Messages

211

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS USM

« on: February 06, 2012, 04:35:15 PM »

... I will not be surprised if Canon releases mirrorless or Rebel-like FF some time this year.

I like the way you think. 


As for the comments about the silver ring:
75-300mm III has a silver ring (1999) -

90-300mm had it too (2003) -

28-90mm III as well (2004) -


Canon attempted to differentiate lenses with USM by using the gold ring (see 17-85mm, 70-300mm IS non-L, 10-22mm, 17-85mm) regardless of mount (EF or EF-S).  Looks like since 2009, they have abandoned that practice (see 15-85mm).  The 15-85mm lens is the only non-L lens released with USM since 2006 (17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM).

Additionally, the mounting dot is red, which is 100% indicative of EF mount.

212

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS USM

« on: February 06, 2012, 02:13:05 PM »

Comparing the picture of the new lens to the existing 24mm f/2.8 shows that both use a 58mm filter and the front elements are the same size ~43mm.  I would assume, then, that the new lens would have the same aperture as the old lens.

For comparison, the 24mm f/1.4L II USM has a 77mm filter thread and a front element with a diameter ~50mm.

213

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28 f/2.8 IS USM

« on: February 06, 2012, 01:57:00 PM »

...we don't see anything in these images that makes me believe it is in fact a 2.8. ...

Based on the picture, the front element appears to be 75% of the size of the 58mm filter thread (~43mm diameter front element)

Compared to the existing 28mm f/2.8 which appears to be 70% of the smaller 52mm filter thread (~36mm diameter), it does seem to be indicative of a f/2.5 or f/2.2 for the new lens (42% larger area of front element).

EDIT: Additionally, using the same method of calculation the existing 28mm f/1.8 USM appears to have a 48mm element inside a 58mm filter thread (~82%).

214

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

« on: February 01, 2012, 01:32:47 PM »

GCC, please keep our forum stocked with beautiful car pictures (especially Porsches).  Your photographs are very impressive.

215

Lenses / Re: I can't believe I bought a $2000 prime.

« on: January 27, 2012, 12:11:41 PM »

Speaking of good deals on CL, I saw a Nikkor AF-S 600mm f/4 IF-ED II on CL this morning in St Louis for $1800.  The ad is gone now, and was the original owner with case and I believe it also said he has the original receipt from B&H.  Could have turned that into $3000-5000 in no time.

216

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D X Speculation

« on: January 24, 2012, 01:49:58 AM »

Would a 7D and 5D Mark II combining end up with a 46MP camera (same density as 7D and per-pixel noise, and same sensor size at 5D2)?  Yes, I know it sounds like dreaming, but it would have the FF most everyone love, and an identical picture to the 7D for the long-reach fans (birders, sports) when cropped.

217

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III Sighting?

« on: January 23, 2012, 05:14:38 PM »

by the way.. i think the image on the LCD shows a little bit to much noise.
i thought canon would have improved low iso noise.


 

I was about to post a 'what the heck are you thinking?', but then I read it was you, Gothmoth.  I'm glad I understand your humor, it saved me from correcting what is obviously sarcasm.  The upcoming 5D3 should mean good prices on older FF bodies, something I look forward to.

218

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28 f/2.8 Disappears From Price List

« on: January 13, 2012, 12:29:35 PM »

I own the 28mm f/2.8 and agree with smirkypants that it is too loud, slow (focusing and aperture), and optically mediocre for me to use very often.  I would love for Canon to replace the 35mm f/2 and 28mm f/2.8 with USM (MM USM for lower cost).  I also think the 50mm f/1.8 should get MM and better build quality (and a bump up in price, but still below $200), and the 50mm f/1.4 USM to get the real USM (would likely push the cost up to the 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2 range).  C'mon Canon, Nikon has been replacing all its non-Professional primes lately.  Isn't it time for Canon to make USM standard?

smirky, I agree with most of what you say, but the 28mm f/2.8 is a $260 lens, the comparable f/2.8 zooms you talk about start at $1000 for Canon, or $440-850 for third-party lenses.  Additionally the f/2.8 zoom are considerably larger and heavier than the 28mm f/2.8.  Not everyone can afford the zooms or the included weight and size.  That said, a more silent and optically better 28mm f/2.8 would be nice if the price remains low.

I did not pay $250 for my 28mm f/2.8, and definitely would not have bought it if it were more than the $50 I paid.

219

PowerShot Cameras / Re: *UPDATE* Canon PowerShot G1X Revealed

« on: January 05, 2012, 03:36:37 PM »

What does that mean in terms of the lens?  The quoted spec is 'f/2.5-16' and if that's as correctly quoted as the 1.5" sensor, then based on how apertures are printed on the lens, it means f/2.5 max aperture at the wide end and f/16 max aperture at the long end.  I really doubt they'd release a camera that only opens to f/16 at the long end, so I believe that that spec is indicating the total aperture range (i.e. f/2.5 max aperture at the wide end, some unknown max aperture at the long end, and a minimum aperture of f/16 throughout the range - that improves on the G12 which is f/2.8 max and f/8 min).

So, if the Wells Fargo analyst isn't relating the information on the aperture in the standard/conventional way, what makes it certain that the sensor is being specified properly? 

Bigger than m4/3?  Ok, conservatively slot it between that and the Canon APS-C and give it a 1.9x crop factor.  That means a 28-112mm FF-equivalent lens is really a 15-59mm lens, with f/2.5 at the wide end.  That means it's got to be substantially bigger than the m4/3 kit lenses, the smallest of which (Oly 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6) is 2.5" long when retracted.  The PowerShot G12 is 1.9" deep - do you think Canon will release a G1X that's well over 3" deep, probably closer to 4" deep?  If it has a sensor bigger than m4/3, it would have to be...

I completely understand what you're saying neuro, but I'd like to add this for arguments sake:

Canon 510HS:
1/2.3" sensor
28-336mm equivalent (5.0-60mm f/3.4-5.9)
12x
dimensions: 99 x 59 x 22 mm (3.9 x 2.3 x 0.9 in)


equivalent older camera

Canon SX200 IS: (2009)
1/2.3" sensor
28-336mm equivalent (5.0-60mm f/3.4-5.3) slightly faster on the long end
12x
dimensions: 103 x 61 x 38 mm (4.1 x 2.4 x 1.5 in)


even older camera

Canon S3 IS: (2006)
1/2.5" sensor smaller sensor
36-432mm equivalent (6.0-72mm f/2.7-3.5) a little longer, and faster (1 full stop) throughout the range
12x
dimensions: 113 x 78 x 76 mm (4.5 x 3.1 x 3 in)


I know the physics of lens design has not changed, but they have managed to cram larger range zooms into smaller cameras.

and the Pro 1 that was mentioned earlier in this thread:
2/3" sensor
28-200mm equivalent  (7.2-50.8mm f/2.4-3.5) slightly faster than S3, much faster than SX200 and 510HS
7x shorter zoom range
dimensions: 118 x 72 x 90 mm (4.6 x 2.8 x 3.5 in)


Neuro, I completely agree with you, though, that this is definitely NOT a constant aperture zoom lens.

220

EOS Bodies / Re: Pre CES Week: Lenses, Cameras & Compacts

« on: January 03, 2012, 03:49:47 PM »

... 85-300 f4 (THEY USED TO MAKE ONE!!!  )? ...

Yes, but only in FD/nFD mount and f/4.5 (not f/4)

new FD 85-300mm f/4.5
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/nfd/data/zoom/nfd_85~300_45.html
FD 85-300mm f/4.5 S.S.C.
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/fd/data/zoom/fd_85~300_45_ssc.html

They weighed 1.6 and 1.8 kg (3.5 and 4.0 lbs), respectively.

And there's also the 1.85 kg FL mount 85-300mm f/5
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/fl/data/zoom/fl_85~300_5.html

EDIT:
For comparison the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L weighs 1.67 kg, the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L weighs 1.36 kg, and the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II weighs 1.49 kg.  I'm sure modern plastics and metals would bring the weight down, but it is still going to be a very large and heavy lens.  Honestly, with the 200-400 f/4 1.4x in the future and the great 70-300mm f/4-5.6L available now, I can't see a lens like that being resurrected.

221

Lenses / Re: What's the best deal you've ever gotten on a lens? I'll start...

« on: December 20, 2011, 10:42:30 AM »

TS-E 24mm II for $900.

Wow!  Jealous.  I would love to have a TS-E to play with, especially that or the 17mm.

222

Lenses / Re: What's the best deal you've ever gotten on a lens? I'll start...

« on: December 20, 2011, 10:40:37 AM »

Here are my best deals (all aquired on CL):

• Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 - $50 (broken, fixed for $0)
• Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM- $75 (broken, fixed for $20, so $95 total)
• Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - free with 20D, sold 20D and ended up spending $111 total for the lens (poor planning on auction end on my part, should have been net $0)

On the camera front:

• (2) Digital Rebels purchased broken, fixed, and sold on eBay for $70 net profit (after fees and shipping)
• Rebel XTi - $100 (with infamous dirty shutter button issue) sold my XT after I fixed it, and netted $45 profit for the upgrade
• (6) Canon 420EX flashes - $300 (selling all but two on eBay, and breaking even)

Constantly scoping CL for deals and potential projects.

223

Canon General / Re: Canon Files a Patent for a Bunch of Lenses.

« on: December 16, 2011, 08:47:14 PM »

EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
Nine elements in 7 groups

Handy list, but the patent example is for a 200mm f/2, not an f/2.8.

Good call, guess I didn't read it closely enough.  I can't imagine what can be improved with the 200mm f/2, the current lens is quite possibly the most optically perfect lens made, and has all the latest technologies that Canon offers (4-stop IS, Ring USM, Flourite, UD).  Unless they improved the barrel design with new materials like the 300, 400, 500, and 600mm lenses to make them lighter, I can't imagine what could be made better (especially since the current one was released in 2008).  The current 200mm f2 is heavier than the 300mm f2.8 IS II (5.56 lbs and 5.19 lbs, respectively), but slightly lighter than the 300mm f2.8 IS (5.63 lbs).

224

Canon General / Re: Canon Files a Patent for a Bunch of Lenses.

« on: December 16, 2011, 12:42:22 PM »

For reference:

EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
Eight elements in 7 groups

EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
Nine elements in 7 groups

EF 100mm f/2 USM
Eight elements in 6 groups

EF 135mm f/2L USM
Ten elements in 8 groups

EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
Nine elements in 7 groups

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Seven elements in 6 groups

225

EOS Bodies / Re: This and That

« on: December 02, 2011, 02:03:39 PM »

I haven’t heard of a medium format prototype within Canon, however I have heard in the past that Canon has considered purchasing a medium format company. I’ve personally never understood why they would, they are more than capable of entering the market themselves.

What about purchasing an MF company because there would already be an existing mount, and a base of legacy lenses.  If Canon attempted to break into the MF market without that, wouldn't they need to develop their own mount and a brand new set of lenses?  Seems to make sense to me.  Same as Sony buying Konica/Minolta to use their mount (very different case, but same logic).