Omni Images said:
Yes! This one: 400mm F5.6L IS with a closer min focus distance. And updated AF! I'm still waiting.
Upvote
0
Lenses that you want Canon to release next
- Thread starter Fatfaso
- Start date
Yes! This one: 400mm F5.6L IS with a closer min focus distance. And updated AF! I'm still waiting.
tron said:
Or they could make it DO lens, which would enhance it's weight advantage. That way Canon gets to charge a higher price and people that opt for the prime will have a more "portable" option.
Upvote
0
gn100 said:
Why would you like a slow 55mm lens, when you can connect any of the existing 50mm lenses with an adapter? Does it have special abilities, like macro?
Upvote
0
photojoern.de
See more in http://photojoern.de
There is a need for IS in prime lenses in the normal and wide angle area. The f2.8 24-70L II with an IS would be great for street photography or handheld landscapes or portraits in low light. The current non IS lens is fabulous in picture quality. But combined with a EOS 5DS (R), you need even shorter exposure time than the usual rule 1/focal length. I need around 1/100th second at 24 - 50 mm range and around 1/125th or 1/160th of a second when shooting at 70mm in order to have crisp handheld shots. A modern four stop IS would do marvellous things and make the lens much more versatile. It should be technically possible, rather easily.
I would be prepared to accept 200 or 300 USD more in price and 150 grams more in weight for this added quality in low light handheld situations.
The 24-105mm f4 IS is not an alternative. It´s soft in the corners by default, a significantly poorer optical quality than the 24-70 f2.8 II.
If you think the same, please respond. If you have concerns (feasibility, price etc.), please post here. Thanks.
I would be prepared to accept 200 or 300 USD more in price and 150 grams more in weight for this added quality in low light handheld situations.
The 24-105mm f4 IS is not an alternative. It´s soft in the corners by default, a significantly poorer optical quality than the 24-70 f2.8 II.
If you think the same, please respond. If you have concerns (feasibility, price etc.), please post here. Thanks.
Upvote
0
Hi Joern!photojoern.de said:
The rule shutter time = 1/focal length comes from the "old film days".
Even with DSLRs with lower pixel count the usual adaption of this rule for digital cameras went to 1/2*focal length.
I've heard from some people doing camera courses that they recommend even more with MP monsters like the 5DS.
And if the subject is moving they recommend at least 1/4*focal length.
So your experience fits into that schema.
Upvote
0
on the wide angle front
14-24/35 F2.8 with screen in filter matching quality of 11-24 and Nikon 14-24.
On the long end
200-5xx F5.6 (extends range of 100-400) or perhaps 6.3 at the long end
600 with a builtin 1.4 like the 200-400
Speciality lens
28-300 that is not a mini-great white. More on the size of the 70-300L with similar optical quality
Extender (or teleconverter) that is either a zoom, or has discreet additions such as 1.2, 1.4, 1.7 and possibly 2.0
14-24/35 F2.8 with screen in filter matching quality of 11-24 and Nikon 14-24.
On the long end
200-5xx F5.6 (extends range of 100-400) or perhaps 6.3 at the long end
600 with a builtin 1.4 like the 200-400
Speciality lens
28-300 that is not a mini-great white. More on the size of the 70-300L with similar optical quality
Extender (or teleconverter) that is either a zoom, or has discreet additions such as 1.2, 1.4, 1.7 and possibly 2.0
Upvote
0
RGF said:
I agree. It's a really useful lens, but just needs a touch less chromatic aberration and a touch more sharpness. It's a shame that to upgrade IQ means downgrading focal range, e.g. the 24-70 (though I know it's often the case with zooms that the bigger the range, the more compromises).
Upvote
0
24L III
50L II
85L III
135L II
200 f2L II
200 f2L II
Many of you that think the 200 f2L mark 1 was already the best on its own league. Fellow canon's 200mm lens? Yes. How if its compared to other brand? Lens tip shown their 200 f2 VR II is noticeably better than 200 f2L.
Actually, my main concern is not the nikon lens. It's big brother 300 f2.8L II which is the real problem even for the 400 f2.8L II. The 300 f2.8L II beat all of them in term of sharpness, everybody knows that. The 300 f2.8L II has better and newer AF system which come with the third image stabilization mode that give a big advantage in field for most its owners. And the last reason why canon must update this lens is the price. The price between the 200mm and 300mm just slightly different, but the 300mm brings so much advantages (sharpness, AF, less weight). It doesn't make sense for me.
50L II
85L III
135L II
200 f2L II
200 f2L II
Many of you that think the 200 f2L mark 1 was already the best on its own league. Fellow canon's 200mm lens? Yes. How if its compared to other brand? Lens tip shown their 200 f2 VR II is noticeably better than 200 f2L.
Actually, my main concern is not the nikon lens. It's big brother 300 f2.8L II which is the real problem even for the 400 f2.8L II. The 300 f2.8L II beat all of them in term of sharpness, everybody knows that. The 300 f2.8L II has better and newer AF system which come with the third image stabilization mode that give a big advantage in field for most its owners. And the last reason why canon must update this lens is the price. The price between the 200mm and 300mm just slightly different, but the 300mm brings so much advantages (sharpness, AF, less weight). It doesn't make sense for me.
Upvote
0
70-200 F/1.4 IS
Enough of 2.8. Give me the BEAST... A 70-200 super low-light fast lens. Who cares if it weighs 8 - 9 pounds. Get some muscle.
Would also love a 120-300 F/2.8 IS to compete with Sigma. Really like this range, and while the 100-400 is great, I want more light and prefer better focusing
Enough of 2.8. Give me the BEAST... A 70-200 super low-light fast lens. Who cares if it weighs 8 - 9 pounds. Get some muscle.
Would also love a 120-300 F/2.8 IS to compete with Sigma. Really like this range, and while the 100-400 is great, I want more light and prefer better focusing
Upvote
0
Hmmm,
100-500 5.6L IS
600 5.6 DO BR OK there is a 400 DO II which I happen to have and love and probably there will be a 600 4 DO - since they have a prototype - but 600 5.6 would be more manageable in both front element diameter and weight...
100-500 5.6L IS
600 5.6 DO BR OK there is a 400 DO II which I happen to have and love and probably there will be a 600 4 DO - since they have a prototype - but 600 5.6 would be more manageable in both front element diameter and weight...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
