200 f1.8 next please
This can be found in aftermarket. I like the idea of having no aftermarket competition. How about 70 - 200 F2 IS ? Probably 15K
Upvote
0
200 f1.8 next please
What do you mean by “can be found in aftermarket” ? There is no other lens like the 200 f1.8, except, almost, Canon’s own 200 f2.This can be found in aftermarket. I like the idea of having no aftermarket competition. How about 70 - 200 F2 IS ? Probably 15K
This can be found in aftermarket. I like the idea of having no aftermarket competition. How about 70 - 200 F2 IS ? Probably 15K
There was an old Canon very good EF 200 f/1.8LWhat do you mean by “can be found in aftermarket” ? There is no other lens like the 200 f1.8, except, almost, Canon’s own 200 f2.
Oh! And Canon should also bring back their 300 f1.8, I would love to have a go with one of those
Fully aware! But it’s not serviced anymore and it’s veeery old...There was an old Canon very good EF 200 f/1.8L
Yes I know too. But this means they are perfectly capable of doing it again as an EF model too.Fully aware! But it’s not serviced anymore and it’s veeery old...
Strangest? I think it is a perfectly rational explanation for why I don't see the world like an f/1.2 lens wide open when in bright sunlight. There are of course other substances and occasions for dilating pupils artificially. I also don't go out taking pictures right after a visit to the eye doctor. In fact I try to do as little as possible outside in bright sunlight then, even in very dark sunglasses.
No IBIS and no IS ? How is canon going to hold up to competition?
In the future I see only red color loving people buying canon...
You mean RFYes I know too. But this means they are perfectly capable of doing it again as an EF model too.
Lol. The primary reason you don't see the world as an f/1.2 lens, or indeed any camera lens, is that your brain is constructing what you 'see' from a combination of dynamic optical input and (mostly hardwired) assumptions about the nature of the world. You can't examine out of focus areas in your visual field because when you look at them, they are now what is in focus. But anyhow, I have never noticed out of focus areas being more blurred due to my pupils being more dilated, I don't think I (or most people) have the ability to separate out the physical side of what we are 'seeing' like that. On an optical level, I guess dilated pupils must cause a narrower depth of field for eyes as for camera lenses, but the only thing I notice under those circumstances is a greater sensitivity to light, as you alluded to.
What do you mean by “can be found in aftermarket” ? There is no other lens like the 200 f1.8, except, almost, Canon’s own 200 f2.
Oh! And Canon should also bring back their 300 f1.8, I would love to have a go with one of those
Lol. The primary reason you don't see the world as an f/1.2 lens, or indeed any camera lens, is that your brain is constructing what you 'see' from a combination of dynamic optical input and (mostly hardwired) assumptions about the nature of the world. You can't examine out of focus areas in your visual field because when you look at them, they are now what is in focus. But anyhow, I have never noticed out of focus areas being more blurred due to my pupils being more dilated, I don't think I (or most people) have the ability to separate out the physical side of what we are 'seeing' like that. On an optical level, I guess dilated pupils must cause a narrower depth of field for eyes as for camera lenses, but the only thing I notice under those circumstances is a greater sensitivity to light, as you alluded to.
I guess it depends on individual brains but I see humans as more like video recorders not cameras but maybe that's because I don't have anything close to a "photographic memory". In fact that's why I love photography - it serves as an external memory since what I see is so fleeting and inaccurate even just minutes after the fact.
Jack
Yeah, as stated before, I’m fully aware of that one, they also have a 300 f1.8 I bet most people don’t know...Canon has done EF 200 F1.8 , https://petapixel.com/2017/05/20/canon-200mm-f1-8-legendary-lens-known-eye-sauron/
Just as the brain develops way of seeing in real life, so we develop a language, so to speak, of seeing pictures. I'm saying for me, extremely shallow depth of field comes off as a special effect, often a distracting one, like extreme HDR for another example. Yes, all photography is an effect in that sense. Some effects are more effective and/or realistic than others.
Yeah, as stated before, I’m fully aware of that one, they also have a 300 f1.8 I bet most people don’t know...
That’s not the point, the point is RF lenses will be better than EF, and an RF lens made today will be EPICALLY better than an EF from the Stone Age.
Buying the EF 200 f1.8 today is expensive, and you have no way of knowing when it fails, and when it does you’re screwed, because it’s not serviced anymore, so it will be a paper weight... a very expensive one...
Canon specifically has said that the RF mount lets them do lens designs that wasn’t possible with EF mount. 28-70 f2 sharper than the 24-70 both wide open, unprecedented lens, and I’m not even gonna mention the EF 50 L and the RF50 L, I did anywayWell it won't be serviced by Canon, but there are surely third party repair shops that might have a go? As more lenses fail, more spare parts are liberated (this is off topic I know).
Not sure about 'epically better' though, especially *due to* the RF mount. Optically a new 200mm lens should be better due to the way lenses are designed and made now compared to 30 years ago, and they are building to finer tolerances as sensors resolve more. But those issues are independent of the mount.
And from everything I've read and actual samples I've seen, the Sigma 14mm may very well be the best Astro lens (at least in the UWA category) currently offered...For astro there is a super lens: The Sigma 14mm 1.8 Art. The difference between 1.2 and 1.8 (~1 stop) is covered by the fact that the wider Sigma can be used with almost twice the shutter time (It's a 14mm vs a 24mm) without startrails so you can use the same ISO. Assuming you need Ultra wide of course. I always do need it in landscape astrophotography photos.
They likely will make RF lenses smaller and lighter as well. But I see them showing the pros "Here is what can be done" and stick with us on this one. Remember the first EOS were the 650/620 cameras. Nothing great and mind blowing about the bodies except they took the revolutionary EF lenses that blew the competition away for literally decades before the others caught up. Now you have the revolutionary RF mount with the extra control ring and ability to program the lens including which way to turn the focus ring. Leaving all others in the technology dust again.