« on: March 20, 2014, 06:01:56 PM »
Cool video even to just see the canon gear.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.
You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more.. so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly... New versions cost always a lot more with canon.
I think this latest rumor must bring the 100-400 replacement rumor count to over a hundred! I cannot imagine them not announcing it at CP+ if it's coming. I hope it is!
so is that 100-400 rumours?
To be fair, though, the two lenses mentioned here are both rumors. The actual lenses and their respective apertures haven't been announced yet.
As for the three non-L IS versions that have been announced, two of them kept the same aperture as their predecessors (24/2.8 and 35/2). Both jumped in filter size (52mm to 58mm and 67mm, respectively), although Canon doesn't seem to be very concerned with filter sizes any more.
Only the 28mm dropped from 1.8 to 2.8, which is a shame because a 1.8 with IS would have been a great "normal" lens on crop and would have made a real distinction between the new 24 and 28. But Canon has kept the original 28/1.8 thus far, so apparently they weren't ready to kill that particular darling just yet, despite the sense it would have made. Now they have two 28s in the lineup, which sell for about the same amount new, with the only spec differences being aperture and IS.
Trying to make sense out of Canon lineup decisions is maddening. For instance, why start putting IS in your wide angles rather than your telephotos???
The 28 f/2.8 IS replaced the 28 f/2.8 non-IS. The 28 f/1.8 is still being sold; the 28 f/2.8 non-IS is not.
Also agree with Ellen that Canon is leaving the option open to release a fast 28mm lens. The non-L IS lenses are 35 f/2, 28 f/2.8 and 24 f/2.8. The Ls go 50 f/1.2, 35 f/1.4 and 24 f/1.4. A 28 f/1.4 L would slot nicely between the 35 and 24Ls. Although I'm not sure if there is a sufficiently large market for 28mm primes anymore. It seems like the 24s are a lot more popular than the 28s.
Another vote for an ultra wide zoom that is sharp at the corners. Don't get me wrong I like my 16-35 but it leaves a lot to be desired in the corners.
Given the minimal improvement between the 16-35 I and 16-35 II despite many years passing and increasing of front element to 82mm filter thread, I think the only way a UWA Zoom will be sharp at corners is with a bulbous element w/o filter support.
Again, bulbous elements have very good filter support..............
You can find other white box splits for $50 or more less.
Be careful, Canadians.....
Import Charges (Estimated): $123.15 ? ? ? ? ?
What import charges? I've never had import charges on stuff I've bought from the U.S. before.
Look, the reviewer obviously hasn't read the commentary on this website regarding the lens because quite clearly, without autofocus, this lens is not worth $4000 and nobody will buy it without autofocus, even if it is the sharpest lens since the big bang.
Those of us who want the highest image quality - dynamic range and resolution - will be pushed to the medium format system.
I think most people will be happy.
Based on what's in your sig, I'd get the 85L and 16-35L, or the 85L, 100L and a second 600EX.