Which new lenses would you like to see introduced in Canon's lineup?

Hi everybody!


I already submitted this post by mistake elsewhere in this forum, apologies for this!


I don't think Canon will consider our suggestions, unless Bryan and other Canon gurus intercede with Canon for us... Well, of course I'm not completely serious, but I think this subject could be of interest for many Canon fans.


The "perfect lens missing" in Canon's lineup at this time, in my humble opinion, is a 35-70 f/>2.8 (i.e. f/2.5 or even f/2[!!!], it would be fantastic!) L IS USM.


We all know that one of the most wanted improvements in Canon lens'
lineup would be the 24-70 f/2.8 L II IS USM to replace the 24-70 f/2.8
L USM. But why not introduce a lens that could perfectly fill the gap
between the 16-35 f/2.8 L II USM and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM? There
are several instances that make me think this would be the perfect
zoom lens: let me briefly list them, not necessarily in order of importance,
which is relative to each one's preferences.


First of all, saving 11mm focal length at the bottom end would
significatively simplify Canon engineer's life in designing the new
lens; the resulting lens could be either smaller and lighter or
brighter (or both!) with respect to the existing 24-70 f/2.8 L USM.


Another advantage would be the greater impact on image quality
brought about by the shorter 35mm range with respect to the 46mm range.
Moreover, consider Image Stabilization: whilst of little or no use on
wide angle lenses (probably the major psychological obstacle in an
optical engineer's mind when considering the opportunity to stabilize
the 24-70 f/2.8 L USM), IS would be a more appropriate implementation
on a 35-70.


I have previously mentioned size, weight and aperture as features
that would benefit from a 11mm shrink at the bottom end of a zoom lens:
let me add, last but not least, price. Well, if I actually had a Canon
35-70 f/2 L IS USM lens, I would be happy to sacrify weight,
size and money for a 1-full stop increase. I'm not engineer, but I think such a lens would not weigh much more than the existing 24-70
f/2.8 L USM.


Many would be a little concerned about not having an overlap at the
extreme focal lengths between zoom lenses (indeed I usually avoid
shooting using the bottom and top ends of my zoom lenses, if I can), but, thank Heavens, an excellent 24-105 f/4 L IS USM exists, too!


So, please, everybody cheer and shout for a 35-70 f/[the widest
possible] L IS USM zoom lens! Don't forget that the old Canon FD 35-70
f/2.8-3.5 SSC, one of the first and best Canon zoom lenses introduced
in 1973, is considered a milestone in Canon's history (see
http://www.canon-europe.com/Support/...ork_iii_en.asp
- CANON'S CHALLENGES, p. 19).


I apologize for my not so good -especially technical- English...


Thanks!


Pierluigi

Hmm... EF 10-1000mm f/1 L IS USM [H]


(for no more than $1000 of course [:P])

GREAT, Oren...


I deserved this!


I just come out from below the tabletop where I had fallen for laugh!


10-1000 f/1 L IS USM for less than 1000$... Hmmm... Only if it weighs 5 oz. or less!


See you tomorrow, it's time to go to bed in Italy...


Bye all!


Pier

Also, if you could fit that 1 meter aperture into a 3" diameter, that'd be nice too :)

[:D]

I would like to see the 24-105 upgraded to 2.8 but that would make it too big/heavy and/or expensive or so I have been told.

Realistically?

• 24-70/2.8 IS [$1500]
  
• 35-70/2 (IS optional) [$1600]
  
• 135/2 IS (or f/1.8, IS optional) [$1200]
  
• 200-400/4 IS [$5000]
  
• 400/4 IS (non-DO; already exists--never released) [$5000]
  
• 14-24/2.8 [$1300]
  
• EF-S 17-70/4 IS (wouldn't use it personally, but many would) [$700]
  

I could see all of those happening eventually. Prices are give or take.

200-400 latest IS in a f3.5 or 4 a 2.8 would be nice as well though out of my price range ... and of course twist soom weather sealed