But let’s not forget, most buyers are not professionals and don’t care at all about ROI, myself included. I do, though, fully understand and appreciate your position.Of course I know the benefits...I've just never been in a situation where I was willing to pay $3000 for another stop of light or more bokeh not to mention the loss of focal length on the long end. This situation is more like owning two Philips screw drivers vs 1. Sure that one might not fit all of the screws fully, might even strip out a few, but as long as it gets the screw in and out and the customer is happy then it did it's job. If I need a stop of light I crank the ISO or slow the shutter a little more; both are a lot cheaper than buying this lens.
I've actually gone full circle with bokeh, I used to shoot every portrait wide open at 2.8 with my 70-200; now I rarely go below 3.5 and simply punch in more to compress the background while getting the entire subject in focus. I'd even be willing to bet that the 200 at 200mm F2.8 has more bokeh than the 135 at 135mm F2.0.
I shoot everything from weddings to portraits to real estate to events...I just don't see this lens adding $3000 worth of value to my work.
That's why I said I'm not a purist, if I'm the only one that sees the noise then my mission is accomplished. Also I know that 99% of my clients will just post the footage to their Instagram, FB, or corporate website all of which will be too low resolution to ever see the noise. Every product I look at in terms of ROI, if a $3000 lens isn't going to pay for itself I'm not going to get it.
Oh I get it, I love new gear as much as the next person, I just don't like paying for it. If I weren't shooting professionally I would own a Canon Rebel with a kit lens that would probably only get used around the holidays.But let’s not forget, most buyers are not professionals and don’t care at all about ROI, myself included. I do, though, fully understand and appreciate your position.
I am not a fan of the 70-200 focal length range, the 70-135 fits my style so much better. I'd much rather have a zoom lens that has little to no extraneous mm's and therefore a higher quality aka IQ resembling a prime, To each their own.I've never understood owning a bunch of lenses let alone one like this that is already eclipsed by the focal range of the 70-200 F2.8 which is my favorite portrait lens of all time. I only own 5 lenses 16-35 F4, 24-70 F2.8, 24-105 F4, 50 F1.8, and 70-200 F2.8, and have never been in a situation where I wish I had something else.
I guess I'm just not a purist...I don't care about the difference between an F2.8 lens vs an F2 or a zoom vs a prime. I've never had a client say they wanted more bokeh or the pictures aren't sharp enough. I'm probably Canon's nightmare customer; I talk about gear, window shop their latest products, but never buy anything.
No - surely white 'starts' at 70, though it usually extends to at least 200 (70 -200)White starts at 200.
No offense intended I was strictly sharing my veiwpoint of a lens like this that fits squarely within the focal range of another lens with what I consider marginal improvements in IQ. In other words I have no doubt this could take sharper images within its focal length range than my current 70-200, but for my own uses I don't consider it to be $3000 worth of improvement (or even $2000).I am not a fan of the 70-200 focal length range, the 70-135 fits my style so much better. I'd much rather have a zoom lens that has little to no extraneous mm's and therefore a higher quality aka IQ resembling a prime, To each their own.
More choices, what's wrong with that? How does that make me a purist? Is being a so called purist a bad thing? WTF is with these idiot labels?
(Unless you're a crabby person who complains about Canon's R&D not suiting your personal wants and needs) Not directed at you, more of a universal rant against the selfish.
I have been in situations where the light was low, the room small. This lens would work MUCH better than the 70-200. Situation example: Inside a hut in Africa.Of course I know the benefits...I've just never been in a situation where I was willing to pay $3000 for another stop of light or more bokeh not to mention the loss of focal length on the long end. This situation is more like owning two Philips screw drivers vs 1. Sure that one might not fit all of the screws fully, might even strip out a few, but as long as it gets the screw in and out and the customer is happy then it did it's job. If I need a stop of light I crank the ISO or slow the shutter a little more; both are a lot cheaper than buying this lens.
I've actually gone full circle with bokeh, I used to shoot every portrait wide open at 2.8 with my 70-200; now I rarely go below 3.5 and simply punch in more to compress the background while getting the entire subject in focus. I'd even be willing to bet that the 200 at 200mm F2.8 has more bokeh than the 135 at 135mm F2.0.
I shoot everything from weddings to portraits to real estate to events...I just don't see this lens adding $3000 worth of value to my work.
That's why I said I'm not a purist, if I'm the only one that sees the noise then my mission is accomplished. Also I know that 99% of my clients will just post the footage to their Instagram, FB, or corporate website all of which will be too low resolution to ever see the noise. Every product I look at in terms of ROI, if a $3000 lens isn't going to pay for itself I'm not going to get it.
I will. I am a photographer first - who photographs for the joy, not just for a client. And my clients publish in magazines and on their websites.Of course I know the benefits...I've just never been in a situation where I was willing to pay $3000 for another stop of light or more bokeh not to mention the loss of focal length on the long end. This situation is more like owning two Philips screw drivers vs 1. Sure that one might not fit all of the screws fully, might even strip out a few, but as long as it gets the screw in and out and the customer is happy then it did it's job. If I need a stop of light I crank the ISO or slow the shutter a little more; both are a lot cheaper than buying this lens.
I've actually gone full circle with bokeh, I used to shoot every portrait wide open at 2.8 with my 70-200; now I rarely go below 3.5 and simply punch in more to compress the background while getting the entire subject in focus. I'd even be willing to bet that the 200 at 200mm F2.8 has more bokeh than the 135 at 135mm F2.0.
I shoot everything from weddings to portraits to real estate to events...I just don't see this lens adding $3000 worth of value to my work.
That's why I said I'm not a purist, if I'm the only one that sees the noise then my mission is accomplished. Also I know that 99% of my clients will just post the footage to their Instagram, FB, or corporate website all of which will be too low resolution to ever see the noise. Every product I look at in terms of ROI, if a $3000 lens isn't going to pay for itself I'm not going to get it.
I also believe white starts at 200mm.No - surely white 'starts' at 70, though it usually extends to at least 200 (70 -200)
I really have a lot of admiration and envy for you guys that go all over the world.I have been in situations where the light was low, the room small. This lens would work MUCH better than the 70-200. Situation example: Inside a hut in Africa.
I think there is a place for both these lenses in my bag. Each is a very different lens with a very different use.I am not a fan of the 70-200 focal length range, the 70-135 fits my style so much better. I'd much rather have a zoom lens that has little to no extraneous mm's and therefore a higher quality aka IQ resembling a prime, To each their own.
More choices, what's wrong with that? How does that make me a purist? Is being a so called purist a bad thing? WTF is with these idiot labels?
(Unless you're a crabby person who complains about Canon's R&D not suiting your personal wants and needs) Not directed at you, more of a universal rant against the selfish.
10? Really? Well here's the official roadmap for 2020 and it only has space for 9 lenses. Nine lenses are listed here, but I happen to know that 5 of them are fake...Times have certainly changed: Months ago we heard that ten lenses would be released in 2020. While 2 lenses and and 2 extenders were announced (and might all come to market this year), it appears very unlikely that any other lenses will be released this year.
So, lets hope for 2021: Maybe 15 new lenses ...
Love it sanjay. Better than a thousand words. Of course at the same distance and focal length the light gathering would be twice as good but the girl would be even more out of focus. Always compromises.I have been in situations where the light was low, the room small. This lens would work MUCH better than the 70-200. Situation example: Inside a hut in Africa.
1. 28-70/2.0 is a normal zoom. The 28mm at F2.0 dictates a necessity for a larger front element. Not the long 70mm end.
2. 70-135 zoom range is a bit different in that vignetting is not such a huge issue as with 28mm end of 28-70
Sure. Having a large front element would improve sharpness in mid frame and extreme corners, reduce vignetting wide open
but read my statement again. Front element could be made as small as. The question remains how Canon engineers view optical quality vs size / weight issue.
i would think that 82mm front element would be adequate.
See that's what I love about photography....100 people can look at the same image and see 100 different things. To me that image actually reinforces my point...I don't think the noise in that image is unuseable for social media, and websites; prints of course is a different story. To the untrained eye there is no noise in that image, and if you run a denoiser in post there would be even less. I'm not even convinced that another stop of light would have removed as much noise as a denoiser in post could remove.I have been in situations where the light was low, the room small. This lens would work MUCH better than the 70-200. Situation example: Inside a hut in Africa.
10? Really? Well here's the official roadmap for 2020 and it only has space for 9 lenses. Nine lenses are listed here, but I happen to know that 5 of them are fake...View attachment 190315