Hector1970 said:That's what struck me too. Full Frame Mirrorless will be an EF mount
That's speculation, not fact. I agree that very well may be what happens, but we won't know until the day it's announced.
- A
Upvote
0
Hector1970 said:That's what struck me too. Full Frame Mirrorless will be an EF mount
CanonFanBoy said:Personally, I don't think the mount will be a new one. If it is, I wouldn't care. Happy to keep using a DSLR and my current lenses. Heck, the DSLR will never completely go away in our lifetimes. At least not in mine.
ahsanford said:Hector1970 said:That's what struck me too. Full Frame Mirrorless will be an EF mount
That's speculation, not fact. I agree that very well may be what happens, but we won't know until the day it's announced.
- A
MrFotoFool said:Two radical (perhaps unrealistic) options that would make 200 2.8 iii stand out from competition.
1. Make it DO and thus smaller and lighter than any competitors.
2. Put in a built-in 1.4x extender (a la 200-400 f4).
ahsanford said:MrFotoFool said:Two radical (perhaps unrealistic) options that would make 200 2.8 iii stand out from competition.
1. Make it DO and thus smaller and lighter than any competitors.
2. Put in a built-in 1.4x extender (a la 200-400 f4).
Sure, but it's only competition appears to be itself, i.e. the Mk II. (It's a staggeringly good lens already.)
I think they can cobble together enough 10% improvements in weight, MFD, sharpness, etc., add a 1-2 stops of IS, a CPL window and it will sell itself -- and they won't have to push the boat out on potentially turning folks off with the added cost/length/weight of an in-line T/C or any contrast concerns of DO.
(Also, sorry for being pedantic, but a DO lens wouldn't be an L or a III -- it would be a 70-200 f/2.8 DO IS USM. If the rumors are correct in that we'll see an f/2.8L IS III and f/4L IS II, DO won't be part of it.)
- A
Adelino said:Out of curiosity could a DO lens be an L lens? I'm not sure what the full requirements are for an L lens but can a DO lens be high enough quality and meet the other requirements, whatever those are?
MrToes said:I would like a 70-200mm f/2.0 with a 100mm filter that is 1.5 kg heavier weight than the f/2.8.
MrToes said:Just not the astronomical price associated with a f/2.0
ahsanford said:MrFotoFool said:Two radical (perhaps unrealistic) options that would make 200 2.8 iii stand out from competition.
1. Make it DO and thus smaller and lighter than any competitors.
2. Put in a built-in 1.4x extender (a la 200-400 f4).
Sure, but it's only competition appears to be itself, i.e. the Mk II. (It's a staggeringly good lens already.)
I think they can cobble together enough 10% improvements in weight, MFD, sharpness, etc., add a 1-2 stops of IS, a CPL window and it will sell itself -- and they won't have to push the boat out on potentially turning folks off with the added cost/length/weight of an in-line T/C or any contrast concerns of DO.
(Also, sorry for being pedantic, but a DO lens wouldn't be an L or a III -- it would be a 70-200 f/2.8 DO IS USM. If the rumors are correct in that we'll see an f/2.8L IS III and f/4L IS II, DO won't be part of it.)
- A
AlanF said:Contrast problems of DO? You are a generation of lenses behind - Canon solved the problem of poor contrast in the original 400mm DO by adding a second Fresnel lens in the 400mm DO II.
ahsanford said:AlanF said:Contrast problems of DO? You are a generation of lenses behind - Canon solved the problem of poor contrast in the original 400mm DO by adding a second Fresnel lens in the 400mm DO II.
I am behind, yes. You are correct that I am referring to problems from some time ago in reading the 70-300 DO review.h
But if DO problems have been solved and shorten up lenses so dramatically -- why haven't we seen them in others FLs? Less length-saving bang for the buck? Too expensive to make? Problematic with fast zoom designs? Just curious why we've seen in it in a 400 prime and a 70-300 zoom and nowhere else.
- A
ahsanford said:CanonFanBoy said:Personally, I don't think the mount will be a new one. If it is, I wouldn't care. Happy to keep using a DSLR and my current lenses. Heck, the DSLR will never completely go away in our lifetimes. At least not in mine.
+1. EF is not going away. The question is: will EF have a mirrorless-specific little brother that runs along side it someday?
- If it does, EF will still truck on for a very long time.
- If it doesn't, EF will still truck on for a very long time.
Panic that anyone has bought into EF 'just as it is going away' needs to consider (a) it isn't going away and (b) even if a thin mirrorless mount becomes the dominant mount, it would take a decade to even begin to replace what EF offers. Hence, EF is here for the near, mid and long term.
Annnnnd we're OT. My bad.
- A
Do you realize that only TS-E lenses have an image circle big enough for a medium format?Bahrd said:I know it is not a popular idea here, but wouldn't a mirrorless system with an MF sensor allow Canon to "protect" the EF legacy a little longer?
gregster said:Any bets on resale value of the 2.8 II? I cannot see myself upgrading and since I rarely use it, wonder if it's best to sell asap. However, given recent lens releases, I could see this lens being quite a bit more expensive than the II.
Kit. said:Do you realize that only TS-E lenses have an image circle big enough for a medium format?Bahrd said:I know it is not a popular idea here, but wouldn't a mirrorless system with an MF sensor allow Canon to "protect" the EF legacy a little longer?
gregster said:Any bets on resale value of the 2.8 II? I cannot see myself upgrading and since I rarely use it, wonder if it's best to sell asap. However, given recent lens releases, I could see this lens being quite a bit more expensive than the II.
ahsanford said:gregster said:Any bets on resale value of the 2.8 II? I cannot see myself upgrading and since I rarely use it, wonder if it's best to sell asap. However, given recent lens releases, I could see this lens being quite a bit more expensive than the II.
You could go to canonpricewatch.com and see what happened to the 24-70 f/2.8L I and 16-35 f/2.8L II after their replacements came out.
- A