL...

Heck, I will take almost anything that gets me more focal range (both ends) and same or better quality, same or less weight, same or more aperture.

Or a lens that gets me more aperture for same range, size, weight.

And does not significantly cost more then the lens it is replacing.

And none of those EF-s 'that don't fit any of my cameras' lenses.

Seriously though, my #1 lens needed upgrading remains the 100-400 and I like the push-pull (especially for airshows). The twist zoom takes too long for me to change in those conditions.

As to physics of light. I have faith that Canon can design the lens, I just might not be able to afford it.

Why is everyone requesting very expensive L lenses? I'd rather see a 100-500 so they can put something out to compete with Simga in the big consumer zooms.

Salleke wrote:
Tom, I was so happy that CyberDyne finds "my lens" doable and ready to go to bed and hava plesant dreams about it and now you spoiled my dreams whit your CA.
Can you please take away your "CA, BARRELDISTORTION? FRINGING"? And so on?
So at least for one night I will have nice dreams!!! ...

LOL...

OK, would you settle for 24-105 instead?

i would love to see an EF-S 10mm f2.8 fisheye that is my one and only wish. Please canon, please!?!?

ok so i would like about 10 other lenses too but that would content me.

Daniel

In my fantasy world, Canon offers the 500mm f4 IS and the 600mm f4 IS at a price so I could afford both...LOL

I'm waiting for the 16-1600mm f1.8L IS lens that weighs in at two pounds even, is sharp as a tack corner to corner for the entire range, and priced under a thousand bucks US.

1.8?? Why such a slow one. I want f/1.2 or better.

..............if Canon is reading this now...............

Ro1

Absolutely. Big and heavy for sure...that I can live with (I mean yor going to have to carry a substantial weight of coin to the shop to buy it).
nother possibility is a version of the BIGMA with IS. That'd be a winner.

Just a 16 or 17 or 18mm f/2.5 or f/2.8 prime (a good one).