How many people just want Canon the 5DIII and 24-70mm f/2.8 IS already?

[DJL329]

I eagerly await the 5D Mark III, however I'm more interested in a 50mm f/1.4 II that replaces the "micro" USM with "ring" and decreases the MFD.

For those wanting an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L with IS, just remember that Canon has yet to release an EF (not EF-S) lens with IS that does not reach at least 100mm. I'm not saying I think they won't add it, just don't assume they will.

 

[JakiChan]

I got started with my 60D and I've loved it so far, but I did buy my lenses with the idea of moving towards full frame. However the big dilemma will be: Buy a 5D Mk. II while it's getting cheaper and get a VERY proven body or wait and see what the 5D Mk. III brings...

 

[Loswr]

a 24-105 that is actually SHARP would be a nice addition.

Yep, the 24-105mm is a terribly SOFT lens. Here's an example with a 100% crop below, to show just how soft...


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM @ 105mm, 1/60 s, f/4, ISO 400

 

[YoukY63]

a 24-105 that is actually SHARP would be a nice addition.

Yep, the 24-105mm is a terribly SOFT lens. Here's an example with a 100% crop below, to show just how soft...


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM @ 105mm, 1/60 s, f/4, ISO 400

Oh my God!! Ouch... And you still did not throw away this piece of glass crap?!? :

 

[Meh]

a 24-105 that is actually SHARP would be a nice addition.

Yep, the 24-105mm is a terribly SOFT lens. Here's an example with a 100% crop below, to show just how soft...

Neuro, why must you constantly rain on all the whiners' parade with your persistent dose of reality? Similar to what I said in another post, it's amazing at how quick folks are to decry any particular piece of equipment as bad. Does anyone seriously think any L lens is actually soft, poor build quality, slow, distorted, etc. in absolute terms... each lens may have it's less than optimal performance at particular aperture or at one end of the zoom range or even be overall less sharp relative to some other lens that was designed for different purposes but the differences are not huge, certainly not "good" and "bad".