Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]

[AvTvM]

I don't think you read the posts carefully enough. The question here was not if a PRO needs the best camera. AvTvM's question was that why would you buy into a different system? My view is, why not? Learning a new system is by far a better option than buying gear you hate and rant about in internet forums.

Again, I doubt the wisdom of that. 2 different systems does not only mean 2 different user interfaces to learn. But 2 different sets of batteries and chargers [remember, messus was talking about shooting wildlife stills and videos @ all sorts of locations, including rather remote areas] and a whole lot more effort and difficulties in post production - especially for video.

It may well be the better approach to stick with gear from one manufacturer, even when some of it is less than optimal for certain aspects of the task. And everbody is entitled to (some) ranting if expensive gear is not as good as it should be. Including Canon gear.

 

[Eldar]

I don't think you read the posts carefully enough. The question here was not if a PRO needs the best camera. AvTvM's question was that why would you buy into a different system? My view is, why not? Learning a new system is by far a better option than buying gear you hate and rant about in internet forums.

Again, I doubt the wisdom of that. 2 different systems does not only mean 2 different user interfaces to learn. But 2 different sets of batteries and chargers [remember, messus was talking about shooting wildlife stills and videos @ all sorts of locations, including rather remote areas] and a whole lot more effort and difficulties in post production - especially for video.

It may well be the better approach to stick with gear from one manufacturer, even when some of it is less than optimal for certain aspects of the task. And everbody is entitled to (some) ranting if expensive gear is not as good as it should be. Including Canon gear.

There are a couple of fairly OK Canon mount Zeiss alternatives to choose from, if Canon lenses are too bad.

 

[StudentOfLight]

The above 90mm TS lens is bigger (length and diameter) and much heavier than Canon! Yet it is f/4.5!!!

The above is just a thought as I am not an expert. But I deducted so from the above example....

The only reason I did not buy the TS-E 90mm is that it loses quite a bit of sharpness when shifting. When shifting you are using more of the periphery of the front element which would be the weak points optically. I believe that having a larger font element can help alleviate problems of soft corners and vignetting when shooting wide open.

By elevating the TS-E 90mm's successor into the L-series one would expect that the image quality would not suffer when the lens is shifted. I would expect it to perform optically as well as the TS-E 24-II does through it's tilt-shift range. I've already pre-ordered this lens in my mind ;D

 

[jrista]

105 2.8 TS Macro (replacing 90 & old 100 macro)

How large do you expect the front element of this Tilt-shift to be?

Agreed. Aren't most of the current TS lenses f/3.5 max aperture?

Sorry, I don't get the point. How big do you think it would need to be? The 45mm and 90mm are f/2.8. The TS-E 90mm takes 58mm filters, and the front element is recessed and noticeably smaller than the filter threads. There's clearly room to add 10-15mm to the focal length, increase the image circle to match the 17/24, and still have a pretty small front element.

Hmm. I thought that most of the lenses had an f/3.5 aperture. If the current 45 and 90 have an f/2.8 aperture, then my post was indeed pointless.

 

[J.R.]

I don't think you read the posts carefully enough. The question here was not if a PRO needs the best camera. AvTvM's question was that why would you buy into a different system? My view is, why not? Learning a new system is by far a better option than buying gear you hate and rant about in internet forums.

Again, I doubt the wisdom of that.

We can debate this to death but because it is a personal decision, each to his own

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Yeah. What lunatic continues to buy gear they hate?

you have not read, what he wrote. He is using multiple Canon bodies for stills and video. Out in the wild.
The last thing I'd want out there is a body from another manufaturer, with different user interface, different sensor characteristics, different batteries, etc. ... how about you?

If my livelihood depended on it, I would.

I might still do that in part (even though I do this for a hobby). I did not like the WA lenses of Canon so I might just pick up a used D800 (sell quite cheap these days) and the 14-24.

It's such a common perception that pros NEED the best cameras. In most cases they don't, infact they get by using quite humble equipment. The things which amatures prize, are not the same things which pros need or desire. MP count is typically very low on our lists. Reliability and build generally are they highest factors. A client usually doesn't care if a quality image is 18mp or 36mp, as long as it's the image they want, it's sharp and clean.

I don't think you read the posts carefully enough. The question here was not if a PRO needs the best camera. AvTvM's question was that why would you buy into a different system? My view is, why not? Learning a new system is by far a better option than buying gear you hate and rant about in internet forums.

Coming to your post, it all depends on what you shoot. Maybe a wedding shooter can get by with the previous generation equipment but wildlife / bird shooters do usually buy the best and the latest equipment to come out with standout photos, or do you mean to suggest that a 1DX with a 600mm f/4 offers no improvement at all?

BTW, isn't it funny how some Pros come out citing humble equipment when they themselves -

use a 35mm f1.4 L, 24mm f1.4 II L and 16-35IIL day in day out professionally and have for many years.

I shouldn't have to read posts carefully if they are written out clearly enough....tricky posts are the mandate of trolls...

Yes I have a lot of high end kit. But I also serve a lot of different genres in my professional guise. I shoot a lot of weddings, landscapes and a bit of wildlife (although the latter is more for fun). All three genres generally need a different approach to kit requirements. For weddings, I generally use fast primes. Of which my 35L and 85L are my main lenses. My landscape work needs xoom versatility, so my 16-35IIL, 24-70L and 70-200L are mostly used in that context. My wildlife protfolio sports a 70-200L, converters and a 400L. So 2-3 lenses per genre.
Camera wise, I use the same 5DIII for all three and they are working well for me. On my last trip to the Saltee Islands, were a number of photographers with the new 500mm f4 L IS II mated to 1Dx cameras. A very capable and light combo. I look my heavy 400L and looked quite tired for most of the time. There were a few guys there with the new 300mm f2.8 LIS II and 60D/ 70D combos...fairly modest gear for this genre but I have to say the imagery from these cameras and lens combo was nearly as good as my 400L...so one has to wonder. It was quite a low spend (from nothing), light and very capable. The 70D with a 300mm f2.8 had a nice reach and with a 1.4x or 2x tc easily matched my 400L on a 5DIII for framing (with converters). He eyed the slight quality and DOF difference beween my kit and his enviously, I looked over his kit with an envious eye for the weight and size considerations!
So choosing humble gear is relative and very genre specific. Ultimately it's the photos which matter and where a photorgapher is prepared to draw the line and put their compromise.

 

[CarlTN]

I for one will be very bored by a Canon 100-400 replacement that costs $2700 like the Nikon 80-400. Especially given that the upcoming Tamron 150-600 just might cost less, and just might be as good...and will go to 600mm, rather than 400mm.

 

[J.R.]

I shouldn't have to read posts carefully if they are written out clearly enough....tricky posts are the mandate of trolls...

Absolutely right ... I stopped reading your post right after this sentence.

 

[Random Orbits]

I for one will be very bored by a Canon 100-400 replacement that costs $2700 like the Nikon 80-400. Especially given that the upcoming Tamron 150-600 just might cost less, and just might be as good...and will go to 600mm, rather than 400mm.

I won't be surprised if it came out at 2500-3000. I wouldn't be surprised that the Tamron will cost less, but it won't be as good. I'm hoping the new 100-400 will trounce the existing offering, but I'll wait for the reviews before considering getting one and wait for the lower prices at the end of the year. The 24-70 II came out at 2300 but is now being sold for 1700 (net rebates), and it's only been about a year. Early adopters pay a premium.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I shouldn't have to read posts carefully if they are written out clearly enough....tricky posts are the mandate of trolls...

Absolutely right ... I stopped reading your post right after this sentence.

Yep, I thought I was wasting my time with you....now I know I was

 

[J.R.]

I shouldn't have to read posts carefully if they are written out clearly enough....tricky posts are the mandate of trolls...

Absolutely right ... I stopped reading your post right after this sentence.

Yep, I thought I was wasting my time with you....now I know I was

Funny... I feel the same way about you... So we do agree on something.

BTW, not everyone who posts here has English as their first language. So basically calling a less than perfectly worded post "a mandate of trolls" is myopic.

 

[Eldar]

BTW, not everyone who posts here has English as their first language. So basically calling a less than perfectly worded post "a mandate of trolls" is myopic.

Et godt poeng! Jeg har med undring lest hva som skrives her, ikke minst av de som åpenbart har engelsk som morsmål. Noen ville vært nær strykkarakter på en vanlig norsk/svensk/dansk ungdomsskole
Jeg tror jeg selv forstår engelsk rimelig godt, men uttrykket "et mandat av troll" er definitivt ukjent og høres passe meningsløst ut. Ha en strålende dag
PS! I checked what google translate made of it and it is pretty close

 

[J.R.]

BTW, not everyone who posts here has English as their first language. So basically calling a less than perfectly worded post "a mandate of trolls" is myopic.

Et godt poeng! Jeg har med undring lest hva som skrives her, ikke minst av de som åpenbart har engelsk som morsmål. Noen ville vært nær strykkarakter på en vanlig norsk/svensk/dansk ungdomsskole
Jeg tror jeg selv forstår engelsk rimelig godt, men uttrykket "et mandat av troll" er definitivt ukjent og høres passe meningsløst ut. Ha en strålende dag
PS! I checked what google translate made of it and it is pretty close

Thanks Eldar, you got that right.

By the way, as for most things in life, close is usually close enough!

Cheers ... J.R.

 

[CarlTN]

I for one will be very bored by a Canon 100-400 replacement that costs $2700 like the Nikon 80-400. Especially given that the upcoming Tamron 150-600 just might cost less, and just might be as good...and will go to 600mm, rather than 400mm.

I won't be surprised if it came out at 2500-3000. I wouldn't be surprised that the Tamron will cost less, but it won't be as good. I'm hoping the new 100-400 will trounce the existing offering, but I'll wait for the reviews before considering getting one and wait for the lower prices at the end of the year. The 24-70 II came out at 2300 but is now being sold for 1700 (net rebates), and it's only been about a year. Early adopters pay a premium.

Agreed that early adopters pay a premium, but I disagree with your assumption that the Tamron won't be "as good". It depends on what you value. If you want a nice lens that only goes to 400mm at f/5.6, and you want to pay $3000 for it, I suspect there aren't as many other people like you in the marketplace as you think. If you want a lens that is 97% as sharp that goes to 600mm for even less money, I suspect there are a lot more people who want one of those. I'm one, at least. A 400mm f/5.6 for $3000 is a waste of money, even if it's a 4x zoom. If you're going to trot out your hope that it would fully resolve 40+ megapixels with sharpness to spare, I would say don't get your hopes up.

 

[Loswr]

If you want a lens that is 97% as sharp that goes to 600mm for even less money...

I applaud your optimism, but I think it's rather unfounded.

 

[CarlTN]

If you want a lens that is 97% as sharp that goes to 600mm for even less money...

I applaud your optimism, but I think it's rather unfounded.

Based on what? Isn't the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 almost as sharp as the beloved Canon version? At a cost savings of approximately 25%? Maybe it's not 97% as sharp...depends on how you define sharpness in percent...not that people do it very often I guess. In any case, the lens I'm talking about goes to 600mm. If it only went to 500mm, then I would say it's not as big of a deal. But it goes to 600mm. Sure there's a chance it's going to not be any sharper than their current 200-500, but that's an old design. Let's wait and see where the chips fall. Again, based on the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, I'm quite optimistic. Certainly the new lens has to be an all new design, because if it kept the same objective element size as the old lens (which is f/6.3 at 500mm rather than 600mm), then it wouldn't be f/6.3 at 600mm. It would be f/7.1 or f/8 instead.

I don't see why you would "applaud" my optimism anyway, since you would never buy a large telephoto lens that wasn't a Canon.

 

[Loswr]

Isn't the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 almost as sharp as the beloved Canon version?

Not from what I've seen. The new 24-70 VC comes somewhat close to the Canon 24-70 II, but there's a bigger IQ gap between the 70-200/2.8 lenses. I'd bet that the new Tamron at 600mm won't be as sharp as the current 100-400 at 400mm, and since you mention a $3K lens you must be referring to the pink unicorn 100-400 II, which if it becomes reality, I'd bet that lens at 400mm cropped would beat the Tamron at 600mm easily. Then there's the issue of AF speed, something Tamron lenses aren't known for...

Many people buy the 70-300 non-L over the 70-200/4L because the former is 100mm longer, has IS, and is a bit cheaper. If they cared about IQ, they'd be better off cropping images from the shorter lens with much better IQ.

I think the Tamron 150-600mm will be reasonably popular, because it'll be a cheap 600mm lens. But there's no free lunch, and the price of this one will be IQ.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I shouldn't have to read posts carefully if they are written out clearly enough....tricky posts are the mandate of trolls...

Absolutely right ... I stopped reading your post right after this sentence.

Yep, I thought I was wasting my time with you....now I know I was

BTW, not everyone who posts here has English as their first language. So basically calling a less than perfectly worded post "a mandate of trolls" is myopic.

Actually I wrote "tricky" it was you who implied poor spelling...maybe you should read the post more carefully too? Or stop twisting my words and making a bigger issue out of them?

 

[J.R.]

I shouldn't have to read posts carefully if they are written out clearly enough....tricky posts are the mandate of trolls...

Absolutely right ... I stopped reading your post right after this sentence.

Yep, I thought I was wasting my time with you....now I know I was

BTW, not everyone who posts here has English as their first language. So basically calling a less than perfectly worded post "a mandate of trolls" is myopic.

Actually I wrote "tricky" it was you who implied poor spelling...maybe you should read the post more carefully too? Or stop twisting my words and making a bigger issue out of them?

OK. In that case I misunderstood, but still do not understand what you meant.

 

[KyleSTL]

Observation:

There is only one EF lens with STM (the 40mm f/2.8 STM along side the 3 EF-S and 3 EF-M STM lenses). When they release a full frame camera that utilizes DPAF (IMO less than 18 months from now) they will be in desperate need of a whole range of EF lenses to go along with the advanced movie AF. I say 2 or 3 lenses next year will be FF and have STM motors. If they want to make their cinema customers euphoric they will make said lenses parfocal and with very little focus breathing (unlikely, as I'm sure they want to protect their Cinema line of cameras and lenses). I know one of the big drawbacks of the 40mm f/2.8 STM for movie making is the fact that it has so much focus breathing (a function of its pancake design).