Favorite Dream lens...

Mike02

Hey guys, time for a fun question:

If you were a lens designer for any of the well known lens manufacturers, what would your next invented lens be?

My list:
Nikon 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 Vr Dx lens
or Nikon 18-70 vr Dx
and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 vr (I wish)
________________________

Everyones list:
Nikon 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 Vr
A Lightweight 500mm f/2.8 Vr lens

Canon 18-70 f/1.4 IS
Canon 15mm f/1.2
Canon 16mm f/1.4
Canon 17mm f/2
Canon 200-400 f/4 Vr (haha we have it -Nikon users; I think its time to switch lol, Jk :P)

jdryan3

Canon 18-70 f/1.4 IS. IS? Yeah, cause that is wider and 2 stops faster than my 24-70 so I'm sure it would weigh a ton. I'd need IS just to hold it steady.

Also I would like it SHARP @ 1.4, 2.0, 2.8. Wide and soft doesn't do me any good

Mike02

jdryan3 wrote:

Canon 18-70 f/1.4 IS. IS? Yeah, cause that is wider and 2 stops faster than my 24-70 so I'm sure it would weigh a ton. I'd need IS just to hold it steady.

Also I would like it SHARP @ 1.4, 2.0, 2.8. Wide and soft doesn't do me any good

Haha, that would be awesome lol


Maybe even one made by sigma with os vIII lol So we can all use it :P

Terrence

Canon 70-200 f/2.8
Canon 500mm f/4

ziggy53

As long as we're dreamin', I want this combination:

Cambo Wide DS with Schneider Digital 35mm f/5.6 and Phase One P25 back
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/expensive-ps.shtml

... or maybe:

ZEISS Apo Sonnar T* 4/1700
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0610/06100101zeiss1700f4.asp

I'd "settle" for a Canon EF 200mm, f1.8L

Of course, speaking of dreaming:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=17314

jdryan3

ziggy53 wrote:

I'd "settle" for a Canon EF 200mm, f1.8L

:lol :lol :lol

...and the mudhaus thing is pretty funny (no, Ziggy, I don't think they are serious)

Mike02

I meant what lens would you invent, that doesnt already exist, not which one would you buy lol :P.

wxwax

I'd like a 15 or 16mm rectilinear prime, 1.2 or 1.4, sharp all the way to the corners. IS would be nice too.

And I'd like someone to buy me a 400 2.8 IS.

Harryb

Since we are dreaming I want a 500mm 2.8 VR lens that's light enough to handhold. :lol4

LiquidAir

wxwax wrote:

I'd like a 15 or 16mm rectilinear prime, 1.2 or 1.4, sharp all the way to the corners. IS would be nice too.

And I'd like someone to buy me a 400 2.8 IS.

Heh. I was thinking along similar lines. Actually for me, a 17mm f/2L would be just fine thankyouverymuch. The other lens I'd like is a EF 200-400/4L IS.

And, while I am wishing for horses, I wouldn't look a gift 500/4L IS in the mouth...:D

ziggy53

Mike02 wrote:

I meant what lens would you invent, that doesnt already exist, not which one would you buy lol :P.

Oh, well, that's easy!

I want a full-frame zoom lens with constant aperture, at least f1, no vignetting or visible aberrations out to the extreme edges, from 6mm to 1200mm, with a fisheye option at the wide end (otherwise perfectly rectilinear) and image stabilization with at least 5 stops of effective stabilization, a universal camera mount with adaptive electronics (so it would couple physically and electronically to any body I desire), a built-in auto-telescoping lens hood, a 25 blade aperture capable of f128 and instant , silent auto-focus.

Is that too much to ask for?

Oh, and I need it for under $100USD (of course and goes without saying).

Getting back to reality, what I think is really needed are more lenses of all focal lengths with large apertures and inexpensive IS/VR/SR. Some more primes with stabilization would be nice.

claudermilk

Don't forget, it must be hand-holdable and discrete for those street-shooting sessions.

In the real world, lower prices on what's there is all it will take to make me happy--that way I could afford the objects of my lust sooner: 70-200/2.8IS, 300/2.8IS, and Sigma's 120-300/2.8.

Mike02

ziggy53 wrote:

Oh, well, that's easy!

I want a full-frame zoom lens with constant aperture, at least f1, no vignetting or visible aberrations out to the extreme edges, from 6mm to 1200mm, with a fisheye option at the wide end (otherwise perfectly rectilinear) and image stabilization with at least 5 stops of effective stabilization, a universal camera mount with adaptive electronics (so it would couple physically and electronically to any body I desire), a built-in auto-telescoping lens hood, a 25 blade aperture capable of f128 and instant , silent auto-focus.

Is that too much to ask for?

Oh, and I need it for under $100USD (of course and goes without saying).

Getting back to reality, what I think is really needed are more lenses of all focal lengths with large apertures and inexpensive IS/VR/SR. Some more primes with stabilization would be nice.

Haha, of course, that would be a great lens... If it were possible :P

mmroden

Alls I want is a 50mm equivalent for my d70 (not the 50 mm itself, but something around 35mm) that goes to 1.4, doesn't have barrel distortion, and is discrete enough to use in street shooting. In other words, I want the current 50mm 1.4, but adjusted to be maybe 34mm 1.4, or whatever the digital equivalent is.

The sigma's got some barrel distortion that makes me scratch my head, and it's also not a small beastie.

urbanaries

mmroden wrote:

Alls I want is a 50mm equivalent for my d70 (not the 50 mm itself, but something around 35mm) that goes to 1.4, doesn't have barrel distortion, and is discrete enough to use in street shooting. In other words, I want the current 50mm 1.4, but adjusted to be maybe 34mm 1.4, or whatever the digital equivalent is.

The sigma's got some barrel distortion that makes me scratch my head, and it's also not a small beastie.

isn't your dream lens a reality....in the canon line?

Red Bull

Mike02 wrote:

Hey guys, time for a fun question:

If you were a lens designer for any of the well known lens manufacturers, what would your next invented lens be?

My list:
Nikon 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 Vr Dx lens

Just curious, why would you want a lens without a constant aperture?

ziggy53

Red Bull wrote:

Just curious, why would you want a lens without a constant aperture?

Constant aperture is but one desirable attribute. I just purchased an older Canon 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L because it has very good qualities overall and had a very decent price.

As long as I stay in Aperture Priority mode or use an E-TTL II flash that compensates for the variable aperture, it works nicely. Even full manual is OK when I have time to think about it and watch the exposure info in the viewfinder.

rutt

OK, let's think outside the box.

Me: that's a nice picture -- take it.

Lens: No, you dope, aim a little lower and wait a second.

That was my dream.

claudermilk

urbanaries wrote:

isn't your dream lens a reality....in the canon line?

Dang, beat me to it! Too many smart-alecks on this board.

rutt wrote:

OK, let's think outside the box.

Me: that's a nice picture -- take it.

Lens: No, you dope, aim a little lower and wait a second.

That was my dream.

Hehe... WTD

jww

Harryb wrote:

Since we are dreaming I want a 500mm 2.8 VR lens that's light enough to handhold. :lol4

Now that is one I would like as well !! ...and while we are dreaming, make it razor sharp and less than $2000 !!

ivar

jww wrote:

Now, that is one I would like as well !! ...and while we are dreaming, make it razor sharp and less than $2000 !!

a very light 16-500/1.8 L IS sounds pretty nice

ivar

ivar wrote:

a very light 16-500/1.8 L IS sounds pretty nice

Oh and it has to be small...

Mike02

Red Bull wrote:

Just curious, why would you want a lens without a constant aperture?

Likewise, why would you want it to be constant aperture?

1. The lens is smaller and or lighter.

2. Variable aperture isnt the worst thing in the world.

2.5. Constant aperture isnt the best thing in the world.

3. As a replacement for my 18-70 kit lens. You have no idea how useful this lens would be with Vr. :P

Mike02

ivar wrote:

a very light 16-500/1.8 L IS sounds pretty nice

I'm sure it will be about $100,000; but as long as it's smaller than the 'sigzilla' I'll be happy. :P

Blurmore

These threads come up a lot. And most of the time I stay out of them, because most of the suggested "dreams" are actually near optical impossibilities. For instance the aformentioned 24-80 f1.4 would have +150mm objective, and enough elements to make the Hubble blush. As would the 16-500 f2.8 would need a jeep mount, and have so much barrel distortion at the wide end it would effectively be a fisheye. Keeping my dreams withing optical probability, the lens I would shell out 2k+ for would be a 55-300 EF-S f2.8-3.5 DO IS. Perfect combo for my 17-55 EF-S f2.8.

claudermilk

Take a good look at a lot of the "dream lenses" and you will see the poster is being a smart a$$--he knows the lens is silly & is deliberately dreaming up obviously impossible specs.

Honestly, once I am able to afford the 70-200/2.8, that plus my current lineup of 12-24/4 and 24-70/2.8 is more than good enough to make me happy. Then I'll only lust for really long lenses I cannot afford (300/2.8IS, 120-300/2.8), and a few nice primes I can (35/1.4, 85/1.8).

Mike02 wrote:

Likewise, why would you want it to be constant aperture?

1. The lens is smaller and or lighter.

2. Variable aperture isnt the worst thing in the world.

2.5. Constant aperture isnt the best thing in the world.

The hell you say! :smack:crazy Constant-aperture lenses are God's gift to low-light photographers. I'd go nuts trying to juggle aperture & shutter speed on a variable-aperture lens when shooting theater; I'm on aperture-priority 99% of the time and I want it to stay where I put it. The mass is a good thing, too--damps camera shake at the marginal shutter speeds you get stuck with in low-light. So repeat after me: constant aperture lenses are a *good* thing.

HarveyMushman

My dreams are simple . . .
Nikon's 200-400/f4 VR for the price of a 50/1.8.

Mike02

claudermilk wrote:

The mass is a good thing, too--damps camera shake at the marginal shutter speeds you get stuck with in low-light. So repeat after me: constant aperture lenses are a *good* thing.

I understand, but Im assuming making it a constant aperture lens would make it both heavier and more expensive, so I'm willing to trade that for a variable aperture :P. Besides, if I'm stuck shooting in low light, I'll just pull out my 50mm prime :P.

Mike02

HarveyMushman wrote:

Nikon's 200-400/f4 VR for the price of a 50/1.8.

Haha... that would be nice

But do you really want underpaid children assembling your exotic telephoto lenses in sweatshops? :P

Khaos

Well, it would need to be a dream I can afford, so a Canon 5.6 L IS, would be nice. It must have the same unbelievable sharpness of the original though.

A second choice would be a quality, corner to corner wide prime. Anything in the 10 to 15 range. Which would be a dream I couldn't afford.:cry