Messages

1

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 15, 2013, 02:46:19 PM »

The review states.... "4 stops (IS) brings 1/300th rating down to 1/50 th sec...."

.......1 stop would be 1/150th
.......2 stops would be 1/75th
.......3 stops would be 1/38th
and  4 stops would be 1/20th approx surely!

2

Canon General / Re: Announcement: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 14, 2013, 03:03:25 PM »

...25 lens elements!

The effective fstop on this lens won't be f4 for sure - more like closer to f4.5

3

Third Party Manufacturers / Sony 400/4 telephoto on the way....

« on: May 03, 2013, 08:30:20 AM »

..details from SonyAlpha rumours.

Said to be "affordable for amateurs".

Absolutely no sign of a new 400/4 coming from Canon ie a scaled up version of the superlative 300/2.8 II would be just fine - very little R&D required!. With slightly smaller aperture it would be slightly lighter and approx same price.

A very sharp 400/4 weighing at about 2.5Kg would be a best seller for Canon IMO.

Funny why Nikon haven't thought of making one for their new high res cameras.

4

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pentax to also use the 24MP Sony FF sensor?

« on: May 01, 2013, 07:33:14 AM »

Yes, lets make every camera have identical MP and identical features.  That way, no one will have a choice, and 24mp is so much better than 22 mp.
 
The idea that 2mp more or less makes a camera company better is not unique, but its not right either.

Well, no need to be so dramatic... sensors are not everything that define the characteristics of an image

BTW Pentax is a smaller company than Canikon, it's hard for them to keep the pace in the R&D division.

Small it maybe but didn't Pentax bring out the first commercial 35mm AF lenses.

I also like the Pentax idea of fitting the IS inside the camera rather than having it fitted to every IS lens you might have in your possession! Fewer things to wrong.

5

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 01, 2013, 05:54:42 AM »

Personally I would be happy to retain the push/pull design.
It would keep costs down for a Mk II.
All I want is IS2 and a super ED lens element to improve the optics.
It will never happen like this of course...reinvent the wheel etc
So there will be a brand new design at $3k instead of $2k for a new push/pull.
Serious competition for it from the new Nikon which from early reports is a very good zoom particularly when allied to the high res 24Mp DXs.

6

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Release Date [CR1]

« on: April 29, 2013, 12:50:36 PM »

There will be a difficult choice for people buying this lens.

That is whether to buy the new 100-400L (allegedly coming along fast on the outside lane) as well.

The current 100-400L is a damn handy optic to have. The new one will be even sharper and will have IS II BUT will come in at half the weight of the 200-400.

Hand holding the 200-400 for long periods will not be a comforting experience for the older folk depending on individual circumstances of course.

So some clever marketing from Canon could see rich folk buying both!

7

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 29, 2013, 09:03:03 AM »

I just can't see this lens coming out before the hugely delayed 200-400/560.

based on what?

why should they delay one lens only because they have problems with another?

the 100-400mm will sure be sold more often then the 200-400mm.
the 100-400mm is a more attractive lens (money wise) for many photographer.

i see no reason, except in case they share the same production problems, that canon will not just release the lens when it is ready.

...could be a marketing nightmare selling expensive zooms coming out at the same time (approx) with overlapping focal lengths..

8

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 29, 2013, 08:12:26 AM »

I just can't see this lens coming out before the hugely delayed 200-400/560.

By all accounts the new Nikon 80-400 is a very good lens sharp right through to 400 and the current high price will surely drop soon. Would be a good alternative available now - particularly if used with one of the currently available 24Mp DX bodies.

9

Lenses / Re: Lens sharpness and distance from subject

« on: April 28, 2013, 01:16:18 PM »

I was wondering whether and how much the distance from the subject affects sharpness of the image taken by different lenses (on same sensor). Is there any website or source where such information may be available for Canon lenses?

The lens designer has to have a reference point when designing his lens eg 50xfocal length.

The big telephoto lenses are really birder lenses and as such have max sharpness at relatively close range ie if you want really sharp shots of the moon you need a reflector telescope.

Read Thom Hogan's Nikon long lens reviews where he points out the lenses which aren't "distance" lenses like the 200-400/4 or even the 400/2.8. The same is very likely true for the Canon equivalents.

10

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Release Date [CR1]

« on: April 28, 2013, 11:30:41 AM »

This must be the most expensive Canon DSLR lens ever made.

I mean specifically expensive to Canon's profit and loss account ie their bottom line.

It should have been out two years ago so presumably they have had a team of engineers for all this time trying to tweak it to an acceptably high standard.

Personally I would have preferred an ultra sharp 400/4 ie a carbon copy of the superlative 300/2.8 II and therefore not to expensive to research and manufacture....but never mind Canon knows better.

11

Lenses / Re: Prediction for 200-400

« on: April 15, 2013, 12:16:27 PM »

...this zoom is a total embarrassment to Canon if it ain't out soon.

I'm guessing but I think that the IQ with the built in TC is the problem ie Canon trying to be to clever.

If you really want one then switch to the opposition. They already have (almost) the same zoom for a fraction of the price (and lower hire out rate) of this dodo.

12

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 400 f/4 DO IS II

« on: April 15, 2013, 03:26:35 AM »

Why not a scaled down version of the superlative 300/2.8 II with a weight somewhat less due to 100mm aperture as against 107mm?

The fact that this is another DO patent somehow confirms to me anyway that a new 400/4 is a long way off - maybe never.

Also of course it would impinge on sales of the 300/2.8 It's all to all to do with marketing - not what the lens punter actually desires!!

13

Lenses / Re: New 100-400 to Launch with EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]

« on: March 27, 2013, 11:29:05 AM »

Am I the only one that loves the push/pull zoom?

No.   

Hope they keep push-pull, but could learn to live with rotating extension.

When the push/pull is fully extended the length approximates the 400mm focal length which means the lens elements are not "over-worked" as they are in compact designs.

It's one of the reasons why the 100-400 is so good at the top end where many zooms fail miserably.

A new push/pull 100-400 with a super ED element thrown in to improve contrast would be fine by me!

14

Lenses / Re: New 100-400 to Launch with EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]

« on: March 27, 2013, 10:51:04 AM »

With no date when the much delayed 200-400/4 will reach the shops I just don't believe this latest 100-400L rumour.

It would be bad marketing tactics if both zooms were launched in the same year!

On the other hand it could mean 100-400L/7D2 might not be out there till late 2014 or even 2015 to let sales of the 200-400 get some traction assuming its coming out soon.

I am saying this is because the current 100-400L is a fine zoom optic and a new version - presumably even better - would seriously cut into the sales of the 200-400 - yep one stop faster but twice the weight and three/four times the price!

But then maybe Canon expect some customers with deep pockets to buy both zooms!

15

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the EOS T5i

« on: March 22, 2013, 05:23:20 AM »

Underwhelming 700D from Canon.
Could the 70D also retain the old 18 Mp sensor?
eg 60D plus AFMA!
I am still hopeful the 7D2 will have the new sensor but I think delivery will be much much later than rumoured  - maybe 2014 - look what's happened to the 200-400/4.