Most requested lenses for replacement?
- Thread starter Radiating
- Start date
- Status
20 - 25% seems reasonable to me.Marsu42 said:RC said:
That sounds like the next offer for extended flame wars after the 5d3... what would you consider "reasonable" for added sealing & the same iq (which can get hardly any better)?
tron said:
100% price increase is unreasonable.
Upvote
0
RC said:
I agree but check the prices of the new 24mm f/2.8 and 28 f/2.8 lenses. Also compare the price of the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II and the old one. Trust me I want badly to be wrong (the more wrong the better
assuming I err on the higher end...)
Upvote
0
B
briansquibb
Guest
dhofmann said:
Why is there such a fixation for IS when on wide lens there will be very little/no benefit as motion blur will be intrusive before IS kicks in. If it is a stationary object then a monopod/tripod is the answer.
I am not convinced that the 17-40 is not sharp, especially at f/5.6 or slower
Upvote
0
dhofmann said:
You may be correct about the 17-40L (but Canon will rather update a f2.8 ultrawide because they can get more money out of it). But "even" the ef-s lenses are very good, it's just that Canon decided for marketing's sake not to put any red rings on them or let them have better build quality.
Upvote
0
dhofmann said:
I think Canon should look at making whatever replaces it there big UWA performer, at least beyond the TSE's that most users can afford. Rather than try to mix performance and f/2.8 together as Nikon have leave the 16-35mm as the "action UWA" where boarder performance is less of an issue and have the f/4 zoom as the sharper boarder to boarder option for the landscape market who are going to be stopping down anyway most of the time leaving a smaller cheaper lens.
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
It'll be interesting to see what happens should the 7D mk2 be shifted up in the market as has been rumoured. The 1D could get away with using adapted EF lenses with the more limated crop factor but I'd guess that if this camera really is aimed at the same kind of users they'd greatly welcome a 17-55mm 2.8 IS with L build quality/sealing.
Upvote
0
briansquibb said:
IS would weigh substantially less and be significantly more compact than a monopod or tripod.
briansquibb said:
It is less sharp in the corners at 24mm than the non-L 15-85, even at f/5.6 and f/8. Given that the 17-40 is an L lens and not a superzoom, it has two reasons why it should be sharper than the 15-85.
Upvote
0
A
AdamJ
Guest
dhofmann said:
Comparing the EF-S 15-85mm with the EF 17-40mm is spurious; it only shows that the EF 17-40mm isn't optimised for a crop-frame camera. Its field of view on FF is more or less equal to the EF-S 10-22mm on a crop frame. Try TDP's comparison of these two lenses at 17mm and you'll find the 17-40mm fractionally sharper.
15-85mm on crop-frame is a simpler optical design than 17-40mm on full frame so it should be no big surprise that the 15-85mm is sharper on a crop-frame. On full frame, the 17-40mm is much better than the 15-85mm, not least because it doesn't smash the mirror to pieces.
Upvote
0
P
PhilDrinkwater
Guest
Radiating said:
Agree with 1-4.
I think the 135f2 is an amazing lens but it really needs IS - that's all it needs IMO. I certainly wouldn't buy it for any optics upgrade.
As for 5, I'm happy with the 16-35 personally... For number 5, I'd add an 85 1.4. The 1.2 is too heavy / big / slow and the 1.8 isn't good enough for my needs. Sorry - I know it's not a replacement as such
There may be some in the 200+ range that need work but I stop at 200mm personally.
Upvote
0
- Status
