the 1D mk3 doesn't have video have a look on ebay the mk3s are popping up more and more
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.
Disclaimer: THIS IS NOT A RUMOR, JUST A WISH LIST OR THEORETICAL LENS.
Just out of curiosity is there anything that would keep Canon (or any other maker of APS-C of FF SLRs) from making an f/2 zoom like this? In theory, the lens would be identical to the size of a 70-200mm f/2.8 (and likely just as expensive - if not more so), and would act like an 80-225mm f/2.8 with the 1.6x crop factor of APS-C cameras. On top of that it would make a killer portrait lens on a full frame camera and could replicate 4 other lenses (50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, and 135mm f/2) with the flexibility of zooming and added benefit of IS.
Adding on a 1.4x teleconverter would make it a 70-200mm f/2.8; a 2.0x would bring it up to 100-280mm f/4.
What do you guys think? Would you be interested in such a beast? I know Olympus has made a line of f/2 zooms, just wondered what the CR community would think of one in the Canon mount.
Do you happen to know a good quote/company for business uses?Of course I know that I can get insurance for it, and I probably will.
No 'probably' about it - get insurance. If a thief wants to take something, they will. I pay $7.60 per year per $1K covered gear. Low cost for piece of mind...
Could you please send me a link regard to that insurance?
State Farm. You'd need to go through your local agent, and I don't think they write just a Personal Articles policy, you probably need to have home/renters insurance with them.
As stated above, it's for personal use only, not business.
Given the high price of entry to the MkII, it is quite possible that the used prices of MkI 24-70 lenses may increase from where they are now. It's happened before.
In a spectacular stroke of luck I got a stellar 18 month old 24-70 f/2.8 MkI from Gumtree for just $600. It was literally two days before the new lens was announced.
Generally a good used 24-70 will go for double this. Get a late build and they are generally very good. Avoid earlier copies. YMMV.
This is how you check the year of manufacture: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx
Tuck your arms in, spread your legs slightly, lean against something, take a deep breath and exhale fullysounds like preparing for canons new pricing!
Are you all saying this will work with the 70-300 F4-5.6 L I read where the Canon TC will not, so I was going to purchase a 70-200 F4.... But if this works, I'll get the 70-300 instead. As the original poster said, I would not need it much with a range upto 300, as I use a 60D, and this would be a better choice for me as I shoot birds alot.
Thanks for any info!
While I kind of see what people are getting at, video is nice and all. I like to watch movies too but a still image is different in that it's a moment frozen, capturing a certain motion blur when panning, stopping a bird in flight all of these tangible things that happen in a blink can be frozen for a viewer to spend however long they want to look at absorb the detail. Video is kind of like life its there then its gone only you cen rewind and replay pause and slow down and speed up but that still involves a process but to look at a still image all you need to do is look at it.
When cameras were invented did all the painters in the world cry that no one would be painting anymore in a few years? I dont think so.
Its a different medium and presents the subject completely differently
Shooting on a RED camera you can essentially shoot video in RAW; each frame is like a RAW image. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this (it could just be their marketing speak). Someday, I don't see why most video formats couldn't advance to a point in which each frame is a very hi res photo. Will this change the way photographers work?