Upvote
0
Thanks, Click!Beautiful sky.Nicely done, danfaz.
Thanks, Henry!Beautiful images, especially the first one. The foreground adds just the right elements to complement the sky imho.
This design isn't a true 100mm f1.4, but instead 97.50mm f1.46 which would give you a minimum 66.78mm front element - just small enough to use their 67mm circular filter size.100mm F1.4 sounds like anvery nice bookend for the vcm prime lens lineup. I speculated canon might come up with one, but I was told by forum members that would be physically impossible. If this one is a bit longer and it works out, great!
I don't know if it's real enough, but the 28-70mm f/2 is my main lens for work....there are comments on here, and then there are real world comments on here.
This is one of the real world comments, at least for me. Well done.
Canon's implementation of IS in its lenses? Indispensable for my own photography.
If 1 month is "an excruciating wait", how would you define our waiting for the RF 35mm f/1,2, sophisticated torture maybe ?Well, mine arrived yesterday after an excruciating 1-month wait
The Adorama rep told me that they cannot keep those in stock... and that there were 20-ish people in the queue after me, but they receive 2-3 a week, so there's that
I just had a recent experience with the 28-70/2, shooting in low light conditions (event). I was shocked to see how I can see the lack of IS on the images and probably how much I got used using IS. I had to explicitly focus on having a steady hand which I haven't much done in the past ~15y.
It would help if the real world comment included the body being used, because the post implies that there was no stabilization happening, yet on bodies with IBIS the 28-70/2 has excellent stabilization as I know from personal experience....there are comments on here, and then there are real world comments on here.
This is one of the real world comments, at least for me. Well done.
Canon's implementation of IS in its lenses? Indispensable for my own photography.
...there are comments on here, and then there are real world comments on here.Surprisingly yes.
I just had a recent experience with the 28-70/2, shooting in low light conditions (event). I was shocked to see how I can see the lack of IS on the images and probably how much I got used using IS. I had to explicitly focus on having a steady hand which I haven't much done in the past ~15y.
Btw, I don't really see Canon leaving IS behind despite the development of IBIS. I believe it's the combination of the two which can give a real good result.
I presume you’re using a camera that lacks IBIS. The point being made was that the 28-70/2 delivers 8 stops of stabilization with IBIS alone, which is the same as the 24-70/2.8 IS achieves in combination with IBIS.Surprisingly yes.
I just had a recent experience with the 28-70/2, shooting in low light conditions (event). I was shocked to see how I can see the lack of IS on the images and probably how much I got used using IS. I had to explicitly focus on having a steady hand which I haven't much done in the past ~15y.
Canon has a graph for you (not a proper one, since it’s lacking numbers on the axes). You are certainly correct that the benefit of lens IS is mainly with longer focal lengths.Btw, I don't really see Canon leaving IS behind despite the development of IBIS. I believe it's the combination of the two which can give a real good result. Especially at higher focal lengths, but I'm no expert, can't draw a graph![]()

Fair enough. It's outside my area. But I have seen it said that cinema cameras are usually used with rigs (is that the word?) to stabilise them? Cinema lenses don't usually have IS, do they?Yes, some of us own cinema cameras.
Well, mine arrived yesterday after an excruciating 1-month waitWell, according to a recent article, Yodobashi sees Hasselblad XCD 2,8–4/35–100E as the #1 selling lens these days
Yes, some of us own cinema cameras.Is IS necessary when IBIS works so well with it?
I got a neoprene case for my V1.Have you ever had issues with pocketable cameras that end up full of dust inside?
f/1.8 is not really different enough from f/2 unless they add IS or somethingMy guess, RF 28-50 1.8 or 24-35 1.8, the latter one probably being a bit harder to make. I do not think there will be a 1.4 zoom.
What do you class as low quality?So, if Canon will make a fast zoom, we should expect a plastic phantastic with low image quality like the 1.2/45 or APS-C glass. But definitely not a L Lens.
I'm OK with 50-85/1.8I hope they really release something like this.
For my use ... something in the area of 35-85mm f1.4 would be a dream lens. Even if it is a 50-85mm f1.4 I would still buy it.
Surprisingly yes.Is IS necessary when IBIS works so well with it?