Canon EF 50-100 f/2.0 L - Interested?

I sure wish Canon made this lens. I'd use it for indoor basketball. It would replace both my 50 f/1.4 an 85 f/1.8.

How much would you pay for such a lens? Assume EF. Assume L quality. Assume no IS. Would it sell like hotcakes our would such a lens be overshadowed by the 70-200 and 24-70 f/2.8 zooms?

agreed that would be awesome for basketball, I'm often switching between my 50 1.8 and tokina 80-200 f/2.8, I find the 50's aperture to be wide enough that I can stop down a bit, or decrease ISO and still get a properly exposed shot, and the 80-200 f/2.8 to be a bit slow aperture-wise to get a properly exposed shot without a high ISO, so a 50-something 2.0 would be awesome, however If it was more along the lines of the tokina 50-135 but with the constant 2.0 that'd probably be my Ideal basketball lens, long enough that you can get the other end of the court and wide enough that you can get your end as well.

Can someone give us an idea of how large that lens would be? I assume it'd be pretty big and costly so it'd be out of my price range.

My guess is that making a constant f/2 zoom would require that the zoom range be limited to 2x or less to keep cost within reason. A 50-150 f/2 would be fabulous but I'm sure I could not afford it if it were made.

I'm thinking the 50-100 would be real useful for indoor sports as well as portrait work. Maybe there would be more sales if the range was 40-80 or 30-60? That would put it more in line as a possible ultra fast walk around zoom.

n1as wrote in post #9789986
I sure wish Canon made this lens. I'd use it for indoor basketball. It would replace both my 50 f/1.4 an 85 f/1.8.

How much would you pay for such a lens? Assume EF. Assume L quality. Assume no IS. Would it sell like hotcakes our would such a lens be overshadowed by the 70-200 and 24-70 f/2.8 zooms?

2.0 would be nice. I always op for my Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 for basketball over my 85mm 1.8 when lighting allows.

On a crop body I like my 50-150mm better then I did the 70-200mm focal range . Now, if I didn't have the 100-300mm f/4 to go with it , that could be a different story.

I've thought for a long time that 20-100 or 25-100 f2.8 would be real nice.

It might be done for EF-S...but then it wouldn't be an L.

A 50-100 f2 would be far more useful to me than the 70-200. This is a lens I would definitely buy, were it available (if it were true L quality). I would gladly pay $800 for a non-IS version. Not sure I'd want it if it were IS, as the extra $500 or $600 just wouldn't be worth it to me. In fact, an f2.8 would be just fine, too - that's all the speed I'd need for what I shoot.

Been wishing for an f/2 zoom for a while now. why not a 70-200 f/2 - 2.8 that goes to 135mm before going f/2.8... that would be hella useful.

Haha on that thought can you imagine how huge a 70-200 f/2 IS L would be??

They should really just make the 24-105 a 2.8 and it would be one of the best portrait/walk around/ do anything short of long telephoto lenses.

NogradyPhoto wrote in post #9791060
They should really just make the 24-105 a 2.8 and it would be one of the best portrait/walk around/ do anything short of long telephoto lenses.

But then we wouldn't have to buy 3 or 4 lenses, so Canon wouldn't make enough profit.

But I'm not trying to shoot for the moon here. Yea, a 24-105 f/2.8 would be cool but I suspect it would be very big and expensive ($2500?)

I'm thinking by staying to a 2x range (50-100, maybe 30-60?) they may be able to actually do the constant f/2 aperture and have a lens that is in the $1200 range.

Olympus makes a 35-100 f2 that's right around $2k...that would be a killer basketball lens.

Sigma makes a 50-150 f2.8 HSM... $750 new

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …150&N=0&Initial​Search=yes

EDIT: someone mentioned this lens already... nevermind