Most requested lenses for replacement?
- Thread starter Radiating
- Start date
- Status
kpk1 said:
Why does this lens need IS? Others have mentioned that as well. A mkII version of this lens with IS gets knocked out of the price range into the 'why bother' category, IMO. The two categories where this lens shines--portraits and low-light sports--rarely benefit from IS. As you can tell, I'm not a fan of IS in general, at least I don't find myself in situations where it would be useful. To me, it just adds bulk and cost to a lens that doesn't need any more of either.
Upvote
0
kpk1 said:
It is very sharp at the center. It needs more sharpness at the edges. However, when you shoot portraits the subjects are more or less at the center and anyway the problematic edges may be out of focus anyway.
However I agree with you. More sharpness is always welcome and it is my No1 criterion.
Upvote
0
A
AdamJ
Guest
kpk1 said:
How much faster could its AF be??
I agree with EOBeav that a 135mm with IS could make it too expensive to remain popular. A large part of the 135's appeal is its price. If it went to $2,000+, it might not have a viable market.
This is even truer of the 200mm f/2.8. If that lens received IS and a $1,500+ price tag, only prime-obsessives would buy it. If ever there were a certain candidate for a lens not being replaced, this is it, IMHO.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
Absolutely agree. It was light enough to hand hold steady anyway. My favourite lens I've ever owned (I had the later II with the snap on hood, would probably buy a mk1 if I saw one used)
IS is over-rated. IMHO.
If you are using a fast L prime like a 200mm then you are using it to shoot subjects can only do better with a monopod.
Slow shutter is a con because by that point subject motion is more likely to cause blur.
What happened to breathe in, brace and motordrive.
A lot of folks out there screwing up plenty of decent designs with un-necessary and expensive extra electronics.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
Current IS is not optimised for contiguous video. Its too aggressive and sporadic for 25fps or 30fps second after second after second.
If you are shooting video your shutter should be no slower than 1/50th or 1/60th anyway, so the benefit on wide angle lenses is entirely negated. If you are shooting with a standard or tele lens then you should be supporting the camera, or you'll sprain your bicep or back. Agree re: rigs, some are just silly huge and cumbersome.
Fig rig great for run and gun, manfrotto video monopod excellent if travelling light, but 8 times out of 10 I'll be using a tripod with bowl and fluid head. Old habits, and being mindful that shakey footage on 50" plasmas is unwatchable.
If you are shooting video your shutter should be no slower than 1/50th or 1/60th anyway, so the benefit on wide angle lenses is entirely negated. If you are shooting with a standard or tele lens then you should be supporting the camera, or you'll sprain your bicep or back. Agree re: rigs, some are just silly huge and cumbersome.
Fig rig great for run and gun, manfrotto video monopod excellent if travelling light, but 8 times out of 10 I'll be using a tripod with bowl and fluid head. Old habits, and being mindful that shakey footage on 50" plasmas is unwatchable.
Upvote
0
Some thoughts which may not be liked by some:
It seems to me that the update of some lenses is desired because it is considered ... fashionable.
Maybe some who have money to spend wish for minor upgrades in lenses (like IS to wide, medium or slightly tele lenses) and are willing to pay major increases in price...
DON'T THINK I EXCLUDE MYSELF 100%.
I am as "guilty" as you. For example I wish for a 400mm f/5.6L updated with IS (and a latest generation one of course!)
I do understand the need for IS but I believe that it is immensely more useful to tele lenses.
However, there is no real need to add it to almost every lens available and ... increase the price of all canon lenses...
Anyway we can Relax! Canon will do it anyway sooner or later. They want our money!
It seems to me that the update of some lenses is desired because it is considered ... fashionable.
Maybe some who have money to spend wish for minor upgrades in lenses (like IS to wide, medium or slightly tele lenses) and are willing to pay major increases in price...
DON'T THINK I EXCLUDE MYSELF 100%.
I am as "guilty" as you. For example I wish for a 400mm f/5.6L updated with IS (and a latest generation one of course!)
I do understand the need for IS but I believe that it is immensely more useful to tele lenses.
However, there is no real need to add it to almost every lens available and ... increase the price of all canon lenses...
Anyway we can Relax! Canon will do it anyway sooner or later. They want our money!
Upvote
0
BozillaNZ said:
Congrats, that's a lens I'm thinking about, too. The only issue seems to be the heavy vignetting that is so strong that it may affect dr (i.e. noise) after de-vignetting in post - do you notice it in your real world shots?
Upvote
0
Tse 90, could be a very interesting portrait lens
100-400 for birding (wishful thinking, I know)
100-400 for birding (wishful thinking, I know)
Upvote
0
50/1.4
-not vy sharp under f2.0
-AF motor gets stuck easily
-no real USM
Keep the bokeh and no IS!
Actually canon doesn't have a decent 50mm at a reasonable price range!
50/1.8 - color not good, not usm, plastic construction etc
50/2.5 macro - slow to focus, not usm, not f1.8 or below, vignette
50/1.2 - price, weight
Canon really needs to update this "standard" lens
-not vy sharp under f2.0
-AF motor gets stuck easily
-no real USM
Keep the bokeh and no IS!
Actually canon doesn't have a decent 50mm at a reasonable price range!
50/1.8 - color not good, not usm, plastic construction etc
50/2.5 macro - slow to focus, not usm, not f1.8 or below, vignette
50/1.2 - price, weight
Canon really needs to update this "standard" lens
Upvote
0
EF16-35mm f/2.8L II: It is better than version I at 16-20mm and worse in 28-35mm !!! This is a joke! It has to be a superset (in quality)
in all focal lengths to be a worthy upgrade.
EF100-400mm L or EF400mm f/4.6L or both: Canon has to update at least one of them (actually it has to update both of them...)
the 100-400 for additional sharpness, weather sealing and better IS and the 400 for IS.
in all focal lengths to be a worthy upgrade.
EF100-400mm L or EF400mm f/4.6L or both: Canon has to update at least one of them (actually it has to update both of them...)
the 100-400 for additional sharpness, weather sealing and better IS and the 400 for IS.
Upvote
0
C
crasher8
Guest
When I go FF it will be difficult to not keep a crop body around because besides weather sealing I just can't see too many reasons why the 16-35 and 17-40 are better than the 10-22. Love that lens. So I'd say something in between the 16-35 and 17-40 pricepoints ~ 1000-1200, and better wide open and corner sharpness. Perhaps a 2.8 17-40.
Upvote
0
- Status
