New Lenses Coming [CR3]

[EYEONE]

I have no need for super-zooms, so I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter...but that is a *huge* price jump (about 10x) to go from the 100-400 f/4-5.6 plus a separate 1.4x TC, to get a 200-400 f/4 with TC built in.  How big is the market for that? You gain one stop at the long end of the zoom and have the convenience of a built-in TC, but lose the 100-200mm range and pay 10x the price.

Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos | NY Wedding Photos

Well, a couple of reasons I think:
-The 100-400mm was released in 1998. (It's not a superzoom either)
-The f4 while "only a stop" needs a lot more glass than a 5.6. Look at it, it's huge and heavy. Plus, it looks to be internal zoom.
-The 200-400 will be newer and much better. It will likely be sharper with the 1.4x than the 100-400 is without it.
-Plus it has the 1.4x which does cost something.

All that said, $10,999 is higher than I expected.

[dstppy]

I have no need for super-zooms, so I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter...but that is a *huge* price jump (about 10x) to go from the 100-400 f/4-5.6 plus a separate 1.4x TC, to get a 200-400 f/4 with TC built in.  How big is the market for that? You gain one stop at the long end of the zoom and have the convenience of a built-in TC, but lose the 100-200mm range and pay 10x the price.

Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos | NY Wedding Photos

Well, a couple of reasons I think:
-The 100-400mm was released in 1998. (It's not a superzoom either)
-The f4 while "only a stop" needs a lot more glass than a 5.6. Look at it, it's huge and heavy. Plus, it looks to be internal zoom.
-The 200-400 will be newer and much better. It will likely be sharper with the 1.4x than the 100-400 is without it.
-Plus it has the 1.4x which does cost something.

All that said, $10,999 is higher than I expected.

$11k is higher than Dr. Evil expected 

I dunno . . . I'm still waiting for something 'wow' to come out for lenses in the $500-$1500 range.

Maybe make the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS in black, remove the L and red-ring then charge the DO price?   Maybe just a respectable 100-300 f/4 for the po' fo'k . . . .

[EYEONE]

Not if you don't like good bokeh.

It may surprise you to learn that most people don't give a Flying Eff about bokeh.  Didn't you see the words "general photography" .

Well, maybe I don't know what you mean by your term "general photography" but no matter my camera's ISO performance I'll take the shallower depth of field any day. What you say most people don't "give a flying eff" about is one of my primary concerns.

[kubelik]

I really hate Canon's sudden love of the f/2.8 max aperture for primes.  what is the point of purchasing a prime if it's just going to do only what your zoom lens can do anyway with more flexibility?  a 35mm f/2 pancake would have been nice.  a 40mm f/2.8 ... hands up if you really want this lens ... anyone?  in all their supposed polling of photographers interests, I guess a lot of us voted for "slow, near-standard focal length prime"?

I bet it'll cost $800 too.

[Canon 14-24]

I'm going to guess a Canon EF 40mm 2.8 pancake lens like the Nikon 45mm 2.8 with the possible addition of AF and slightly better optics would range between $499-999! I can see it now...people are going to be scratching their heads to justify the price and will probably be comparing to the 50 1.8!

[Canon 14-24]

surprise me Canon and drop the 14-24 lens announcement and charge me up to $2999 for it!

[kubelik]

surprise me Canon and drop the 14-24 lens announcement and charge me up to $2999 for it!

don't be silly, Canon would only dare charge ... uh ... $2500 or so for such a lens

[EYEONE]

But aren't most pancakes f2.8? I always assumed some optical design had to be sacrificed for the pancake design.

[Canon 14-24]

surprise me Canon and drop the 14-24 lens announcement and charge me up to $2999 for it!

don't be silly, Canon would only dare charge ... uh ... $2500 or so for such a lens

Yes silliness aside, I can see it'd be hard for some to justify a price for such a lens over $2500 like the launch of the 17mm ts-e (I believe $2499), however if Canon for example wants to throw in some new IS version or some unnecessary video additions in the design for this lens and charge another $500+, hopefully my budget of an excess $500 can cover it 

[kubelik]

surprise me Canon and drop the 14-24 lens announcement and charge me up to $2999 for it!

don't be silly, Canon would only dare charge ... uh ... $2500 or so for such a lens

Yes silliness aside, I can see it'd be hard for some to justify a price for such a lens over $2500 like the launch of the 17mm ts-e (I believe $2499), however if Canon for example wants to throw in some new IS version or some unnecessary video additions in the design for this lens and charge another $500+, hopefully my budget of an excess $500 can cover it 

if they couldn't/wouldn't work IS into the 24-70 Mark II, I doubt they'd insert it into the 14-24.

[Caps18]

If I were considering this lens (personally, I'd get the 500/4 ahead of the 200-400/1.4x, I think), the ability to flip a switch to engage the TC, rather than having to unmount and remount the lens on the TC, would be worth a lot...especially having to juggle a lens as heavy as a 200-400/4.

I have the 300 f/4 and a separate 1.4x.  If they would update the 300 f/4 to add in the TC, it should be a lot cheaper and just as good.  Even if they put the built in 2x TC into the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, it would be a better choice for the price.

Unless they figured out how to make the 280mm-560mm still at f/4, it isn't worth close to that much.  I would get the 600mm f/4 for that price...

[Canon 14-24]

surprise me Canon and drop the 14-24 lens announcement and charge me up to $2999 for it!

don't be silly, Canon would only dare charge ... uh ... $2500 or so for such a lens

Yes silliness aside, I can see it'd be hard for some to justify a price for such a lens over $2500 like the launch of the 17mm ts-e (I believe $2499), however if Canon for example wants to throw in some new IS version or some unnecessary video additions in the design for this lens and charge another $500+, hopefully my budget of an excess $500 can cover it 

if they couldn't/wouldn't work IS into the 24-70 Mark II, I doubt they'd insert it into the 14-24.

I do have my fingers crossed they don't, but seeing how they were able to add IS on some wide angle focal lengths (even though they are primes), I am prepping myself for the worst!

[c.d.embrey]

Well, maybe I don't know what you mean by your term "general photography" but no matter my camera's ISO performance I'll take the shallower depth of field any day. What you say most people don't "give a flying eff" about is one of my primary concerns.

Didn't you see "Pulitzer Prize winning News Photos" A PJs work isn't gauged by Creamy Bokeh, but by how his work connects with the audience. Would Nick Ut's Pulitzer winning Burning Girl photo  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Ut  been improved by Paper-Thin-DOF

Me, I shoot advertising at f/5.6 to f/16. Sometimes I need a Tilt-and-Shift lens to INCREASE my DOF. I once shot an ad with a EF-S 10-22mm lens at f/16. So, yes I'd buy a 24mm f/2.8. YMMV

Architecture Photographers use Wide Angle Tilt-and-Shift lenses for increased DOF, because that's what their clients want/need.

What about Landscape Photographers

Yes, there are many photographers who don't give a Flying Eff about shallow DOF.



 

[EYEONE]

Well, maybe I don't know what you mean by your term "general photography" but no matter my camera's ISO performance I'll take the shallower depth of field any day. What you say most people don't "give a flying eff" about is one of my primary concerns.

Didn't you see "Pulitzer Prize winning News Photos" A PJs work isn't gauged by Creamy Bokeh, but by how his work connects with the audience. Would Nick Ut's Pulitzer winning Burning Girl photo  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Ut  been improved by Paper-Thin-DOF

Me, I shoot advertising at f/5.6 to f/16. Sometimes I need a Tilt-and-Shift lens to INCREASE my DOF. I once shot an ad with a EF-S 10-22mm lens at f/16. So, yes I'd buy a 24mm f/2.8. YMMV

Architecture Photographers use Wide Angle Tilt-and-Shift lenses for increased DOF, because that's what their clients want/need.

What about Landscape Photographers

Yes, there are many photographers who don't give a Flying Eff about shallow DOF.

Ok, but see buddy, you could have said "With the work I do, I shoot at higher F values so I don't really care about the f2.8" Instead of coming off rude, arrogant and insulting.  The fact is if, you buy a f2.8 lens you can still do the work you need to do with it.  My work becomes much for difficult at high F values. Do I need f1.8 or 2.8? Yes, actually, I do.

So your comment to Ricku was completely out of line and he had a valid counter to what you said.

I'm so happy you don't want a shallow depth of field. But I do.

[c.d.embrey]

Well, heck, then...let's all just get point-n-shoots for "general photography".

Terry Richardson and Juergen Teller built their Fashion Photography reputations with P&S Film cameras. Juergen Teller is still shooting Ads and Fashion Editorial with his Film P&S Contax G2.

The problem with Digital P&S cameras is you push-the-button and several seconds later the camera fires.