« on: Today at 10:02:49 AM »
That is not what I was trying to say, at all. Carl, you are one of the most argumentative and unreasonable people on this forum, your level of discourse brings the entire community down.Just a thought, but how many people (especially unhappy 17-40mm or 16-35mm owners complaining of soft corners) would be please if Canon replaced the 20mm f/2.8 USM with a 20mm f/2.8 IS or 18mm f/2.8 IS for around the same street price as the 17-40mm (not initially, but eventually drift down like the 24/28/35mm IS primes)?
I know 20mm is much longer than 16mm or 17mm, but I'm sure a new IS prime would be incredible sharp, and still fairly small. Sounds like the perfect solution for video (widest stabilized lens in Canon EOS mount) and tripod-free nighttime landscape photography (theoretically handholdable at 0.8 sec). What does the CR community think of such a replacement?
You can handhold a 24-105 IS for .8 seconds at 24mm, can't you? I think I've done it...well at least for .5 seconds. Of course that's an f/4 lens...One of the shots I posted in the "anything shot with a 6D" thread, was at 105mm handheld, I think for 1/8 or 1/5 of a second, ISO 5000...was during the "blue hour".
I think Zeiss should make an f/1.4 wide angle zoom that autofocuses, has tilt shift, along with IS, weather sealing, and magnesium/carbon fiber construction...for $500!
It is not unreasonable to say that Canon will replace the 20mm f/2.8 in the near future with IS, if they are replacing the 85mm f/1.8 USM with an IS version. Price should be pretty comparable to the 24/28/35mm IS primes. My assumption of this future lens was in no way unrealistic.
Also, a stop faster lens means either: 1) a lower ISO for less noise, or 2) even lower light levels than the 24-105mm f/4L. I'm sure you can get sharp pictures at 24mm at 0.8 sec with a somewhat acceptable keeper rate, but a wider, 20mm lens should in-theory increase that keeper rate (especially with the newest IS version and a fixed focal length lens that they can really optimized its effectiveness). I'm not trying to convince you I'm right, but your tendency to denegrate fellow forum members is disturbing.
EDIT: Sorry if I misread the tone of your post, I just noticed the tongue smiley.