I'd like to see a kit include a prime for once. Maybe the new 35mm f1.4 L II.
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.
Proof the image is fake:
The lens is set at 24mm and is fully retracted. Canon lenses extend when they get wider, and retract when zoomed.
@Picsfor - "who needs MF, and if you do, just use a different camera," nice, helpful answer. Also, the AF system never cares what aperture you use, only the max aperture of the lens. An f/2.8 max aperture activates the most precise points, but accuracy is driven by the f/2.8 baseline for triangulation by the AF system, even with an f/1.2 lens. That means MF has the potential to be more accurate with a lens faster than f/2.8, if you can install a focusing screen that shows the true DoF of a lens faster than f/2.5 (the approximate cutoff of the standard focus screen).
@Isurus - should be possible. The Canon USA page on the 1D X lists five different focusing screens (and the popup compatibility lists do include the 1D X).
So how exactly does "switching off the teleconverter" work? That's the part that has me most intrigued. You can't remove it, but you can turn it off?
If you look at a larger image of the lens, you can see a 'bump' behind the lug for the lens carrying strap, right under the switch for the internal extender. That switch appears to be a small lever, which I presume swings the lens elements for the internal 1.4x extender out of the optical path and into that 'bump' when the extender is 'off'.I got my number by taking the 100-400, and adding 50%; but looking at the pricing of f/4L primes in that range, your numbers look more realistic.
A constant f/4 zoom is a whole different beast than a variable (f/4.5-5.6) zoom like the 100-400mm. As others have stated, this new Canon lens is most similar to the Nikon 200-400mm f/4, which is 15" long, nearly 8 pounds, and costs $6800. The Canon has a built-in TC, and that expensive white paint, meaning it will come in at least $1K more than the Nikon counterpart.In my opinion a better option is to have the 70-200mm with a 2x extender which pretty much gives you a 100-400mm, although obviously not as sharp and the length (which is the major point of this discussion) etc then it is 2 lenses in one.
Ah, but it's not really two lenses in one. First off, even the new 2x III has a noticeable negative impact on IQ of the 70-200 II. Second, adding a teleconverter to a lens in the field is actually much more difficult than simply switching lenses (which I guess is one big reason Canon built it in to the new zoom). IMO, the better bet is a 70-200mm zoom paired with a longer prime lens. If Canon were to release a 400mm f/5.6L IS for around $1700 or a 500mm f/5.6L IS for under $2300, that would be a big seller, I think, and a great complement to the 70-200mm II.
I will wager $7499 USD.
I got my number by taking the 100-400, and adding 50%; but looking at the pricing of f/4L primes in that range, your numbers look more realistic.
That will make it almost like a 60D except the size and the grip. What is the point of having this model??
Sometimes it is right in front of your face....
1. Canon likely has shown a pictures from the advertising for the new camera.
2. Canon always has only photographs taken with the new body except for those photographs of the camera itself.
3. The photograph of the cranes is taken in low light with a very wide angle lens.
4. The only low light wide angle lens is the 16-35 f2.8 and it is only wide angle on a FF body.
Therefore, new camera is FF. Eithere that or they are going to announce a new printer.
Now if I could only count the pixels.....