Messages

61

Lenses / Re: Canon Announces 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS

« on: August 26, 2010, 09:24:42 PM »

If 70-200 F/4 L IS with Extender EF 1.4x III will still be cheaper than 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS then the pricing of this tele is not very justified.

This.  I can't for the life of me make any sense of this lens.  And $1500?  How exactly is this an "affordable" lens?  Strange.

62

Lenses / Re: The Big White Lenses [CR2.5]

« on: August 18, 2010, 07:33:52 AM »

I'm hoping "reduced weight" doesn't mean they are going to continue the trend of using plastic construction for their L lenses and these in particular (I'm looking at you 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro and 24mm f/1.4 L II).  I'm really not a huge fan a plastic construction.

63

EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Mark IV & A New

« on: August 09, 2010, 08:28:08 PM »

I'd love to see this be true as well, but I'd actually like it to be in the bigger, 1D-like form factor.  Personally, I like the balance of the bigger camera and they feel better in my hands.

64

Lenses / Re: 3 Lenses for Photokina, but...[CR2]

« on: July 28, 2010, 01:51:58 PM »

Why are people so convinced that the 60mm macro will get an update with I/S?  Just because of the patent?

The bigger question for me is why would someone prefer to have this lens over the 100mm macro?  While I know there are cost and size advantages, I would think the not-as-pleasant out-of-focus areas, EF-S limitation (can't mount to FF), shorter working distance, and probably poorer build construction would be things you wouldn't want to give up.

It seems to me there are more important lenses in the line-up that are actually in need of an update.

65

Lenses / Re: New f/4L EF Zoom [CR1]

« on: July 20, 2010, 10:20:47 PM »

I certainly don't think the high ISO ranges of newer cameras negates the need for f/2.8 zooms.  Some will always have a preference for the depth of field of an f/2.8 and f/2.8 will always allow you to use a lower ISO and higher shutter speeds relative to f/4.0, which will still allow for incremental improvement in some situations.

That being said, the performance of the 16-35 f/2.8 II leaves something to be desired.