rrcphoto said:what's next on the unicorn list though? I'm trying to remember another lens that was rumored for a while and hasn't appeared yet.
24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM?
Upvote
0
rrcphoto said:what's next on the unicorn list though? I'm trying to remember another lens that was rumored for a while and hasn't appeared yet.
meywd said:ahsanford said:Poll time, people:
Poll #1: MTF Chart response
Poll #2: Price
Poll #3: What's next
Please vote, thanks. I'm curious to where everyone's heads are on this announcement today.
- A
Pollaholic? ;D
New 50 1.2/1.4L and 85 1.2/1.4 are both long overdue.midluk said:rrcphoto said:what's next on the unicorn list though? I'm trying to remember another lens that was rumored for a while and hasn't appeared yet.
24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM?
Or perhaps EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS II USM with a more current IS, less flares and less dust sucking?Eldar said:New 50 1.2/1.4L and 85 1.2/1.4 are both long overdue.midluk said:rrcphoto said:what's next on the unicorn list though? I'm trying to remember another lens that was rumored for a while and hasn't appeared yet.
24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM?
PureClassA said:Yeah. We can go ahead and start the rumor mill for the 35L Mk III right now to be consistent. I mean, it WILL happen at some point.... in the next 20 years... :
+1midluk said:Or perhaps EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS II USM with a more current IS, less flares and less dust sucking?Eldar said:New 50 1.2/1.4L and 85 1.2/1.4 are both long overdue.midluk said:24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM?rrcphoto said:what's next on the unicorn list though? I'm trying to remember another lens that was rumored for a while and hasn't appeared yet.
ajfotofilmagem said:+1midluk said:Or perhaps EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS II USM with a more current IS, less flares and less dust sucking?
Canon 17-55mm F2.8 needs updating to compete with the quality of the Sigma 18-35mm Art.
Which the wide-angle F2.8 zoom high quality, Canon offers to go with 7D Mark II?
ahsanford said:Canon may never update that lens -- they (a) want to sell you L lenses instead and (b) want you to migrate to FF anyway.
Consider: 7D2 users often slap on a 16-35L or 17-40L for a walkaround. Why would Canon want to discourage that with a 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM II? I think they lost their shirt on the first one and will leave the limited financial opportunity of an APS-C f/2.8 standard zoom to Tamron and Sigma.
I fully agree.midluk said:a) then they should make it L!ahsanford said:Canon may never update that lens -- they (a) want to sell you L lenses instead and (b) want you to migrate to FF anyway.
Consider: 7D2 users often slap on a 16-35L or 17-40L for a walkaround. Why would Canon want to discourage that with a 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM II? I think they lost their shirt on the first one and will leave the limited financial opportunity of an APS-C f/2.8 standard zoom to Tamron and Sigma.
b) they can sell you even more lenses on the migration because you can not continue to use your EF-S
All those L zooms on an APS-C camera are just compromises. Either too long on the short end, or too short on the long end, and/or no IS, or not f/2.8
padam said:StudentOfLight said:Just to put things in context, for people questioning the price of this lens here are the Lensrental MTF curves for the Otus 85/1.4 and 55/1.4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=481&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=917&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=AVG
If the Canon theoretical MTF 30 curves are reasonably close to being true then the new Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM is truly on another level. It is sharper wide open in centre of frame than both the 85 and 55 Otus lenses. It is slightly sharper than the 85 and 55 Otus in midframe and significantly sharper than the 85 towards the corners. (And lets not forget that it autofocuses toooooo.)
It also appears to be at about 10% sharper than the Sigma anywhere in the frame. So while it is more expensive that the current lens and the Sigma option, I'm quite confident it is on another level of performance.
Lens properties consist of more than just (theoretical) charts. It is a big step up from the old lens but I don't see the same contrast or 3D look that the Otus lenses can provide(they are extremely good against bright light, too). There is not much point in comparing different focal lengths anyway.
LOALTD said:Ah yes, weasel words! When a camera body or lens is shown to be objectively beaten/challenged by a newer model, resort to purchase defending using the following terms:
3D look
microcontrast
dreamy
filmic
It's important to offer exactly zero real-life comparison photographs to demonstrate what you're talking about. I mean, the characteristics are undefinable anyway. You just have to shoot with one and you'll just..."know".
If none of these work, talk about how you just like the "feel" of the lens/body.
Fervor for "intangible" characteristics is directly-proportional to price delta.
pj1974 said:Hi Everyone...
Here are comparative MTF charts between:
1) the 35mm f/1.4 L II and
2) the 35mm f/1.4 L
Happy to help!
Paul 8)
rrcphoto said:H. Jones said:rrcphoto said:here's the sigma ..
If I'm not mistaken, is the Canon II now as sharp wide open as the Sigma is stopped down? Wow.
that's the sigma wide open, but it's certainly better wide open than the Sigma ART.
and if canon's claims about getting abberations under control and it's somewhat even near to APO? 1800 will look like a steal
this certainly looks like "the" WA prime to use on a 5DsR.
Viggo said:How about the 135 L? Isn't that from 1996?
rrcphoto said:sample images:
http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-lens-sample-images/
(before looking at them .. )
They are OOC JPG with sharpness at 0, however CA and vignetting enabled.
rrcphoto said:Viggo said:Eldar said:That was not a turn-off ...rrcphoto said:sample images:
http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-lens-sample-images/
(before looking at them .. )
They are OOC JPG with sharpness at 0, however CA and vignetting enabled.
Canon usually have some horrible editing with their sample shots, and this is no different, BUT, I can see that this lens is just something else... I'm getting one!
I could be wrong, but I'm seeing very little if any bokeh fringing...
which makes this near-APO .. at 35mm.
Etienne said:Viggo said:How about the 135 L? Isn't that from 1996?
While we're dreaming, why not a built-in 2x extender on a fast prime?
An 85mm f/1.4 IS, that turns into a 170mm f/2.8 IS with the flip of a switch.
Or a 135mm f/2 IS - 270 f/4 IS