July 31, 2014, 10:48:24 AM

Author Topic: sorry i have to ask....  (Read 3381 times)

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2446
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2014, 12:43:21 PM »
Canon has over 70 lenses available.  How many more do you need?   :P

Seriously, it's past time for a 35L II.

Here you go ;):
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

canon rumors FORUM

Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2014, 12:43:21 PM »

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1668
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2014, 12:47:03 PM »
Seems like a lot of folks are interested in the extreme lenses in the long range.

Me, I would like to see a 24-105 ver II.  I would also like to see a 16-35 III.

Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.

The 24-70 ver II that came out was obviously a hit but also way overpriced.

For most mid-range enthusiasts, the 24-105 has been a great lens.  It is likely most folks 1st L lens with good reason.  Why doesn't Canon improve that lens after all this time?  Seems like it would sell well for them.

Unfortunately, unless a new 24-105 v2 was significantly improved (f/2.8? highly unlikely) I doubt it'd sell in vast numbers. Mostly it'd probably be sold as part of a kit, like it is now, which wouldn't boost sales really. Just like with the new Sigma 24-105. It's a bit better in some ways, and if I were to buy a new FF camera and didn't have the current 24-105L, I'd probably buy that instead with a bare camera instead of as a kit. But since I already have the 24-105L, I'm not going to buy it.
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

LuCoOc

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #17 on: March 19, 2014, 12:47:20 PM »
You seem to forget that it wasn't Canon, who said "2014 will be the year of the lens". CR guy said it *could* become a good year for lens announcements based on his rumor-sources....

But seriously, there are a few lenses I would like to see, although I might never own them (12/14-24 2.8, 35 II, TS-Es, 50 1.?). Just sit back, enjoy what's comming and what's not and keep clicking.


Canon has over 70 lenses available.  How many more do you need?   :P

Seriously, it's past time for a 35L II.

Here you go ;):



This is just the cinema version of the current 35mm L, but nice try. ;)
7D - BG
3 Ls - 2 EF-s - 2 M42s
430EX II - YN560-III

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2446
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #18 on: March 19, 2014, 01:27:26 PM »
This is just the cinema version of the current 35mm L, but nice try. ;)
I know (note the wink) -- I'm just having fun :)
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

scyrene

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr feed
Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #19 on: March 19, 2014, 02:11:19 PM »
Seems like a lot of folks are interested in the extreme lenses in the long range.

Me, I would like to see a 24-105 ver II.  I would also like to see a 16-35 III.

Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.

The 24-70 ver II that came out was obviously a hit but also way overpriced.

For most mid-range enthusiasts, the 24-105 has been a great lens.  It is likely most folks 1st L lens with good reason.  Why doesn't Canon improve that lens after all this time?  Seems like it would sell well for them.

I imagine you'd be better off getting the new Sigma 24-105. And funnily enough, the 35 IS is probably the next lens I'll buy. IS on a wideish lens is great for handheld landscapes (when I'd be stopping down) and interiors with low light/events. The price has come down to less than £450 here which I think is fine.
5D mark III, 50D, 300D, EOS-M; Samyang 14mm f/2.8, 24-105L, MP-E, 85L II, 100L macro, 500L IS II, EF-M 18-55; 1.4xIII, 2x III + 2xII extenders; 600EX-RT; EF-M--EF adaptor.
Former lenses include: 70-200L f/4 non-IS, 200L 2.8, 400L 5.6

Ruined

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
    • View Profile
Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #20 on: March 22, 2014, 09:24:00 AM »
Quote from: RustyTheGeek
Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.

Crazy!

The 24 IS and 35 IS lenses are both spectacular for different reasons.

First, they replace older designs that were far inferior optically.

Second, the 24 IS has significantly less flare closed down (where most landscapers would use it) than both the 24L II and the 24-70 II.  The smaller size also makes it more portable for hiking.

Third, the 35 IS has rounded aperture blades unlike the 35L, plus it is smaller and lighter than the 35L.  Fantastic for a city walkabout lens for those reasons, plus less obtrusive/expensive looking.

Fourth, these lenses have the added bonus of IS, which can be useful in select circumstances when you lack a tripod.  IS is really only a bonus though, the real beauty is in the other advantages mentioned.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 09:27:05 AM by Ruined »

RustyTheGeek

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
    • View Profile
    • Images I've Shot...
Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2014, 10:13:59 AM »
Quote from: RustyTheGeek
Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.

Crazy!

The 24 IS and 35 IS lenses are both spectacular for different reasons.

First, they replace older designs that were far inferior optically.

Second, the 24 IS has significantly less flare closed down (where most landscapers would use it) than both the 24L II and the 24-70 II.  The smaller size also makes it more portable for hiking.

Third, the 35 IS has rounded aperture blades unlike the 35L, plus it is smaller and lighter than the 35L.  Fantastic for a city walkabout lens for those reasons, plus less obtrusive/expensive looking.

Fourth, these lenses have the added bonus of IS, which can be useful in select circumstances when you lack a tripod.  IS is really only a bonus though, the real beauty is in the other advantages mentioned.

Thanks Ruined!  Now call me 'corrected'!  :)

I appreciate the concise list of reasons why the 24 & 35 ver II prime lenses are more desirable now.  I always knew the original 24 and 35 EF primes could have been much better (and probably were a waste of time) but the outrageous price of the ver II lenses soured my opinion of them prematurely.  I thought the necessity of IS for wide prime lenses was debatable and a lame excuse to offer the new versions for such a high price.  I'm glad that they dropped in price a bit and I'm glad to know there are other reasons other than IS to consider them.
Yes, but what would  surapon  say ??  :D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2014, 10:13:59 AM »

JonAustin

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 182
  • Telecom/IT consultant / periodic pro photog
    • View Profile
    • Austin & Austin Professional Services
Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2014, 12:26:23 PM »
... the 35 IS is probably the next lens I'll buy.

Same here.
Photographic equipment

Ruined

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
    • View Profile
Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2014, 01:40:13 AM »

I appreciate the concise list of reasons why the 24 & 35 ver II prime lenses are more desirable now.  I always knew the original 24 and 35 EF primes could have been much better (and probably were a waste of time) but the outrageous price of the ver II lenses soured my opinion of them prematurely.  I thought the necessity of IS for wide prime lenses was debatable and a lame excuse to offer the new versions for such a high price.  I'm glad that they dropped in price a bit and I'm glad to know there are other reasons other than IS to consider them.


No prob :)

A lot of people remember to look at sharpness, but forget to look at other tests like this:

Flare - 24 IS (mouseout) vs 24L II (mouseover) closed down for landscape work:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=7

Flare - 24 IS (mouseout) vs 24-70L II (mouseover) closed down for landscape work:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=788&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 01:46:40 AM by Ruined »

Woody

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
    • View Profile
Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2014, 08:44:20 PM »
One possible reason is that Canon is waiting to reach their 100 millionth lens milestone. They reached their 90 millionth lens milestone on May 2013. Going by their previous records, they should be able to sell 10 million lenses in less than a year. I guess sales deterioration must have led to a delay here.

It's also possible that after seeing the decline in their sales results, Canon has decided to cancel all their plans concerning the so-called Year of the Lens.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 09:44:01 PM by Woody »

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1668
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #25 on: March 25, 2014, 07:07:10 PM »
Quote from: RustyTheGeek
Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.

Crazy!

The 24 IS and 35 IS lenses are both spectacular for different reasons.

First, they replace older designs that were far inferior optically.

Second, the 24 IS has significantly less flare closed down (where most landscapers would use it) than both the 24L II and the 24-70 II.  The smaller size also makes it more portable for hiking.

Third, the 35 IS has rounded aperture blades unlike the 35L, plus it is smaller and lighter than the 35L.  Fantastic for a city walkabout lens for those reasons, plus less obtrusive/expensive looking.

Fourth, these lenses have the added bonus of IS, which can be useful in select circumstances when you lack a tripod.  IS is really only a bonus though, the real beauty is in the other advantages mentioned.

I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1289
    • View Profile
Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #26 on: March 25, 2014, 10:14:51 PM »
I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.

The 28 f/2.8 IS is 352 + tax (in stock) at the Canon refurb store now, and the 24 f/2.8 IS is 384 + tax (currently out of stock).

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1668
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #27 on: March 26, 2014, 06:07:56 PM »
I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.

The 28 f/2.8 IS is 352 + tax (in stock) at the Canon refurb store now, and the 24 f/2.8 IS is 384 + tax (currently out of stock).

Refurb, not retail. Although, not that I'm opposed to refurb, often some good equipment you can pick up for a discount there.
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #27 on: March 26, 2014, 06:07:56 PM »

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1289
    • View Profile
Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #28 on: March 26, 2014, 06:42:15 PM »
I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.

The 28 f/2.8 IS is 352 + tax (in stock) at the Canon refurb store now, and the 24 f/2.8 IS is 384 + tax (currently out of stock).

Refurb, not retail. Although, not that I'm opposed to refurb, often some good equipment you can pick up for a discount there.

It doesn't matter as much as it used to with the refurbs now coming with a 1 year warranty.  I picked up new 28 f/2.8 IS before last Christmas for 350 from a Canon authorized dealer, which was an even better price than what it is going for in the refurb store with 20% off now.  The point is that at 300-500 (when you can find deals on them), the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS offer a lot for the price.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: sorry i have to ask....
« Reply #28 on: March 26, 2014, 06:42:15 PM »