« on: November 05, 2012, 11:56:15 PM »
Glad I got the 35mm f/2 for a steal. This new one is way above what I can justify for my hobby.
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.
"rumored" canon 14-24 l 2.8 + 24-70 2.8 ii + 70-200 2.8 is ii - this is the pro setup.I think the f/2.8 wide angle will be 14-24mm, but I think the f/4 will be 16-35 IS to directly compete in all aspects with the Nikon lens. That will make it wider than the current f/4, sharper (as pretty much all lenses have been over their predecessors) and likely more expensive. Hopefully, Canon will come out with cheaper variable aperture [or non-IS] UWA to replace the long-extinct 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for the lower end of the budget (~$500), as well. Think about this (as a beginner):
Some f4 wide angle (ex. 12-24 f4) + 24-70 f4 is + canon 70-200 f4 is -enthusiast setup
Comparing a D30 with a 1DX is as silly as comparing Velveeta with Cojack.
Actually, when you take noise into effect, you also have to decrease the effective aperture to get a valid comparison with a larger format. I can't do the math, but it's also roughly a stop.So the noise from a EOS D30 (2001) is one stop behind the 1D X? I don't think so. Everyone understands noise is in constant flux throughout models, formats, etc. So I think it is fair to leave noise out of the equation as it is not a constant like shutter speed and aperture. Given two models of camera it is fair to make a comparison on the level of noise and how many stops of advantage one has over another, but to make a blanket statement is not fair.
That is, f/1.3 @ ISO 100 on APS-C really is comparable to f/2.0 @ ISO 200 on full frame. And f/1.3 @ ISO 100 on full frame would be comparable to f/1.0 @ ISO 50 on APS-C. (Roughly, with rounding, etc., etc., etc.)
"For arguments sake, that would give an approximate field of view of 90mm f/1.3. A nice portrait lens for the new system."It only took 3 responses for someone to state the DOF-aperture comparison.
Just to clarify, it would be the approximate equivalent of a 90mm f/2.0 FF lens. You have to take the crop factor into account when comparing apertures as well as focal lengths.
Yeah... DOF would be about f/2 compared to full frame, but you still get the low light advantage of f/1.3 and you get the normal lens look too if that is something you like.And one more to correct the statement to not confuse people about the unchanged exposure triangle. Good job, CR commenters.
How many people who think this thing will be $500 are going to switch camps if its not?Absolutely I'd switch camps, it this proposed lens is $1000+ and/or replaces the 24-105mm in the Canon lineup I would be extremely disappointed. Even if it has IQ equal to 24-70mm II for the same price as the lens it is replacing, I think the good image quality is an excellent trade-off for the expanded range of the current 24-105mm. When was the last time you actually saw range shrink with a replacement lens?:
A new 135mm f/2L IS would be a dream all right - albeit sharpness can take a slight hit, maybe a 135mm f/1.4L? Probably they can find a way to let in more light in a longer lens but the lens could look like a longer 85 1.2L and cost too much.
True, over the last three decades. Not quite as much over the last decade, and most of Canon's previous generation of lenses are within a decade old.The EF 24mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/2.8, and TS-E 24mm f/3.5 are less than a decade old?