I know these reviews weren't supposed to be "super technical" and more practical. But including a coffee mug for a comparison of lenses in the lineup? Not my cup of tea
Please, keep them a bit more technical!
Sorry, I thought it would be funny (and seeing as I only own the one equivalent tele for comparison... feel free to crop that part out with your imagination).
Well, I appreciated the joke. And I still want one of those mugs! It's a shame Canon only made them as a one-off for that one show.
On the subject of the lens...I'm sure I'd absolutely love to have one, but I'm also struck by the trend towards slower and slower lenses, even in the top-of-the-line gear.
The previous incarnation of this lens was f/1.8. Yes, f/2 is still wicked fast for a 200mm lens, but it sure would have been nice to have seen it stay at f/1.8 -- or even go the extra half-stop the other direction to f/1.4! Sure, it'd make a big-and-heavy-and-expensive lens bigger and heavier and more expensive...but I bet most people willing to put up with the size, weight, and cost of this lens would gladly give up a bit more size, weight, and money for that extra stop.
It's not just the 200 that's going backwards. The top-of-the-line 50 today is only f/1.2. It used to be f/1.0, and Canon even made an f/0.95. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the next L 50 is f/1.4.
The new Great White is the 200-400 -- but it's only f/4, and slows all the way down to f/5.6 when you use the teleconverter. I'm sorry, but a 280 f/5.6 lens is hardly impressive, even if it's got great image quality. (Yes, yes -- you'd shoot at 280 without the TC engaged...but, still.)
Canon is doing some amazing things in reducing the weight of the Great Whites. They're currently investing the dividends of that research in giving us the same lenses at lower weights, and that's a good thing. I'd also like to see them keep the weight the same as before but offer that much more lens for the same weight.
Who's up for a 12-pound 400mm f/1.8?