Rumors > Lenses
Most requested lenses for replacement?
scrappydog:
--- Quote from: tron on June 25, 2012, 09:17:10 AM ---EF100-400mm L ... the 100-400 for additional sharpness, weather sealing and better IS...
--- End quote ---
Agreed 100%. The two-stop IS is weak compared to the 70-200 or 24-105. Removing the push-pull configuration would be nice. My 100-400 has a weird bokeh effect that would be nice to remove, although I am not sure if it is a function of the lens or the UV filter on the lens.
dilbert:
--- Quote from: Razor2012 on June 25, 2012, 03:39:53 PM ---
--- Quote from: dilbert on June 25, 2012, 03:26:46 PM ---
--- Quote from: KitsVancouver on June 25, 2012, 02:27:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: awinphoto on June 25, 2012, 02:03:54 PM ---I wouldn't say the 17-40 is woeful by any means, I also wouldn't be upset if they refreshed it provided A) they keep it 77mm, and B) keep it under the 1K mark...
--- End quote ---
It depends on your definition of "woeful", but I would say it is. I believe the other poster was referencing FF performance and in that respect, the 17-40 is very weak in the corners with respect to sharpness. The 16-35 Mk II may cost way more but it's definitely better. The sad thing is that the 16-35 Mk II isn't that great either.
--- End quote ---
Precisely.
Whilst an ultra-wide angle lens such as a 14-24 (http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-14-24-f2-8l-cr2/) may solve some problems, below about 17 or 19 is just too wide. And then there are the issues with filters because of the curvature of the front lens element (i.e. I wouldn't buy the Nikon 14-24 either.)
--- Quote ---I agree with all the posters that 50mm nees a good solid entry from Canon. In the film days, it was what I shot with more than anything. Now I own 7 L lenses but not one 50mm.
--- End quote ---
Interesting!
At least the Sigma 50/1.4 offers some salvation in terms of IQ.
For Canon wide angle (less than 24mm), there is nothing.
--- End quote ---
17mm f4L TS, 14mm 2.8L II and the 8-15 f4L. ;)
--- End quote ---
And which of those can you easily mount filters on the front of?
dilbert:
An updated 20/2.8 USM would go down well if the optics were brought up to scratch.
Razor2012:
--- Quote from: dilbert on June 26, 2012, 12:36:16 AM ---
--- Quote from: Razor2012 on June 25, 2012, 03:39:53 PM ---
--- Quote from: dilbert on June 25, 2012, 03:26:46 PM ---
--- Quote from: KitsVancouver on June 25, 2012, 02:27:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: awinphoto on June 25, 2012, 02:03:54 PM ---I wouldn't say the 17-40 is woeful by any means, I also wouldn't be upset if they refreshed it provided A) they keep it 77mm, and B) keep it under the 1K mark...
--- End quote ---
It depends on your definition of "woeful", but I would say it is. I believe the other poster was referencing FF performance and in that respect, the 17-40 is very weak in the corners with respect to sharpness. The 16-35 Mk II may cost way more but it's definitely better. The sad thing is that the 16-35 Mk II isn't that great either.
--- End quote ---
Precisely.
Whilst an ultra-wide angle lens such as a 14-24 (http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-ef-14-24-f2-8l-cr2/) may solve some problems, below about 17 or 19 is just too wide. And then there are the issues with filters because of the curvature of the front lens element (i.e. I wouldn't buy the Nikon 14-24 either.)
--- Quote ---I agree with all the posters that 50mm nees a good solid entry from Canon. In the film days, it was what I shot with more than anything. Now I own 7 L lenses but not one 50mm.
--- End quote ---
Interesting!
At least the Sigma 50/1.4 offers some salvation in terms of IQ.
For Canon wide angle (less than 24mm), there is nothing.
--- End quote ---
17mm f4L TS, 14mm 2.8L II and the 8-15 f4L. ;)
--- End quote ---
And which of those can you easily mount filters on the front of?
--- End quote ---
None.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version