« on: November 14, 2012, 12:59:44 PM »
First and foremost, you folks are wonderful for the quick, detailed and thoughtful feedback. I love this forum.
Let me buzz through this stuff and follow up.
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.
MARSU42, I have similar setup. I have the 50D and the 70-300L. I have been tryng to decide on using the 70-300L with the Kenko for wildlife or purchase the 400mm 5.6. Although I am not sure if there is any noticable difference in IQ using the Kenko extender versus the 4005.6 L by itself.
How are you liking the 40 Dolina? I haven't had any recent work or time with the lens but from my simple tests, it looks amazing and the focus on the 5dm3 is without flaw. That said its not as fast as an L but then i expected that. I didn't buy it for fast focus.
The lens is being introduced at $849, not $900. And the introductory price most likely won't last. The 24/2.8 IS was also introduced at $849 and is now $669 with the instant rebate — a much more reasonable price.Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.May be you are part of the minority of people willing to pay 900$ for such a lens!!!
It's your right of course. I prefer to be part of the minority of people who enjoy the 35mm 1.4L ...
So watch for the 35/2 IS to be $669 at some point, or at least closer to $700 than $900. The 35/1.4L is currently $1,329 with the instant rebate, so it looks like the 35/2 IS will cost about half as much as the 35/1.4L after the introductory price falls. That seems about right.
I love the 35/1.4L but it's quite large & heavy. I'm looking forward to trying the new 35/2 IS as a possible substitute for or addition to the 35/1.4L. A compact, high quality 35/2 with IS sounds like a fantastic lens.
But this conversation will become 4, 5, and 6 stop IS much faster than Canon can develop, say, F/1.0 lenses. IS will become a bigger and bigger part of the low light conversation, along with the body's ability to process higher and higher ISO.
I'm not so sure where the technical barriers for new IS systems are (does anyone know?), imho much more likely iso capability of newer cameras will solve the problem.
But since you're quoting the review of the prime with IS and this thread is about the 24-70/4, too: The hybrid IS system is much louder and in certain angles produces frightening noises - at least on the (or my) 100L.
Doesn't it make sense that people would pay a premium for a much more handholdable low light lens? Up until these IS lenses (24, 28, 35) being released, what was the best low light prime from Canon? And with the exception of motion blur issues, will the ability to stop down 4 stops of shutter speed really make these lenses a low key shooters wet dream?
The next lens for me will be a wide prime…..which one?
One wonders if in 10 years, the majority of camera glass will be unbelieveably small/light F/4, F/5.6 glass with 7-8 stops of IS. I know that's heresy for this forum -- who constantly push their gear to get the most out of their shots -- but it's a possibility, right?
While I don't doubt that IS will eventually make its way down to more lenses in the future, what you suggest would not work for those shooting action. IS elements would also have to be larger to accomodate more travel to counteract lower frequency jitter/shake, which is a sizing issue.
Short focal lengths? What about 50mm to 70mm? I don't think that's short at all. It'll especially be useful on the long end. And the IS will also be useful with the "slow" f/4 aperture. Even if you're getting a shutter speed of 1/10 at the 24mm wide end, wouldn't it be nice to have IS then? The IS will also certainly help the macro shooting. So it serves a great purpose on this lens, I think.
The choice between this and the f/2.8 should be clear = pro wedding shooters who need the speed and bokeh will go for the 2.8, hobbyists and video shooters will go for the f/4.
A few more thoughts on this lens: http://www.aputure.com/blog/?p=4228Correct me if i'm wrong but what's the point of IS in such short focal lengths?
With the release of 24-70 f/4L IS it will be a tough choice for some to decide with the 2.8 non IS version, what do you think?