The EF-M adapter is on the far left.
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.
Could you further elaborate as to the various types of filters offered by B+W? The XS-Pro vs the F-Pro.. etc. I don't see on the Schneider Optics page a comparison of the details of each. What's the difference? I found a thread online that claimed the F-Pro was made of brass whereas the XS-Pro wasn't, but according to Amazon, B&H, et. al. the XS-Pro is indeed made of brass.
I ask because between this thread, and this thread, I've gotten recommendations to go down the B+W route for filters.
Any help will be appreciated. I'm going to post a similar question on the other thread too since I've inadvertently scattered questions across 2 threads. I didn't realize that they were going to converge like this.
If you want a 35 mm lens and wonder if there will soon be a better one available, get a used 35L and you can more or less get your money back any day if you want something else instead. The Sigma is also worth considering if slight AF issues don't bother you that much. Personally I would now get a used 35L if didn't already have the Sigma.
Firstly, let me say that I do not have an engineering background or understanding that half of you folks do but I'm a little amused at the amount of damnation for a camera that nobody has even seen yet.
I know exactly what I want in the 7Dii but I guess it'll be different to every other Canon user's personal want list and as Canon are not in the business of Build-Ur-Own-Camera, they will release the best camera possible to us that they can.
On the DR issue; sure, I'd love Canon to have the upper hand over Nikon but right now they just don't. I've been in this position before though, I was a Sega fan during their 16bit war with Nintendo. 64 colours vs 256, mode 7. Street Fighter II was better on the SNES and yet, I still played games rabidly, day in, day out and loved every minute of it.
So once again, I'm not an engineer, heck, I'm only a very average photographer but I will use every moment I can to take photos because I friggin' love it!
Which is why I don't think it'll be f/2.8 or be as good as the 24 and 28 f/2.8 IS primes if it's priced anywhere near the 40mm pancake. And why launch it with the 7DII, unless it is an EF-S lens, but does that make sense when Canon has not shown much inclinination for EF-S primes?Why would it be f/2.8? The 24 f/2.8 IS isn't large, but it's not a pancake either. A 24mm pancake that is f/4 would make more sense, but I'm not sure how useful it'd be a crop camera.
24mm & 28mm f2.8 IS is very good small prime, but the price is around 4 times to 40mm pancake.
Or... the 24-70 f/4 IS is designed to replace the 24-105 f/4 IS as the sole kit lens. The 24-105 f/4 IS could then be redesigned to have better performance but for a higher price tag that will not be discounted as heavily because it will no longer be a kit lens. Some will upgrade from the 24-70 f/4 IS to the 24-105 f/4 IS II because it will be better with a longer focal length.
I don't see Canon selling a kit lens that is 35mm shorter than Sigma's alternative, which will be cheaper than the 24-105mm mk2, and 50mm shorter than Nikon's kit lens.If Canon were to offer an updated 24-105 f/4 IS II in a kit configuration, then there will little point for having the 24-70 f/4 IS in the first place. And if Canon designed the 24-70 f/4 IS to be a kit lens from the start, so that it's production costs are reasonable, then it can discount it in a kit aggressively while maintaining a reason for people to look for a reason to replace their kit lens.
That will create the image of Canon downgrading it's kit to make buyers draw the short straw.
The 24-105mm is different from other lenses:
1. The 24-105mm is a kit lens for two FF cameras, so it's white box price is a high priority for Canon. Therefore, Canon will be more sensitive to it's production costs, and less willing to invest in making the big investment in replacing it.
[This plays part in both upgrades from crop and in competition to Nikon kits.]
2. Being a kit lens, it should be positioned so as to encourage photographers to upgrade to other lenses - better, wider, longer, faster, etc.
A new 24-105mm would be detrimental to both causes, so I expect Canon to delay upgrade as long as it can. Currently Canon has the advantage of being able to offer a more attractive price in a kit, so I don't see how an upgrade would be urgent from Canon's point of view.
I'm not crazy about f/6.3, either, but it is also 1/3rd of a stop of light. It is rare that the 1/3rd stop makes much of a difference, and the high ISO performance of the 6D that I use it with means that I can get away with cranking ISO and still get very nice images.
I suspect that the 28-300L probably has higher resolution than this lens...but I doubt the difference is significant. This lens is surprisingly competent (I wasn't nearly as impressed with the new 16-300 VC for crop).
This is where I don't get why Canon would make this lens f/2.8 leading to a huge size & cost. Action shooters are much more likely to use a fisheye instead of an 11mm lens, and I'm not seeing much bokeh this wide. Also, with today's high ISO bodies, and lenses this wide, who can't handhold at 1/10-1/30s? I thought that the f/4 aperture was the smartest decision Canon made with the 16-35 f/4 IS. I love fast lenses and would kill for this proposed lens, but I just don't see the need for f/2.8 on this lens.
Then again, it's CR1, so we're probably just making fools of ourselves by discussing this ridiculous rumor.
Not the official photographer?
Then just the 50, be everywhere while staying out of the way.
+1...let's the pro does his/her best.