Comments on: New Lenses – Spring & Fall http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/new-lenses-spring-fall/ You gotta know Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:00:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Brook http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/new-lenses-spring-fall/comment-page-1/#comment-3511 Brook Sat, 17 Jan 2009 06:00:14 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=1469#comment-3511 Please god Please, something sharp like Canon's 14-24. A 16-35 III that is actually sharp? I don't care nor do I car about cost, just a really good wide fast zoom. At the least, a 17mm prime Please god Please, something sharp like Canon’s 14-24. A 16-35 III that is actually sharp? I don’t care nor do I car about cost, just a really good wide fast zoom. At the least, a 17mm prime

]]> By: Rumors: nuovi obiettivi Canon previsti per il 2009 | 50 Millimetri | Fotografia e dintorni http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/new-lenses-spring-fall/comment-page-1/#comment-1826 Rumors: nuovi obiettivi Canon previsti per il 2009 | 50 Millimetri | Fotografia e dintorni Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:47:02 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=1469#comment-1826 [...] CanonRumors ha pubblicato un interessante post con la “classifica”, stilata da un fotografo pro di baseball, su quali obiettivi Canon potrebbe far uscire un aggiornamento entro il 2010. Molte sono pure speculazioni e desideri, ma chissà cosa sarà in grado di fare Canon?! [...] [...] CanonRumors ha pubblicato un interessante post con la “classifica”, stilata da un fotografo pro di baseball, su quali obiettivi Canon potrebbe far uscire un aggiornamento entro il 2010. Molte sono pure speculazioni e desideri, ma chissà cosa sarà in grado di fare Canon?! [...]

]]> By: Andy http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/new-lenses-spring-fall/comment-page-1/#comment-1825 Andy Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:36:27 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=1469#comment-1825 Canon have to realise a new 24-70 2,8 now. The lens they sell today is totally rubbish. It's blury as hell in the edges on 24 mm. I do a lot of red carped work and in my job, the faces often comes in that area. The other problem is that the lens is extremly badly bild. The one I own now, is mye third one. They useally last for like a year. Then I have to send it to Canon for a tune up and then, maybe I can push it for another year before I have to buy a new one. I useually expect pro lenses to last for at least 3-5 years. This one don't. I don't care if this lens cost like 6000 dollars if it's good. I really wondering about swiching to Leica and Canon 24-70L 2,8 is more or less the hole reason. Canon have to realise a new 24-70 2,8 now. The lens they sell today is totally rubbish. It’s blury as hell in the edges on 24 mm. I do a lot of red carped work and in my job, the faces often comes in that area. The other problem is that the lens is extremly badly bild. The one I own now, is mye third one. They useally last for like a year. Then I have to send it to Canon for a tune up and then, maybe I can push it for another year before I have to buy a new one. I useually expect pro lenses to last for at least 3-5 years. This one don’t.

I don’t care if this lens cost like 6000 dollars if it’s good.

I really wondering about swiching to Leica and Canon 24-70L 2,8 is more or less the hole reason.

]]> By: ms http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/new-lenses-spring-fall/comment-page-1/#comment-1822 ms Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:33:25 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=1469#comment-1822 wouldn't mind if they gave some more options on the super-tele end of things... an affordable 500 or 600 L IS lens would be nice ...perhaps in the 5.6 aperture range.... canon used to make a 500/5.6 in the FD days and Nikon had a 600/5.6 with the improvements in really hi ISO performance I think these kinds of lenses would have real traction... especially as more people get into FF (400 just doesn't cut it for wildlife and the 400/5.6 was saving grace for APS-C shooters on a budgets...these lenses could over the same thing as the market slowly shift to bigger chips)... IS on these lenses would make them even more useful... just as long as the IQ is there wouldn’t mind if they gave some more options on the super-tele end of things… an affordable 500 or 600 L IS lens would be nice …perhaps in the 5.6 aperture range…. canon used to make a 500/5.6 in the FD days and Nikon had a 600/5.6 with the improvements in really hi ISO performance I think these kinds of lenses would have real traction… especially as more people get into FF (400 just doesn’t cut it for wildlife and the 400/5.6 was saving grace for APS-C shooters on a budgets…these lenses could over the same thing as the market slowly shift to bigger chips)… IS on these lenses would make them even more useful… just as long as the IQ is there

]]> By: Anthony http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/new-lenses-spring-fall/comment-page-1/#comment-1821 Anthony Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:30:03 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=1469#comment-1821 DeeWee, I beg to differ. I would rate my copy of the 85/1.8 as very good indeed, and I have read many similar views. I don't find the AF slow at all, quite the opposite in fact. And of course it has no weather sealing - its not an 'L'! For those who want a faster aperture and weather sealing, there is the 85/1.2L. Your problem with using it on a 40D sounds like a fault with the camera, not the lens. In short, Canon have this focal length well and truly covered. Of course there is always scope for improvements, however small, but there are many more lenses that are infinitely more deserving of an update - like a new 28mm, 50mm, 24-70IS, 100-400IS, 400IS... the list goes on. DeeWee, I beg to differ. I would rate my copy of the 85/1.8 as very good indeed, and I have read many similar views. I don’t find the AF slow at all, quite the opposite in fact. And of course it has no weather sealing – its not an ‘L’! For those who want a faster aperture and weather sealing, there is the 85/1.2L. Your problem with using it on a 40D sounds like a fault with the camera, not the lens.

In short, Canon have this focal length well and truly covered. Of course there is always scope for improvements, however small, but there are many more lenses that are infinitely more deserving of an update – like a new 28mm, 50mm, 24-70IS, 100-400IS, 400IS… the list goes on.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/new-lenses-spring-fall/comment-page-1/#comment-1846 Sebastian Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:04:50 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=1469#comment-1846 Personally, I'd like to see a non-DO 4/400mm at a reasonable price. An alternative would be something a 4/200-400mm zoom lens like Nikon offers (allthough at an uncomfortably high price). Personally, I’d like to see a non-DO 4/400mm at a reasonable price. An alternative would be something a 4/200-400mm zoom lens like Nikon offers (allthough at an uncomfortably high price).

]]> By: Stefan http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/new-lenses-spring-fall/comment-page-1/#comment-1824 Stefan Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:43:03 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=1469#comment-1824 @ms "2008 was a body heavy year". I disagree. We’ve seen four new bodies 2008: 1000D, 450D, 50D and 5D2. Same number as in 2007: 400D, 40D, 1D3 and 1Ds3. We expect for 2009: 1000D-sucessor, 500D, 60D and 1D4. Four new bodies a year, that’s usual business. Canon’s lens output in 2007: 14/2.8, 16-35/2.8 II, 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS - four lenses. Output in 2008: 200/2 IS, 18-200 IS, 24/1.4 II – three lenses. Nikon’s output in 2008: DX 16-85, 18-105, 60 macro, T&S 24, 45, 85 and 1.4/50 – seven lenses. Three lenses a year, even this tiny company Leica can do more. So, before we can dream of new lenses, Canon’s lazybones have to speed-up. @ms “2008 was a body heavy year”. I disagree.

We’ve seen four new bodies 2008: 1000D, 450D, 50D and 5D2. Same number as in 2007: 400D, 40D, 1D3 and 1Ds3. We expect for 2009: 1000D-sucessor, 500D, 60D and 1D4. Four new bodies a year, that’s usual business.

Canon’s lens output in 2007: 14/2.8, 16-35/2.8 II, 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS – four lenses. Output in 2008: 200/2 IS, 18-200 IS, 24/1.4 II – three lenses. Nikon’s output in 2008: DX 16-85, 18-105, 60 macro, T&S 24, 45, 85 and 1.4/50 – seven lenses. Three lenses a year, even this tiny company Leica can do more.

So, before we can dream of new lenses, Canon’s lazybones have to speed-up.

]]> By: Arun http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/new-lenses-spring-fall/comment-page-1/#comment-1845 Arun Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:54:37 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=1469#comment-1845 I don't see why they would redo the 300 mm f/2.8 L IS. It is hard to see how it can be improved, unless somehow Canon can make it lighter or smaller. The 35mm, the 50mm, the 85mm all are excellent but have some obvious flaws that can be fixed in a new version. I don’t see why they would redo the 300 mm f/2.8 L IS. It is hard to see how it can be improved, unless somehow Canon can make it lighter or smaller.

The 35mm, the 50mm, the 85mm all are excellent but have some obvious flaws that can be fixed in a new version.

]]> By: sirimiri http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/new-lenses-spring-fall/comment-page-1/#comment-1819 sirimiri Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:18:17 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=1469#comment-1819 Regarding the 85L on the 40/50D: the battery does not go flat, in the "charge" sense. I believe it is a software or integration error of some kind. Turn the camera off, or remove the battery, it will reset. I've shot some indoor sports with this lens and it can be glorious if you get your focus spot on. Even after a "dead" battery, I've gone on to shoot 300 shots. I find if you press the AF-ON button and the shutter at the same time, it is likely to cause the camera body to report a dead battery. So, sequence them a millisecond apart, or whatever you're physically capable. I certainly don't get the errors when I do it that way. Regarding the 85L on the 40/50D: the battery does not go flat, in the “charge” sense. I believe it is a software or integration error of some kind. Turn the camera off, or remove the battery, it will reset. I’ve shot some indoor sports with this lens and it can be glorious if you get your focus spot on. Even after a “dead” battery, I’ve gone on to shoot 300 shots.

I find if you press the AF-ON button and the shutter at the same time, it is likely to cause the camera body to report a dead battery. So, sequence them a millisecond apart, or whatever you’re physically capable. I certainly don’t get the errors when I do it that way.

]]> By: Rich http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/new-lenses-spring-fall/comment-page-1/#comment-1818 Rich Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:46:08 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=1469#comment-1818 I want a 50mm 1.2 IS, 85mm 1.2 IS!!!! Lets have some normal fast primes with an image stabilizer already. I would even settle for f/1.4 I want a 50mm 1.2 IS, 85mm 1.2 IS!!!!
Lets have some normal fast primes with an image stabilizer already.
I would even settle for f/1.4

]]> By: DeeWee http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/new-lenses-spring-fall/comment-page-1/#comment-1844 DeeWee Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:48:51 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=1469#comment-1844 Rox, 30D is not 40D. 85/1.2L has a problem with 40D which not only that Canon didn't bother to fix, but put in the new 50D camera as well. Basically the battery goes flat after 20-30 shots when using 85/1.2L on a 40D/50D. I learned this the hard way - thought my 40D was defective, then read other people's threads on the net and was "pleasantly" surprised to see the new 50D having the same problem. Clearly Canon didn't even bother to put this lens on these bodies. And why would you want IS on a macro lens? Not only that IS isn't helping with macro, but it can potentially affect sharpness at high magnifications. Rox, 30D is not 40D.
85/1.2L has a problem with 40D which not only that Canon didn’t bother to fix, but put in the new 50D camera as well. Basically the battery goes flat after 20-30 shots when using 85/1.2L on a 40D/50D.
I learned this the hard way – thought my 40D was defective, then read other people’s threads on the net and was “pleasantly” surprised to see the new 50D having the same problem. Clearly Canon didn’t even bother to put this lens on these bodies.

And why would you want IS on a macro lens? Not only that IS isn’t helping with macro, but it can potentially affect sharpness at high magnifications.

]]> By: Rox http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/new-lenses-spring-fall/comment-page-1/#comment-1843 Rox Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:20:53 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=1469#comment-1843 @ Steve R - I'm with you on your request @ DeeWee - I use my 85/1.2L a lot on my 30D and 5D... why it should sucks ? After using 70-200/2.8L and 100-400m/4.5-5.6L for 3-4 hours on these 2 bodies without tripod or monopod, I could tell that the 85/1.2L is a real charm. @ Steve R – I’m with you on your request

@ DeeWee – I use my 85/1.2L a lot on my 30D and 5D… why it should sucks ? After using 70-200/2.8L and 100-400m/4.5-5.6L for 3-4 hours on these 2 bodies without tripod or monopod, I could tell that the 85/1.2L is a real charm.

]]> By: DeeWee http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/new-lenses-spring-fall/comment-page-1/#comment-1817 DeeWee Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:44:13 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=1469#comment-1817 Anthony, the 85/1.8 is a good lens, but it is not stellar. It is meant to be cheap. It is a 16 year old design, relatively slow (both aperture and AF), no weather sealing. The 85/1.2L is awesome optically, but it is meant for 1D bodies. It is also too big and slow AF. Does not work well on 40D/50D (ever tried using it on those bodies? it sucks). When I said I want a 85/1.4L, this is what I had in mind: Sharp wide open with UD/fluorite/asph elements. No battery-sucking focus by wire, just good USM/FTM focusing. Weather sealing. Less weight. I'd pay $700-$800 for that baby. Anthony, the 85/1.8 is a good lens, but it is not stellar. It is meant to be cheap. It is a 16 year old design, relatively slow (both aperture and AF), no weather sealing.

The 85/1.2L is awesome optically, but it is meant for 1D bodies. It is also too big and slow AF. Does not work well on 40D/50D (ever tried using it on those bodies? it sucks).

When I said I want a 85/1.4L, this is what I had in mind:
Sharp wide open with UD/fluorite/asph elements. No battery-sucking focus by wire, just good USM/FTM focusing. Weather sealing. Less weight.
I’d pay $700-$800 for that baby.

]]> By: Steve R http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/11/new-lenses-spring-fall/comment-page-1/#comment-1816 Steve R Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:33:12 +0000 http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=1469#comment-1816 I'd love to see an IS version of the 100mm 2.8 Macro. Any liklihood of seeing this any time soon? I’d love to see an IS version of the 100mm 2.8 Macro. Any liklihood of seeing this any time soon?

]]>