from what I've seen, there's not enough of a difference in the color, contrast, or bokeh for someone who doesn't earn hard money at 50mm to buy the f/1.2 L version
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.
I can't help but wonder if the engineering behind this is more of a result of comparing the 24-105 to Nikon's 24-120 than an analysis of what people want. The kind of thing that someone would make up...
I declare shenanigans.
I don't see myself paying 4000 euros or more for a 300/2.8 or other super-zoom unless I win the lottery but I would be prepared to pay well into the 2000's (Euro) for a new 100-400 4.5-5.6, with twist zoom, updated coatings and IS...Come on Canon, my money is waiting for you!
As a long time Canon user, at least, on paper, the D7000 is very impressive.
However, both D60 and D7000 are paper cameras right now, once they are tested and the operational quirks come out, we'll see.
Canon is obviously intending to beat the D7000 on price. Most cameras are sold thru big box stores, Best Buy, walmart, Ritz, etc. Price is the deciding factor to those who buy, so Canon may be successful. Chances are, the articulating LCD will appeal to many newbie users while the finer points will go unnoticed.
The 50d was between the D90 and the D300 and did not get much traction even though it was a excellent camera.
QuoteWhile it's certainly not a direct replacement, I think the two are close enough that Canon is unlikely to update the 100-400mm any time soon.
Unfortunately, I agree. A new 100-400 zoom, even if it is $500 more than the current model would probably undercut sales of the 70-300mm and unless a third party produces a quality competitor (are you listening Tokina!) Canon is under no pressure to upgrade the lens. The reviews I've read of the Sigma 400mm zoom are not too promising and the "Bigma" apparently has some serious autofocus issues.