October 20, 2014, 09:05:53 AM

Author Topic: Lenses Lenses Lenses  (Read 16896 times)

pgabor

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #15 on: August 18, 2010, 06:34:00 PM »
God, pls!!! Make canon release EF 16-50mm f/4.0L IS, i need that thing sooo badly!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #15 on: August 18, 2010, 06:34:00 PM »

muteteh

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #16 on: August 18, 2010, 06:43:35 PM »
The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens.

I'm totally with you here. But remember that we've enough freaks in this very forum would happily cram an IS even in a fisheye.  ;)

Maybe that circular fisheye would have gotten more votes if I had H-IS added, as well as f/1.0 & rounded 8 blades aperture for that shallow DOF with smooth bokeh effect.

Lawliet

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 415
    • View Profile
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #17 on: August 18, 2010, 08:03:02 PM »
16-50 looks good. not sure IS is needed but oh well.  That's EF and not EFS? 

EF-s wouldn't make much sense. Between the 17-55/2,8 and the 15-85 I don't see who could be the targeted customer group.

Justin

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #18 on: August 18, 2010, 08:30:52 PM »
I find it hard to believe Canon isn't going to match the Nikon 14-24 2.8.

I find it harder to believe the 24-70 2.8 IS is falling off the rumor wagon.

I find it ridiculous that Canon chooses now to upgrade all its super teles after the olympics and the world cup.

I find it just plain dumb that Canon doesn't have a competitor or superior camera to compete with the D3s.

Why no full frame, fast AF, clean high iso, high fps, monster from Canon. Why?

unfocused

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2175
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #19 on: August 18, 2010, 09:18:37 PM »
A 100-300 f/4L IS would suit my needs perfectly.

I'd much rather have a smaller/lighter 100-300 f/4 and add my 1.4x TC when I need it.  A little more reach at f/5.6, great wide-open, and still retains AF without tape.

It would be very nice if the new batch would include some reasonably priced models (below 2500 euros)...even the least expensive of those new tele-primes would be well over 5 grand I guess.

Actually I was hoping for an upgraded 100-400 but a 100-300/4 would be a reasonable alternative, with that one stop advantage.

+1 to Funkboys comments.   That was almost word for word what I was going to say.   :o

This is a great option for those who have been waiting for either a 300 f4L IS update or a 100-400 5.6L IS update.   

Same here. I've used the 300 f4 and the 100-400. The 300 is a great lens and still very sharp with the 1.4 tele-converter. But, I did find the lack of zoom a bit problematic. While I'd still prefer an update on the 100-400, a sharp and affordable 100-300 constant aperture would be a reasonable compromise when combined with a tele-converter.

Of course, we all lust after the 2.8 versions, but I'd settle for the slightly slower lens if it's affordable and then rent the faster lenses when needed.

It seems like all these superfast, super long telephotos are great for niche shooters, but it's hard to justify the expense if you aren't using them every day.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

drummstikk

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #20 on: August 18, 2010, 11:24:19 PM »
I would trade my 70-200 f/4L IS for a 100-300 f/4L IS

Based on other posts, this may put me in a minority, but I'd seriously consider selling my 70-200 2.8 for a 100-300 4.0. My 70-200 spends a lot of time with the 1.4x on it anyway, and a 100-300 would complement my 24-105 4.0 very well. Performance of the 2.8 zoom with the 1.4x is very good, but I'd love to take it out of the optical path. My rare need for f/2.8 could be met by an occasional rental.

On the supposed 300mm 2.8 replacement: Anybody besides me hoping they do away with the removable tripod collar? That's just a very expensive accident waiting to happen in my opinion. The copy of the current IS-version 300mm 2.8 that I rent locally from time to time has wear on the interior surface of the collar that makes rotation stiff and gritty. That never happened with the original non-IS version of this lens that I forever regret selling.

If anybody ever removes the collar from this lens, can you tell me WHY? Even in the rare instance when I'm not using a monopod with that lens, the tripod mount rests perfectly in my palm and holds the lens barrel just far enough away from my hand for easy fingertip manual focus.
"Focused. Or focused not. There is no 'almost.'"

                                                          --Yoda (paraphrase)

Sebastian

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2010, 01:55:28 AM »
The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens.

I'm totally with you here. But remember that we've enough freaks in this very forum who would happily cram an IS even in a fisheye.  ;)

Maybe that circular fisheye would have gotten more votes if I had H-IS added, as well as f/1.0 & rounded 8 blades aperture for that shallow DOF with smooth bokeh effect.

Yeah, that would've most likely done the trick. ;)


Regards,

Sebastian

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2010, 01:55:28 AM »

Sebastian

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2010, 02:04:39 AM »
I would trade my 70-200 f/4L IS for a 100-300 f/4L IS

Based on other posts, this may put me in a minority, but I'd seriously consider selling my 70-200 2.8 for a 100-300 4.0. My 70-200 spends a lot of time with the 1.4x on it anyway, and a 100-300 would complement my 24-105 4.0 very well. Performance of the 2.8 zoom with the 1.4x is very good, but I'd love to take it out of the optical path.

That's a nice example how different photographers can be. :)
Allthough I do own a 1.4x TC, I've never used since I bought the 100-400. I take the 70-200 f/2.8 whenever shooting in low-light conditions where I'm always happy with every f-stop I can get, so the TC stays off the lens.
And personally, while I'm very happy with the IQ of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I'd grade the combined quality of the 70-200 + TC 1.4x II as "OK", but not as "very good".


Regards,

Sebastian

MCK

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2010, 07:46:12 AM »
The current EF 24-70mm f/2.8 could be improved, but I don't think an IS is one of those improvements - 70mm is not long enough to call for it. Actually, I think Canon should have skipped the EF-S 18-55mm IS as well - I shoot with 85mm w/o IS on FF, and I don't see any need for an IS. The resources could have gone into some more interesting lens.

I'm totally with you here. But remember that we've enough freaks in this very forum would happily cram an IS even in a fisheye.  ;)

An EF 100-300 f/4 IS ? Between the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6, and existing EF 100-400mm, I don't see how this caters photographers' needs better than an upgraded EF 100-400mm.

Again, I fully have to concur. Owning both a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 100-400, I definitely wouldn't have a need for a 100-300 f/4 in between. (A f/2.8 would be a different thing. ;)) And personally, I really like the long end of my 100-400, so I also wouldn't replace it with a 100-300.

However, if a 100-300 f/4 would have a better built and image quality over the 100-400, people who haven't already got a lens that range could well choose the 100-300.


Regards,

Sebastian


That was a good one  ::) still laughing

Idahophoto

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2010, 11:28:10 AM »
It seems like Sigma's 120-400 will still be the better way to go. As for the upgrades to the "Big Whites" Make them black. I really hate white colored lenses.

geohsia

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2010, 12:08:14 PM »
I'm totally with you here. But remember that we've enough freaks in this very forum would happily cram an IS even in a fisheye.  ;)

The current 24-70 is very inconsistent.  Whether it's manufacturing or design I don't know but it needs to be replaced with a lens where we don't have to worry if we just bought a good copy through an online store.  As for IS on a mid-range lens I used to shoot a lot with Olympus so am used to having IS on everything.  Was it always necessary?  No.  But was nice many times when I just had a bit more headroom for motion.  For standard compositions and when you have time to setup I agree IS isn't needed but sometimes when you're moving fast and in a fast paced environment with shifting light sometimes your shutter speed is a little too close to 1/15 or 1/30 and a bit of assistance from IS is helpful.  There are also multiple IS modes and it is helpful when doing panning as well.  Is it absolutely necessary?  No, but certainly is still a useful feature to have.  Don't want it, buy the current one, but there will certainly be a group of users who can use any technology Canon tacks on to it and will find creative ways to push the boundaries. Also let's not forget that depending on how its done it might also be useful for video. 

muteteh

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2010, 01:00:03 PM »
The current 24-70 is very inconsistent.  Whether it's manufacturing or design I don't know but it needs to be replaced with a lens where we don't have to worry if we just bought a good copy through an online store. ...  Don't want it, buy the current one, but there will certainly be a group of users who can use any technology Canon tacks on to it and will find creative ways to push the boundaries.

Once Canon starts manufcaturing an upgraded lens, say for the justified reason that the quality of the current 24-70 is inconsistent, the current lens will go out of the market, and I will no longer have the choice to buy a copy without IS. That IS will cost me extra, even though I don't want it.

Now, I could try to influence Canon to keep both lenses in production, but that might hurt me some other way, e.g. in other lenses Canon does not upgrade, say the 1979 Canon FD 7.5mm f/5.6 circular fisheye to an EF 7.5mm f/4 circular fisheye.

geohsia

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #27 on: August 19, 2010, 01:17:40 PM »
Once Canon starts manufcaturing an upgraded lens, say for the justified reason that the quality of the current 24-70 is inconsistent, the current lens will go out of the market, and I will no longer have the choice to buy a copy without IS. That IS will cost me extra, even though I don't want it.

Then buy one now.  The point is, there is room for the lens to improve.  It could be sharper especially wide open.  It can be smaller though IS will negate that if added.  Regardless if IS is added, the lens should be replaced.  Its a good lens if you get a good copy but I don't think really gets the most out of the current bodies.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #27 on: August 19, 2010, 01:17:40 PM »

bejor

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #28 on: August 19, 2010, 02:49:30 PM »
So... where are the lenses???? I only see P&S Announcements  :o

By the way... Canon should make it's lenses warranties last longer... 1 year is too short for a $6,000 for example... the other side of the river gives 1+4 in the USA.  :-X

MOT

  • Guest
Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #29 on: August 19, 2010, 08:46:58 PM »
Why not?  Sigma makes the pretty-solid 120-300/2.8.  A 100-300/2.8 would compete well with the Sigma and the Nikon 200-400/4 (100-300/2.8 + 1.4 = 140-420/4).  If they replaced the 300/2.8 with that, I think that would be great.  Of course, I doubt they will but I see no reason they couldn't.

I agree, and a 100-300/2.8 would be perfect for me.  I much prefer Canon's L glass, but have been seriously considering the Sigma 120-300/2.8 because I shoot a lot of really poorly lit nighttime, outdoor rodeos.  The 70-200/2.8 is getting me by, but I could really use the extra 100mm on my FF.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Lenses Lenses Lenses
« Reply #29 on: August 19, 2010, 08:46:58 PM »