Canon General / Re: Canon U.S.A. Raises Awareness About Counterfeit Accessories For Digital Cameras And Camcorders A« on: January 20, 2013, 07:32:16 PM »
That slogan sounds like it should be a condom advertisement.
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.
Normally, I would go for the better glass over a body. But, the 24-70 II is only a marginal upgrade over the 24-105 and the 6D is vastly better than the T4i.
QuoteLooking to buy a 1dx but wondering about a price drop for the holidays. Does anybody remember from past experience how long after release the 1 series bodies price declined?
Seriously, if you're considering the 1D-X as a purchase then I don't think money should be an issue. It's a pro camera for a pro user. It should paid for itself within the first few gigs. And no. I don't think Canon's flagship camera will be dropping in price over the holidays anytime soon.
I cant agree that the 35L and the 50 1.4 are of similar build quality. The 35L is a league ahead in that regard, despite it's age, IMO.
Agreed, having owned the 50/1.4 I can say the 35L's build quality is superior to the 50/1.4.
It seems like a great lens, but the price just kills it for me. I still can't understand how Canon keeps coming out with new products at higher price points than ever while the world has been in a global recession and economies continue to suffer. It's very short sighted and clueless of Canon. I would buy this in a heart beat if it was $1,700.
800 + 800 = 2300 ?
At 1000 US yes, any higher, no. I like my recently purchased 24-105.
You should consider replacing the 60D with a body that has AFMA before investing much in high speed glass. It makes a big difference. It makes a difference with f/2.8 lenses but the difference is much more signficant at f/1.4 or f/1.2.
I like the 35L as a low light option. 135L is too long on a a crop body esp. indoors, but you can confirm that once you have a chance to play with the 70-200.
Its probably the kitlens for the 6d, but then it has to be small, light and cheap. So 450g and around 500$ street price? Everything else, doesn't make sense in my eyes.
I love the long end of the 24-105mm and that is the only reason i never switched to the 24-70/2.8.
I am sorry but I don't get all the complaining. The 70-200 F/4L IS an absolute cracker.
Frequently we find ourselves discussing image quality. If an affordable improved standard zoom becomes available with great image quality I can't see it being DOA. If people love the 24-105 well then it will probably become a little cheaper anyway so they can get it and everyone wins.
I reckon $1200.
...and for real, why is IS all of sudden only for videographers. Nasty Canon - always pandering to the needs of those fools who should just buy a real video camera.
I'm in the minority in believing that IS is great at any focal length. IS buys me more handholdability in low light. I can keep my ISO sub-stratospheric and still net the shot.
I think it's more for those of us with the 24-105, we're all going "meh, this lens does nothing for me." Those with the 24-70 f/2.8 (either version) look at it with disdain/envy since it's f/4 and they need f/2.8, and it has IS which many of them would love.
Nearly all of us are a bit confused, because unless it's quite a bit cheaper than the 24-105 for something like a 6D bundle, why should Canon go ahead with yet another lens that seems less useful than one they already have that they've been making for years and many, many people are happy with. If indeed it is quite a bit cheaper, even if it's around the same IQ as the 24-105, it makes a lot of sense. If it's a bit cheaper or about the same, and much better IQ than the 24-105, maybe we have a new FF kit lens and the 24-105 is going away without an update Either way, I think it really depends on the price this will be as to how well it will be received.