f2 2x zooms

[wickidwombat]

the rumour of the 55-110 f2 got me thinking about other ranges this tech would be awesome

I know since I love the 16-35 f2.8 on the APS-H giving an effective 20-48 its REALLY awesome for weddings because it is so sharp and has great colour

a 20-40mm f2L for use on full frame would be nirvana in that range. currently there isnt any other lens body combo that can get that I find 24mm on full frame a little tight sometimes for weddings and 20mm really opens things up, i could happily live with losing the 8mm on the long end for a stop faster apperture

what do you guys think? there is sooo much potential for awesome lenses that would just nail certain focal lengths in the f2 2x zoom category... 100-200 f2 anyone

[AprilForever]

I would get one!!!

[briansquibb]

Two bodies - one with 16-35 and the other with the 24-70.

Should always have two bodies for a wedding... 

[wickidwombat]

yeah I usually have the 16-35 on a 1D3 i dont like the 24-70 so i dont have one
the other body I usually have 85mm on the 5D2 or 70-200

[briansquibb]

yeah I usually have the 16-35 on a 1D3 i dont like the 24-70 so i dont have one
the other body I usually have 85mm on the 5D2 or 70-200

On the 1D4 I have the 24-105 then swapping for the 85 f/1.8 if needed. I dont have low light issues as I use two of camera flash most of the time. Different - but it works for me. Fun time in the church when the couple come down the isle with me holding umbrella in one hand and shooting 1 handed

[wickidwombat]

yeah I usually have the 16-35 on a 1D3 i dont like the 24-70 so i dont have one
the other body I usually have 85mm on the 5D2 or 70-200

On the 1D4 I have the 24-105 then swapping for the 85 f/1.8 if needed. I dont have low light issues as I use two of camera flash most of the time. Different - but it works for me. Fun time in the church when the couple come down the isle with me holding umbrella in one hand and shooting 1 handed

Yeah I like my 24-105 but quite often f4 just doesnt cut it

but you can get decent bokeh from it

[vuilang]

yeah I usually have the 16-35 on a 1D3 i dont like the 24-70 so i dont have one
the other body I usually have 85mm on the 5D2 or 70-200

Yeah I like my 24-105 but quite often f4 just doesnt cut it

but you can get decent bokeh from it

It is kind-of misleading to show the lens's bokeh when shooting at a close-up n have long-disctance background. most other lense such as consumer level can achieve similar bokeh result... NO i'm not saying 24-105 is not good. just its mediocre bokeh.

[briansquibb]

yeah I usually have the 16-35 on a 1D3 i dont like the 24-70 so i dont have one
the other body I usually have 85mm on the 5D2 or 70-200

On the 1D4 I have the 24-105 then swapping for the 85 f/1.8 if needed. I dont have low light issues as I use two of camera flash most of the time. Different - but it works for me. Fun time in the church when the couple come down the isle with me holding umbrella in one hand and shooting 1 handed

Yeah I like my 24-105 but quite often f4 just doesnt cut it

but you can get decent bokeh from it

If f/4 doesn't cut it I have a 2.8 on the other body, or, as I said, I use the 85 f/1.8

I never need f/4 because of low light because I have flash to hand

[neuroanatomist]

NO i'm not saying 24-105 is not good. just its mediocre bokeh.

I disagree - the shot from wickidwombat suggests the bokeh is decent (not great, but decent).  I don't think you're really talking about bokeh, but instead referring to the quantity of OOF blur (bokeh is the quality of that blur, not how much of it there is).

You can certianly get a decent amount of OOF blur with f/4, if you have a close subject.  Another example:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM @ 105mm, 1/160 s, f/4, ISO 100

[lol]

100-200 f2 anyone

Sounds good Currently I use the 135mm f/2 mostly for astrophotography, and have been wanting something longer without losing speed. Prices start going astronomical at that point... But I'd think I'd like a 250-500mm f/2. Stick one on the Sigma! Never mind I wont be able to lift it, and would have to sell my house to pay for one if it were ever to exist.

[funkboy]

Great shot, Neuro.  The 24-105L's bokeh is indeed nice.  I believe I was at about f/5 here:

[ferdi]

I know a 24-70L f/2 would be very heavy (and expensive), so I would settle for a 35-70L f/2 if it existed.

[PaperTiger]

It'd make for a very big and heavy lens.

The only manufacturer really able to do this is Olympus making their F2 zooms just because it's much easier to build a fast lens for FourThirds. A full-frame F2 zoom just isn't going to happen.

http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/35-100_20/

[bvukich]

It'd make for a very big and heavy lens.

The only manufacturer really able to do this is Olympus making their F2 zooms just because it's much easier to build a fast lens for FourThirds. A full-frame F2 zoom just isn't going to happen.

http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/35-100_20/

Even that m4/3 lens is 150g HEAVIER than the EF 70-200/2.8L IS II.

[wickidwombat]

yes but that lens is nearly a 3x zoom by keeping the zoom ration down to only 2 you would require slightly less complicated optics and surely the size would be reduced somewhat. I'm not a lens designer so only making some guesses here.

also with the 4/3rds f2 i think you will have more like f2.8 or more Dof performance compared to fullframe due to the significantly smaller sensor it'd be interesting to see direct comparisons of say a 5dmk2 with70-200 f2.8 vs this 4/3 35-100 f2