Jesse said:
USING CAPS doesn't mean digital in-cam IS can suddenly stabilize an optical viewfinder...
Jesse said:
... and I hate it (seen Bourne 3?), people thinking shaky cam and 1sec-cuts can replace a script should get shot :-(
Upvote
0
Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
USING CAPS doesn't mean digital in-cam IS can suddenly stabilize an optical viewfinder...
... and I hate it (seen Bourne 3?), people thinking shaky cam and 1sec-cuts can replace a script should get shot :-(
Shamus1 said:
Judging by the recent price drops of 5D III, it seems Canon strategy is to launch with as high a price as possible, then drop the price some months later. If 24-70 IS is launched, I suspect it will sport a price similar to $2300 the 24-70 non-IS sports currently, but the non-IS then likely will drop in price around that time to say $2000.
Upvote
0
with flash and second curtain sync 1/5 or 1/10 is just fine and the IS takes care of camera shakeDylan777 said:
especially if they are posed shots where the subjects are not moving
Upvote
0
I'm not sure most people understand this but it is much much much much harder to make a normal zoom than a telephoto zoom. You can make extremely good telephoto zooms day and night for cheap, as evidence by every manufacturers and all the third party telephoto zooms being great lenses.
Making a normal zoom, especially a fast normal zoom with IS is the greatest challenge their is. It is actually much harder to do than making a 200-400mm 1.4x TC lens.
I've spoken to Canon reps and Canon has gone to great lengths to try to make a pro image quality 24-70mm f/2.8 IS lens prototypes, even going as far as making a lens that has a 105mm filter thread.
Fast Normal zooms actually have much bigger elements than fast telephoto zooms do. The 70-200mm f/2.8 has 2 77mm elements and a 60mm element as it's largest elements. The 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk. I has three 77mm elements. The 24-70mm Mk. II has even bigger elements.
So yeah just because it looks bigger doesn't mean it's worth more, you're paying for more air, not glass. If anything a fast normal zoom should cost 2-3 times as much as a equal quality telephoto zoom. The only reason why telephoto zooms are the most expensive is because there is a market for them with sports and wildlife photographers.
[/quote]
Really? Hmmm. This does not go down at all with me. Naaa...
Making a normal zoom, especially a fast normal zoom with IS is the greatest challenge their is. It is actually much harder to do than making a 200-400mm 1.4x TC lens.
I've spoken to Canon reps and Canon has gone to great lengths to try to make a pro image quality 24-70mm f/2.8 IS lens prototypes, even going as far as making a lens that has a 105mm filter thread.
Fast Normal zooms actually have much bigger elements than fast telephoto zooms do. The 70-200mm f/2.8 has 2 77mm elements and a 60mm element as it's largest elements. The 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk. I has three 77mm elements. The 24-70mm Mk. II has even bigger elements.
So yeah just because it looks bigger doesn't mean it's worth more, you're paying for more air, not glass. If anything a fast normal zoom should cost 2-3 times as much as a equal quality telephoto zoom. The only reason why telephoto zooms are the most expensive is because there is a market for them with sports and wildlife photographers.
[/quote]
Really? Hmmm. This does not go down at all with me. Naaa...
Upvote
0
i could care less about the weight and bulk they should just release it toMarsu42 said:
god knows how expensive it would be thought.... $3500?
Upvote
0
wickidwombat said:
But since this lens is aimed at the pro market, less weight should be really better if shooting all day. The one thing I find strange though is that people who recommend the much heavier 70-200/2.8is all the time now say that the 100g weight loss on the 24-70ii is important to them :-o
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
i'd rather the heavier bulkier lens on a 5Dmk3 than the smaller lighter lens on the bulk of the 1DX
Upvote
0
- Status
