kubelik said:
It's no bigger and not much heavier than the 100-400mm, which is fine to carry around for the day (for me, at least). But, take that 28-300mm and make it a constant f/4 - now you're talking about a beast of a lens!
Upvote
0
It's no bigger and not much heavier than the 100-400mm, which is fine to carry around for the day (for me, at least). But, take that 28-300mm and make it a constant f/4 - now you're talking about a beast of a lens!
neuroanatomist said:
Read somewhere that this lens targets photojournalists, but I guess so far I haven't seen any local media people lugging one of these around ;D
Which brings up another question: how is it possible that Nikon is introducing a lens with similar specs for half the price? ($2,500 vs. $1,000)
Upvote
0
ronderick said:
The white paint that Canon uses is a very costly component of the manufacturing process. In fact, the only more expensive component that Canon uses to make lenses is the special green paint they use for the rings on their two DO lenses...
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:The white paint that Canon uses is a very costly component of the manufacturing process. In fact, the only more expensive component that Canon uses to make lenses is the special green paint they use for the rings on their two DO lenses...
nice one neuro. +1
joking aside ... looking at the MTF charts, there does appear to be a difference in the quality of the optics delivered by the nikon and canon 28-300 zooms. I suspect there are differences in build quality, too; I don't know for certain if the nikkor is a plastic fantastic, but the canon L lens definitely isn't
Upvote
0
E
Edwin Herdman
Guest
Are any Canon retirements anything but stealth ones? Meaning that, sure, it might get mentioned that one lens is discontinued, somewhere near the bottom of an email from somebody who works at Canon, but not in an actual press release...speaking of approaching the question differently.kubelik said:
You're lucky they just used that non-toxic paint (it makes it safe to dance on, unlike the wings of a B2 bomber - you see the government can only afford the toxic variety), instead of opting for a recessed ring of pure, highly polished synthetic turquoise stone.neuroanatomist said:
In all seriousness, after my previous huge post, I'm more interested in whether the 70-300mm L stands up that much better to abuse (and scores well enough on the other bullet points) than the new Tamron to be worth the price premium. (Don't tell me that Canon's "price high, aim kind of high" problems are affecting ALL their products...) It's obviously worth more, but $1100 more? Guess I've already signed away on the image quality end of the spectrum...man, the one thing of Ken Rockwell's that I need to keep in mind is that lenses are tools, not coture objects. *shakes fist at Canon*
Upvote
0
Edwin Herdman said:
Sure - pretty much any time they update a lens, i.e. release a Mk II version, the previous version is retired. It might remain on some country-specific websites for a while, if they still have some of the old version in stock, but production of the old one is halted prior to the release of the updated. But that's not necessarily the case when they release a new lens, even if it seems a lot like the old one. The 100mm L macro isn't an upgrade of the non-L version. A 24-70mm f/2.8L IS would not be an upgrade of the 24-70mm f/2.8L, so they may or may not discontinue the non-IS version. They certainly didn't discontinue the non-IS versions of the 70-200mm zooms when they released the IS versions (although they did discontinue the 70-200/2.8 IS when they released the MkII version of that lens).
Upvote
0
from what I've seen, Canon likes to do the "stealth retirement" as edwin calls it; the lens simply unceremoniously disappears from the website. what's more, they usually pre-empt the shakeup with a "crazy webpage" day, where all sorts of lenses go missing temporarily, throwing everyone into a tizzy, before putting most of them back right where they were, with a big grin on their face. I don't know if it's the way their web-design is set up, but I doubt it -- I call Canon shenanigans on that
Upvote
0
F
Flake
Guest
none I'd say! the f/2.8 is heavy enough and so far as I know there's no current DSLR f/2 zoom. Cost would also be prohibitive just look at the price of the 200mm f/2
Upvote
0
S
scalesusa
Guest
Flake said:
I agree that a f/2 24-70 EF lens is extremely unlikely, but Canon has patented a EF-S 17-55mm f/2, and other lenses do exist.
Check this one out
http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/35-100_20/
or
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/546539-REG/Olympus_261011_14_35mm_f_2_0_ED_SWD.html
These lenses are for 4/3 DSLR's, so they are smaller and lighter than they would be if FF, but f/2 Zooms do exist.
Upvote
0
E
Edwin Herdman
Guest
Speaking of the 24-70mm L, is there a rumor that a new one is coming along?
I've spent the last week looking at various standard zooms for my APS-C camera but with compatibility for a full-frame (or larger than APS-C) camera in the future, and the current 2002 model of the EF 20-70mm f/2.8 L seems my best bet. Upgrade or not, I need coverage in that focal length. The 17-55mm EF-s is, well, EF-s, and it has a poor minimum focus distance. Sigma and Tamron have interesting-looking options but word is the Tamron 17-50 isn't sharp at f/2.8, and (I missed this until now) the Sigma 17-70mm is a variable focal length option - 70mm is just f/4. One thing I'm wondering about is how the 24-70mm would stack up against the 17mm TS-e or the 24mm II and the other lenses shown in the frame edge comparisons - the 17-40mm and the 16-35 II don't seem all that great (though chromatic abberation isn't too big a deal), though the 16-35 II isn't dropping as much resolution as the 17-40mm.
The only downside to the Canon, besides price, appears to be the lack of IS. Flare characteristics seem pretty good. Of course the zoom range isn't as wide as 17mm, but I have a lens dedicated to that.
I've spent the last week looking at various standard zooms for my APS-C camera but with compatibility for a full-frame (or larger than APS-C) camera in the future, and the current 2002 model of the EF 20-70mm f/2.8 L seems my best bet. Upgrade or not, I need coverage in that focal length. The 17-55mm EF-s is, well, EF-s, and it has a poor minimum focus distance. Sigma and Tamron have interesting-looking options but word is the Tamron 17-50 isn't sharp at f/2.8, and (I missed this until now) the Sigma 17-70mm is a variable focal length option - 70mm is just f/4. One thing I'm wondering about is how the 24-70mm would stack up against the 17mm TS-e or the 24mm II and the other lenses shown in the frame edge comparisons - the 17-40mm and the 16-35 II don't seem all that great (though chromatic abberation isn't too big a deal), though the 16-35 II isn't dropping as much resolution as the 17-40mm.
The only downside to the Canon, besides price, appears to be the lack of IS. Flare characteristics seem pretty good. Of course the zoom range isn't as wide as 17mm, but I have a lens dedicated to that.
Upvote
0
S
scalesusa
Guest
Edwin Herdman said:
Are you referring to magnification? Minimum focus distance for the 17-55mm lens doesn't seem to be poor, none of these are Macro lenses.
The magnification is the best indicator of how large of a image you can get on your sensor, and a lens like the 24-70 with a fairly short MFD and a longer focal length is going to win.
17-55mm Min focus Distance 13.8 inches Max Magnification .16X
24-70mm L Min focus Distance 15 inches Max Magnification .29X
Sigma 17-50mm Min focus Distance 11 inches Max Magnification .20X
Upvote
0
lot of people shooting pretty happily with 50 f/1.4s with no problems, and I'm one of them. definitely shoot plenty with it, and plenty with it in AF mode. considering it costs just over 3 times as much as the f/1.8, the question is really, is it 3 times better. between the image+bokeh quality and the build quality and the extra 2/3 stop of light, I'd say definitely yes.
Upvote
0
T
tzalmagor
Guest
Flake said:
The EF 24-70mm has a front element large enough to be f/0.95, which makes me wonder - is the lens really as small as it can be ?
Upvote
0
The entrance pupil (whose diameter determines the f-number) rarely falls at the front element, but usually behind it.tzalmagor said:
As a result the front element may well need to have a greater diameter to avert vignetting.
Best regards,
Doug
Upvote
0
lol! highly unlikely! The current 24-70L is a bit over weight for what it is (although fantastically robust). An f2 design would require the whole lens to double in size and weight.DoesNotFollow said:
There was a prototype 35-70/f2 that was seen tested quite a few years back but I haven't heard anything about that lens for a long while.
Upvote
0
N
NXT1000
Guest
why would canon need to release 35mm f1.4L ?? other than to sell it at higher price, it is perfect already, just like 300mm f2.8L, it is a perfect lens, they just want to make more money by raising price.
135mm f2 IS, that is good product if it is true. If they have no IS, again no reason other than to raise the price of the lens and make more profit.
Since they are unable to deliver lens that they promise, like 300mmL f2.8II etc, i expect zero new lens announcement, they have limited number of engineers, if they are firefight problem with those lens and damage by earthquake and power shortage, how in the world they can deliver new lens?
no power from nuclear plant = no lens, as simple as ABC.
135mm f2 IS, that is good product if it is true. If they have no IS, again no reason other than to raise the price of the lens and make more profit.
Since they are unable to deliver lens that they promise, like 300mmL f2.8II etc, i expect zero new lens announcement, they have limited number of engineers, if they are firefight problem with those lens and damage by earthquake and power shortage, how in the world they can deliver new lens?
no power from nuclear plant = no lens, as simple as ABC.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 4 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)