« on: October 22, 2014, 02:01:48 PM »
I hope there's not a limit on how many we can pre-order.
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.
The C100 kit includes the camera body, 24-105mm f/4L lens, and an Atomos Ninja 2 external monitor/recorder to take advantage of the camera’s uncompressed 1080p 8-bit 4:2:2 HDMI output. The Ninja 2 then gives you the option of recording that signal in 10-bit Apple ProRes LT, 422, or HQ codecs to an included 240GB SanDisk Extreme SSD. An HDMI cable and an articulating arm for attaching the Ninja 2 to the C100 round out the kit.So, I guess the 24-105mm f/4 IS will be coexisting along with the 24-70mm f/4 IS for the foreseeable future.
The big question is: which way will the zoom go? The "correct" Canon way? Or the "reverse" Nikon way?After looking at the link, it appears this one zooms the "correct" Canon way!
Unfortunately, I'm sure it's the latter.
I think we're in agreement here. The response I'm talking about is their response to slowing sales of their current offering. Not necessarily from a Sigma, Tammy, or other 3rd party lens offering.I would love for that to be the reason for the delay in the 100-400mm update. Despite the Tamron's obvious flaws I would think they've carved quite a little corner in the not-insanely expensive supertelezoom market.
Do I think that is the actual reason? Unfortunately no. I think Canon is just content with the offering they have so far and have yet to feel the pinch/need to respond yet.
Canon's lens development cycles (except for maybe their 18-55 crop kit lenses) are long and carefully planned out. I'd be stunned if they'd go back to the drawing board on a lens that was pretty far along just based on one competitive offering.
I suppose it might happen if Nikon really hit it out of the park on a pro staple lens like a 24-70 or 70-200, but redirecting / setting new goals on a lens is a massive disruption to many people, materials and dollars that already have momentum in one direction. I really doubt Canon does this very often unless it's very early in the development effort.
I'm wondering if Canon took a long hard look at the Tokina 150-600 and decided that they had to go back to the drawing board to come up with something competitive.I would love for that to be the reason for the delay in the 100-400mm update. Despite the Tamron's obvious flaws I would think they've carved quite a little corner in the not-insanely expensive supertelezoom market.
This has previously been beaten up at length:Wow, I missed that thread somehow. I guess the part that I forget is that the 24mm pancake will be a good "gateway lens" for those strictly using APS-C bodies.
Both lenses are sharp, have the same focal length and have the same max aperture. Other than, they are quite different. A pancake is a sharp & small photography tool that is stripped down of many features. The non-L IS refresh lenses are basically sleeper L lenses minus the weathersealing and the red ring. One is not better than the other -- it just depends on what you need.
What's more important is the rumour update that the new pancake may be an EF-S mount. As a FF user, that's disappointing to hear, but now each of Canon's mounts would have a 35-40mm FF equivalent pancake to call on.
I see what you're saying also. But I don't think the 40mm has a huge image quality advantage over the new 24mm IS (very marginally sharper in the corners than the 24mm IS) - they were released at the same time after all. And I'd take IS over STM any day of the week, especially when there is no speed difference. And the 24mm IS can be used on full frame cameras as well. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose!A bit confused by the 24mm f/2.8 EF-S pancake prime. I use the 24mm f/2.8 IS on my SL1 and it is tiny.I can understand your arguments, but ...
I guess if you're really interested in saving a minute amount of weight & size, a little bit of money, and trade IS for STM it might be worth it. But I can't see it myself.
thinking about an 24mm f/2.8 EF-S pancake at the price and performance of the 40mm pancake I think the 24mm f/2.8 IS it a totally different league and nothing to compare. your thoughts?
(of course if you already have the 24mm f/2.8 IS the 24mm pancake is not interesting)