September 23, 2014, 07:02:21 PM

Author Topic: Why does not Canon have a 50-150 f.2,8 L is and a 150-300 f.2,8 L is lenses.  (Read 10650 times)

Act444

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Canon's 35mm 1.4L is excellent on a crop-camera because it gives you that approximate ~50mm natural view. But the cost ($1480) is quite prohibitive for anyone but the most serious photographers/professional photographers...I suppose the f2 version is cheaper, but that lens has been around for years and needs an update.

canon rumors FORUM


EYEONE

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
I suppose the f2 version is cheaper, but that lens has been around for years and needs an update.

Desperately needs an update.
Canon 5D Mark III w/BG-E11, Canon 7D w/BG-E7: EF 24-70mm f.2.8L, EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, EF 40mm f2.8 Pancake STM, Speedlite 430EXII + 430EXI, Canon EOS 3

Blaze

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Because i would find it wery usefull if they did. I myself have a 17-40 and would find this zoom range 50-150 very useful indeed . So the next thing would naturally be a 150-300 f.2,8 L is zoom.
If they could make suche lenses. Im sure these two lenses would be very compact.

How in the world can you get fast tele-zooms that are "very compact"? A 150-300mm f/2.8 L would be a big white monster.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14473
    • View Profile
Because i would find it wery usefull if they did. I myself have a 17-40 and would find this zoom range 50-150 very useful indeed . So the next thing would naturally be a 150-300 f.2,8 L is zoom.
If they could make suche lenses. Im sure these two lenses would be very compact.

How in the world can you get fast tele-zooms that are "very compact"? A 150-300mm f/2.8 L would be a big white monster.

To Heidrun, a Hummer might be a small, fuel-efficient vehicle.  It's all relative.   ::)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

adamdoesmovies

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Quote
"With Canon, you sometimes get the impression that if you're not using a full frame camera, you are a second class citizen."

Its all about money. Its a food chain. The whole point of this, that if you want to take photography seriously, you cant get stuck at APS-C. What do you think, why theres no weather sealed EF-S lens? For the same reason. If you want to go pro, you have to go fullframe.

Then why is the 7D, which is the next best thing to the 1D's weather sealed?

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1400
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
Quote
"With Canon, you sometimes get the impression that if you're not using a full frame camera, you are a second class citizen."

Its all about money. Its a food chain. The whole point of this, that if you want to take photography seriously, you cant get stuck at APS-C. What do you think, why theres no weather sealed EF-S lens? For the same reason. If you want to go pro, you have to go fullframe.

Then why is the 7D, which is the next best thing to the 1D's weather sealed?

but then, the 7D is your sports and wildlife camera, typically with long focal range lenses (ie 70-200 2.8/4 is, 70-300L, and all the big white primes). bird/animal hunting and field sports especially don't get interrupted by a bit of rain, so you need a weather sealed body for that.

i've got a 7D, and i love my 15-85 for wide landscapes. but i also know in the back of my head, that if i was going to be more serious about landscapes and sweeping panoramas, then i'd be saving for a 5d2 + 16-35.ii. Panoramas tend to (ok, not always) look better when it's not raining. what else is the 5d2 good for? lowlight, ie weddings, indoors (start trails? yeah, when it's not raining...) and other things that don't need a weather sealed body.



or just look at the simple answer: the 5d2 is a year or two older than the 7d, and it takes a while to get new tech into cheaper things. yes, they had weather sealing already way-back-when the 1n and 3 film cameras were around, but digital has more buttons and plugs to seal up. adding weather sealing to the 5d2 at the time of release would have pushed back the release date and price up.
also, canon obviously knew the direction they were heading with the 550/60/600 all coming out with the same sensor, you have to make the most expensive model worth the extra money, so they sealed it up knowing the 60d would be coming out later and had to be justifiably cheaper.
and yes, by that logic the 5d3 should definitely be sealed, but you never know...
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

EYEONE

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
and yes, by that logic the 5d3 should definitely be sealed, but you never know...

I'm confused. You know the 5D2 is weather sealed right?
Canon 5D Mark III w/BG-E11, Canon 7D w/BG-E7: EF 24-70mm f.2.8L, EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, EF 40mm f2.8 Pancake STM, Speedlite 430EXII + 430EXI, Canon EOS 3

canon rumors FORUM


neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14473
    • View Profile
I'm confused. You know the 5D2 is weather sealed right?

Yes...just not as well as the 7D.  The rank ordering of weather sealing is: 1-series > 7D > 5DII = 60D/50D.  Personally, I trust my 7D in the rain when a sealed lens is mounted on it, but I wouldn't trust the 5DII in anything more than a light drizzle.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

jcns

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
because canon has
24-70 2.8 not IS but rumor has it that it's coming, but I really don't see the point given that it's2.8 and with current ISO technology being so good - current MSRP $1,399
70-200 2.8 IS - MSRP $2,499
300 2.8 with a whopping MSRP $4,879.  How much do you think a 150-300 2.8 would cost?!

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14473
    • View Profile
70-200 2.8 IS - MSRP $2,499
300 2.8 with a whopping MSRP $4,879.  How much do you think a 150-300 2.8 would cost?!

Agreed - I think the OP is pretty far off base (especially the comment about a 150-300mm f/2.8 being compact!).  It would certaily be bigger and heavier than the 300/2.8, which is already 10" long and 5 lbs.  If you think the MSRP of the 300/2.8 is 'whopping', check out the MkII price.  A 150-300/2.8 would likely cost well north of the 300/2.8 II, probably in the $8-9K range.  But it's a moot point, as I don't ever see Canon making a lens like this. 

24-70 2.8 not IS but rumor has it that it's coming, but I really don't see the point given that it's2.8 and with current ISO technology being so good

Given that f/2.8 speed comes at the expense of depth of field, I'd like the flexibility of being able to stop action with a combination of f/2.8 and high ISO, or get an increased DoF for a static subject with IS and a slow shutter speed.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

adamdoesmovies

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile


24-70 2.8 not IS but rumor has it that it's coming, but I really don't see the point given that it's2.8 and with current ISO technology being so good

Given that f/2.8 speed comes at the expense of depth of field, I'd like the flexibility of being able to stop action with a combination of f/2.8 and high ISO, or get an increased DoF for a static subject with IS and a slow shutter speed.

One thing everyone seems to forget about is that us video/film people have come to rely on IS when we're shooting, as it's pretty much the only way to use the 7D handheld for video.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14473
    • View Profile
One thing everyone seems to forget about is that us video/film people have come to rely on IS when we're shooting, as it's pretty much the only way to use the 7D handheld for video.

What's this video thing that everyone keeps mentioning?   ::)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

AJ

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 409
    • View Profile
I have a Tokina 50-135/2.8.  Optically it's the perfect portrait lens.  It's fairly big and heavy - perhaps slightly heavier than Canon 70-200/4L (both have a 67 mm front element) but way smaller than a 70-200/2.8

Problem with the Tokina is that AF is slow and hunts.  Also there's no IS.  It Canon came out with a ring-USM version plus IS, I bet it'd be popular.  I paid 500 bucks for my Tokina, but a Canon lens with ring-USM and IS would probably retail closer to a grand, I speculate.  Note, the Tokina has been discontinued.  Sigma has a 50-150/2.8.  Going out to 150 mm makes it bigger and heavier.

Sigma also has a 150-300/2.8 OS.  It looks great.  If this is the type of lens you want and you have the dough, then I say go for it:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/629-sigma120300f28oseos


canon rumors FORUM


Axilrod

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1373
    • View Profile
One thing everyone seems to forget about is that us video/film people have come to rely on IS when we're shooting, as it's pretty much the only way to use the 7D handheld for video.

What's this video thing that everyone keeps mentioning?   ::)

The only IS that works really well with video is the 100 Macro, only one with Hybrid IS.  But the 70-200, forget about it, way too much rolling shutter. 
5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

canon rumors FORUM