Canon defines IBIS as a 1/4-20 tripod screw. And for many lenses, such as a TSE, so do I.
Upvote
0
There's the Zeiss 25 f/2 TE for less than 700 clams at B&H right now for astro. It really doesn't get any better than that.Canon’s fast and wide lenses all suffer from coma aberration. A few of the engineers I’ve spoken to claim that they will solve this in upcoming lenses. I hope it’s solved for this one.
You know and talk to Canon engineers working on lens development?Canon’s fast and wide lenses all suffer from coma aberration. A few of the engineers I’ve spoken to claim that they will solve this in upcoming lenses. I hope it’s solved for this one.
If I had a dollar for everytime you've said that, I would defo buy this lens.
I love the sensor of my Canon 5D Mark IV. Don't no, what's wrong with it?
Exciting!
But how much it will cost?
If it is 18-28mm F2, already good enough.
AFAIK, there aren't any primes that fast for any FF camera, which would make such a zoom really amazing.
People would still complain Canon isn't innovative, though.
But it allows almost no light beside in the middle of the frame. In the edges the f4.0 IS is brighter. So, without light there is no comaThe EF16-35 f/2.8L III has very little coma at the 16mm end.
If true, then the lens will not need to be as large as predicted.FYI this lens is perfect for video work as on the 4K crop it becomes a very fast 24mm-35mm. That’s exactly why this lens is in development.
I would expect wrong amount of camera rotation compensation, non-uniform across the image.I don't own a body with IBIS but I've read a number of threads discussing Canon tilt shift lenses on Sony bodies with IBIS and I've never heard that the IBIS doesn't work. Use cases for shifting a 17 and hand-holding might be limited but I can't visualize any reason why it wouldn't work. What do you think the problem would be? Geometric distortion from shifting the sensor?
16-35 2.8 III has indeed vignetting but in practice it does not seem that there is almost no light. I have seen lenses to vignette and have coma at the same time by the way. And FYI the16-35 f 4L IS - which you say that it is brighter at the edges - has low coma too...But it allows almost no light beside in the middle of the frame. In the edges the f4.0 IS is brighter. So, without light there is no coma
Taking into account the other forums you frequent I could afford two.Considering I only make 287 posts (damn it, 288), you are way short buddy ;-)
Even if I mention IBIS 50% of the time, you cover maybe the tax. Exaggerated much??
Some lenses are "stunt" lenses. They are made to show R&D capability and aren't made to sell to a mass market. Price isn't high in Canon's considerations with this lens. It's a super specialist lens...a bit like the TSe range. They aren't intended for most photographers.Not judging. It would make a super lens. Just commenting on the practical issues: Price which will be huge and timing: Sigma is very close, exists now and has really good IQ.
I've never understood why Canon haven't pushed the 35L to F1.2. It can't be that hard to do and fills out their unique range of f1.2 glass.A rf 35mm f1.4L would be crazy enough for me.
I know there is the rf 1.8/35mm macro. But this lens is so political correct, I prefer more virility