September 20, 2014, 04:37:08 PM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - Ellen Schmidtee

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 30
226
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS
« on: November 05, 2012, 05:51:38 AM »
At last - the 35mm f/2 I was waiting for, specifically with USM & improved aperture. If the price is right, I'm buying one.

227
Lenses / Re: New 50 Finally on the Way? [CR1]
« on: November 05, 2012, 12:00:18 AM »
IMHO, Canon can't price a new 50mm f/2 IS (& probably USM or STM) without practically killing either the existing f/1.8 or the new f/2 - people who care that much for a fraction of a stop would buy the f/1.4 anyway.
Somehow I doubt if a $900 lens would kill a $120 lens.

How many EF 50mm f/2 IS USM would Canon sell for $900? I think few enough.

228
Lenses / Re: New 50 Finally on the Way? [CR1]
« on: November 04, 2012, 10:48:15 AM »
Let's look back at the FD times, canon had the f1.2 f1.4 f1.8 AND f2.0 standard 50mm lenses, then there's the macro but very little chance of an upgrade for that. An F2.0 with IS ? Ok, but isn't it easy enough to produce to an f1.4 as 50mm lenses have always been?

IMHO, Canon can't price a new 50mm f/2 IS (& probably USM or STM) without practically killing either the existing f/1.8 or the new f/2 - people who care that much for a fraction of a stop would buy the f/1.4 anyway.

229
Lenses / Re: New 50 Finally on the Way? [CR1]
« on: November 04, 2012, 10:15:09 AM »
I wouldn't put it past Canon to make a new EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM intended for video.
Or why not EF 50mm f/2.8 IS USM for $700, in line with recent trends.

Wanted to write that, but am not sure Canon would actually replace a fast lens with a slow one. Then again, someone wrote on FB Canon might it f/2.0 and EOL the f/1.8 & f/1.4 lenses.

230
Lenses / Re: New 50 Finally on the Way? [CR1]
« on: November 04, 2012, 10:08:57 AM »
I wouldn't put it past Canon to make a new EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM intended for video.

If it's intended for video, my guess is that it would probably be STM, not USM, especially if the eventual goal is to allow lens focusing while recording video.

The new 24mm & 28mm have USM, rather than STM.

231
Lenses / Re: New 50 Finally on the Way? [CR1]
« on: November 04, 2012, 07:28:33 AM »
I wouldn't put it past Canon to make a new EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM intended for video.

232
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]
« on: October 31, 2012, 01:36:25 PM »
It really has to be either much cheaper or much better than 24-105. The third option is 24-105's end of life and price and IQ of 24-70 f4 on the same level as 24-105. If the last option would be true, then many people would hate Canon even more and finally found a reason to switch to N.

Sure I'd be pissed - I use the long end of the 24-105mm often. While the difference in the long end between the Canon 24-105mm and the Nikon 24-120mm is small, the difference between 70mm and 120mm isn't.

233
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« on: October 30, 2012, 11:18:54 AM »
Same with the 135mm f2 that is an excellent lens and IMO is not the most urgent need.

On the other end, they still have a few very lousy old lenses (20mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f2.5 macro, 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus  ::)), the wide angle zooms are not that good (both 17-40mm and 16-35mm), the TS-E 45mm and 90mm NEED the new design with separate controls, the 100-400mm could use a mechanical update, the 400mm 5.6 cries for an IS, there is no excellent wide angle between 14mm and 24mm (the 17mm TS-E is too specialized and expensive for normal use) and so on....

Instead of refining the 4th version of their tele-converters, maybe they should have a COMPLETE range of modern lenses to start with.

I understand they put a lot of emphasis on the big whites since this is big money, but what is honestly the percentage of photographers who can afford a 13,000$ 600mm f4 (aside from some full time specialized pros) ?

Mr. Canon, we have had a lot of refreshes lately, maybe it would be time to surprise us a bit with something really new....

I 2nd that.

234
EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« on: October 26, 2012, 09:19:54 AM »
I think I probably heard a thousand times in our forum ... "22Mpx is more than enough ... how much more do you need?" ... Whenever this question pop-up at me, I always wonder ... if there is ever a living Ansel Adam or Richard Avedon hearing this .... what will be their responds?

The average photographer isn't exactly Ansel Adams or Richard Avedon, neither in technical needs nor talent. Some are, but the rest don't need as much, e.g. in terms of mpx.

235
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EF Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: October 26, 2012, 12:54:45 AM »
If Canon can make an EF 35mm f/2 IS USM with IQ as good as the Samyang 35mm f/1.4, I'm buying one.

If Canon can make an EF 24mm f/2 USM with IQ as good as the Samyang 24mm f/1.4, I'm buying one.

Then the next logical question I have is: Why not just buy the Samyang lenses?

Already did, but as far as wishing go, I'd like autofocus as well.

236
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EF Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: October 24, 2012, 01:51:34 PM »
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?

To put numbers behind it, Canon has made 159 different EF/EF-S lens models since 1987.  Currently Canon USA lists 68 lenses (I take issue with 5, as they are no longer in production and no longer available new - 300mm f/2.8 IS I, 400mm f/2.8 IS I, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS I, 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM, 15mm Fisheye).  Out of the remaining 63 lenses here is how they break down by release date:

0-10 years - 37
10-15 years - 10
15-20 years - 9
20+ years - 7

So his statement is correct - 37/63 (59%) are 10 years old or less, which constitutes 'most'

Those are all the lenses, while we're talking about lenses upgraded recently (= within the last few years).

237
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EF Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: October 24, 2012, 10:28:29 AM »
If it's about a wish list, then here you are :

<snip>
24mm f2 IS USM
35mm f2 IS USM
45mm f2.8 TS-E II L
90mm f2.8 TS-E II L
14-28mm f2.8 USM L (x2 range sounds better)

<snip>

I'd rather have it extended x2 the other way - 12-24mm f/2.8 USM. I'd settle for 14-24mm f/4 with IQ as good as good as the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8

If Canon can make an EF 35mm f/2 IS USM with IQ as good as the Samyang 35mm f/1.4, I'm buying one.

I've read reviews of the new EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, and looking at FF corners, it's not enough to make me buy it as an addition to the 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. If Canon can make an EF 24mm f/2 USM with IQ as good as the Samyang 24mm f/1.4, I'm buying one.

238
Lenses / Re: New 50mm f/1.4 lenses are metal throughout?
« on: October 24, 2012, 04:55:06 AM »
Yes indeed, the lenses are all metal. The point is, the newest Canon sensors are too sensitive for glass lenses. At ISO 1000000000 and above you would need a shutter time of a millionth of a second or faster. The simple solution is to make a titanium lens. With that and a recent sensor you can take lovely pictures of black cats in dark rooms. Success!

Cats are lazy & slow. A good camera should be able to take shots of black bats racing through dark caves, with the autofocus system & lens tracking the bats as they fly.

239
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EF Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: October 24, 2012, 01:27:19 AM »
Does everyone truly, honestly believe that the introductory MSRP of a brand new lens should or even could be exactly the same as the current street price of the item it may be replacing?

I can't speak for everyone, but will speak for myself:

1. Part of progress is reduction of R&D and manufacturing costs, e.g. by using automation & mechanization. Computers have changed things drastically over the last three decades.

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?

2. I don't expect it to cost the same, but don't expect it to be, say as in the case of the new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, ~60% more expensive either.

Are you comparing the current street price of the older 24/2.8 to the MSRP of the new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM? That is exactly what I would call an unfair price comparison. Even comparing with it's current list price, $540, is a bit unfairl. That older lens has been on the market forever.

Which means Canon had "forever" of sales to profit from and save toward financing R&D of new model.

What was the original price of the 24 f/2.8, or the price from just a decade ago? $650?

You mean the old lens became 25% cheaper to make within a decade and in face of inflation, and materials used in lenses not experiencing deflation? Wasn't that my point above?

Compared to a list price of $850 for the new 24mm f/2.8 lens, the price difference is about 30%, rather than 60%.

No - I compare how much it costs to make a 24mm f/2.8 now to how much it costs to make a 24mm f/2.8 IS USM now.

When you account for inflation over the last decade, a $650 lens from 2000 would be an $874 lens today.

Why would I compare the price to 10 years ago? Was the lens just release, so Canon was in 'R&D costs recouping' phase? A decade ago the 24mm f/2.8 was still a decade old lens.

4. Inflation applies the same way to existing & new lenses.

Sure, however a new lens just released only has a price right now. There is no historical price to apply inflation to. A decade-old lens, on the other hand, had a higher price 10 or 15 years ago than it does today...when you adjust for inflation.
[/quote]

No, inflation means the price of the 24mm f/2.8 today should have been higher than it's price 10 or 15 years ago. If it's lower, than it's price had deflated, e.g. because "part of progress is reduction of manufacturing [and distribution, etc] costs".

240
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EF Lens Speculation [CR1]
« on: October 23, 2012, 02:21:36 PM »
Does everyone truly, honestly believe that the introductory MSRP of a brand new lens should or even could be exactly the same as the current street price of the item it may be replacing?

I can't speak for everyone, but will speak for myself:

1. Part of progress is reduction of R&D and manufacturing costs, e.g. by using automation & mechanization. Computers have changed things drastically over the last three decades.

2. I don't expect it to cost the same, but don't expect it to be, say as in the case of the new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, ~60% more expensive either.

3. I'd expect some of the profits from previous lenses to go into R&D of new lenses. E.g. Canon sold the 24mm f/2.8 for almost 25 years before releasing the new IS USM version, and made some money from it.

4. Inflation applies the same way to existing & new lenses.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 30