What I'd like to see, and would buy right away if it existed: a Canon 42/1.4 IS lens. 42mm because it's about halfway between 35mm and 50mm; f/1.4 for low light, handheld work; and IS for REALLY low light, handheld work.

With Canon's 50/1.4 running about $350, I'd hope the 42/1.4 IS would come in at less than $500. Knowing Canon, probably not -- it'd probably be closer in cost to the 35/1.4 L. So I'd have to revise my earlier statement: I'd buy one right away if it was less than $500.

Still, I can dream, can't I?

-- Russ Arcuri (arcuri@borg.com), March 17, 1999

Answers

Yes, but if you are going to dream, dream BIG. I want a 1200mm f4L IS for $500, but it ain't gonna happen! I guess we can still dream.

-- Brad Hutcheson (bhutcheson@iname.com), March 17, 1999.

if 42/1.4 was too expensive, (like the 35/1.4 is) i'd settle for a 42/1.8 IS. they could make that for sure for under $500.

P.S. just curious. do you want halfway between 35 and 50 because 35-->50 is too big a jump? or so you can get rid of your 35mm and 50mm?

P.P.S. my ideal lens right now would be a 28-105 IS. i'd even pay as much (or more) as the 28-135 IS if they both existed. the 28-105 shares the 58mm filter size with the 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 primes. (and the xx-300, 70-210 zooms for that matter) it also shares the hood with the 28 prime. it's also the exact same size as the 85/1.8 which makes finding bag space easy.

the 28-135 needs huge 72mm filters, and is also much bigger (closerr to the size of the 28-70/2.8L then the 28-105) and (for me) would require lugging around an extra hood (because i need the 28-105 hood for the 28 prime anyway)

but i suppose i'm wierd. first of all i have primes. and i use hoods. and i think 135 f5.6 isn't all that worthwhile. (since i can get 135 at a bigger aperture from the 70-210 or xx-300)

but canon will undoubtedly sell more because it's 28-135 rather than 28-105. most people probably want one lens and the more zoom range the better. i wonder how long until there's an EF 28-200 IS. (eek!)

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), March 17, 1999.

Here are my choices on the wish list.

Nikkor 400mm f/5.6 AF-S IS telephoto lens. Can't Sigma make its HSM 400mm lens in a Nikon mount while we wait?

Nikkor 28-105 f/4-5.6 AF-S IS lens for when I can't take a tripod with me.

80-200 f/4 zoom Micro lens. OK, Nikon makes one so close that I guess this wish doens't count.

75-150 AF-S f/4 AF-S zoom that would take the TC20e teleconvertor.

-- stanley Mcmanus (Stanshooter@Yahoo.com), March 17, 1999.

I'd want 42mm for one selfish reason and a couple legitimate (I think) reasons.

I've already got a 35/2.0 and a 50/1.8. Many times I find the 50 just a hair long or the 35 a hair wide for a given application. So I, personally, would like a 42, the "happy medium."

Some legitimate reasons:

• My limited understanding of optical design leads me to believe a 42/1.4 IS could be built about the same size and weight as a plain-jane 50/1.4 -- which is about as big and heavy as I think a typical user would want to carry around for low-light work.
• A 42mm lens would be unique enough to stand out against the other options -- there are people who would buy it just because it was different. (Makes financial sense for Canon, IMO... it's a niche lens, but maybe with more panache than a 50/1.4 IS would have, if you get my drift...)
• It would be a bit easier to handhold a 42mm lens at long shutter speeds than it would be to handhold a 50, but with a niche lens like this every little bit would count.

-- Russ Arcuri (arcuri@borg.com), March 17, 1999.

Pentax came out with a 43/1.9 lens a little over a year ago, and it's a cute little bugger. If it had been a f1.4 I think it would be almost as large as a 50/1.4. I don't think they could make your 42/1.4 with IS as small as a 50/1.4.

-- Bruce Rubenstein (b_rubenstein@yahoo.com), March 17, 1999.

I have a Pentax 40mm f2.8 lens that I think is absolutely terrific. That lens along with an 85mm are all that I currently carry.

-- Jerry Sussman (jisussman@aol.com), March 18, 1999.

I guess I'll my 'Santa's wishlist'.

28-105 F2.8 ED_IF IS AF-S Nikkor(why settle for variable aperture Stan)

300 F4 ED-IF IS AF-S Micro Nikkor

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), March 18, 1999.

Insert 'add' between "I'll" and "my" on the first line of the previous post.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.co), March 18, 1999.

Canon's 28-135 and 75-300 IS zooms reformulated to keep linear distortion below 1% from 28 to 105, and below 1.5% out to 300. If this meant restricting the first zoom to 28-105, that would be okay with me.

-- Michael Lopez (mlopez@econ.ag.gov), March 18, 1999.

Here is what I'd like to see (also kinda selfish) :

a 24-105mm IS f2.8 < $600 a 200-600mm IS F4.5-f5.6 < $1500, with tripod collar a 24 mm f2.8 shift lens < $500

Both internal focus LD-glass and APO. That'll make MY PERFECT travel kit !!!

...I keep on dreaming. :^)

-- Marcus Erne (cerne@ees.eesc.com), March 19, 1999.

Nikon 400mm 5.6 AF-S. Nikon 600mm 4.0 AF-S with the new light-weight technology of the 400mm 2.8 AF-S. Nikon tilt shift (any). Why do we tell each other this? How can we effectively tell Nikon this and get IT to respond?

-- Mark R. Haflich (jhaflich@erols.com), March 19, 1999.

Marcus -- one of your lenses exists already... the 24/2.8 shift (actually a 24/2.8 tilt/shift). Very highly touted. The only problem is the price... it's way more expensive than $500.

-- Russ Arcuri (arcuri@borg.com), March 19, 1999.

That's exactly THE problem Russ....

-- Marcus Erne (cerne@ees.eesc.com), March 19, 1999.

You won't find me disagreeing with you about price -- the 24/2.8 tilt/ shift is very expensive. But since price is the only problem, it is something that you could overcome. Save up a little longer, win a sweepstakes, sell a child... :)

Seriously, though... the lens I proposed doesn't actually exist -- and neither do the first two you proposed, so our chances of actually getting one of them are effectively nil. Technically, you could own the 24 if you really, really wanted to.

Is it even possible to build and sell a complex lens like the 24/2.8 tilt/shift for less than $500? For some reason I doubt it. If we're going to be unrealistic about pricing, I'll just lower the cost of my dream lens (the 42/1.4 IS) to $19.95... ;-)

-- Russ Arcuri (arcuri@borg.com), March 19, 1999.

As a nature shooter I am quite pleased with the 28-135 and 75-300 IS lenses. I would wish for these lenses to be "L" glass and they would sell too. A tripod collar on the 75-300 would be nice too!

-- Jeff Hallett (franjeff@alltel.net), March 20, 1999.

Russ, Re your wish for the 42mm lens, given that you already have good 50mm and 35mm lenses, methinks you are awfully particular. I too have and use the 35 and 50, although I greatly prefer the 35 as a normal lens and find it wonderfully flexible and adaptable (when I have the 50 mounted, it usually seems to be either too long or too short; if I remember correctly, St. Ansel was also no admirer of the 50 as a normal lens). With the 35, a few steps forward or a few steps back usually seems to solve the problem. I have a little Rollei 35 mini-camera with a 40mm lens, and a Contax T2 with a 38mm lens, and it seems to me that there's not enough difference between these focal lengths and the 35 to be concerned about. But if your heart is set on a 42, here's a suggestion: there's a Carl Zeiss T* Tessar 40/2.8 for Contax cameras, wonderfully small and light, an elegantly simple and very sharp little lens. It won't give you the speed you're asking for (for me 2.8 is fast enough), but it will give you the focal length. Then all you have to do is buy a Contax Aria (not a lot of $) or a used Contax and you're all set. As a matter of fact, the Contax Aria, an amazingly light and compact 35 SLR, combined with this very short and light lens, would make a great lightweight, compact rig for travel or backpacking or street photography.

-- Dave Kemp (Kempda@worldnet.att.net), March 21, 1999.

Dave -- I don't want the 42 so much because it's a 42... I was just thinking of what would make for the best low light lens. That means a lens with a wide aperture and image stabilization. I picked 42mm because I already have 35mm and 50mm lenses, and what the heck, why not split the difference? At least then I'm not duplicating focal lengths. True, I think 42 could be useful for other reasons (see above), but the main points here are very wide aperture and image stabilization.

-- Russ Arcuri (arcuri@borg.com), March 21, 1999.

Russ, I forgot to mention that I am using Minolta (shame on me!). They do not have a shift lens.

But you are still right, technically after selling my wife, my dog and everything else I could get a Canon body to go with the shift lens....;^) or I could get a custom made one from Zoerg n Germany.

-- Marcus Erne (cerne@ees.eesc.com), March 22, 1999.

How about a 28-70 f4L that takes a 67mm filter, as a companion to the 70-200 f4L? This would be a great combo for travel. I find the current consumer lenses in this range (i.e. 24-85 and 28-105) suffer from too much distortion, and aren't quite as sharp as I'd like. An L-series 28-70 f4 with an aspheric element could correct this problem, without being huge, heavy, and cumbersome like my 28-70 f2.8L.

-- Cliff LeSergent (cliff_l@telusplanet.net), August 13, 2000.

Nikkor 80-200 f/4 AF-S lens. Smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 zoom yet it only gives up one stop.

-- Paul Dibiase (paulcanda1@yahoo.com), August 15, 2000.

14-2000/1.0L IS Tilt Shift Macro and Photoshop effects filters (i.e. ripple, watercolor, spherize, etc.) for $125.00. And a pony.

-- David Marhadoe (kaputaffe@aol.com), August 17, 2000.

Canon USM 24-135 2.8L IS @ ~ $1500!

-- NGUYEN THANG (NGUYENTNT@HOTMAIL.COM), August 17, 2000.

24mm f/2.0L USM

35mm f/2.0L USM

85mm f/1.8L USM IS

100mm f/2.0L USM IS

-- Willie Ju (wju@mediaone.net), August 17, 2000.

Image Stabilization in a 35/1.4 or 50/1.4?

I'd weep tears of joy.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), August 18, 2000.

I want a Canon 400/4.0 right now. That's all.

-- TGO (tgo2002@excite.com), August 30, 2001.