Did canon made 28mm autofocus L lens before?A 28 f/1.4!!! I hate to get too excited, but that's a perfect lens for what I want to do...
Upvote
0
Did canon made 28mm autofocus L lens before?A 28 f/1.4!!! I hate to get too excited, but that's a perfect lens for what I want to do...
You mean light gathering for those that get out in the golden hour and beyond? Now that that they're releasing all the daylight and flash photography lenses, they can get on with releasing the basic primes for the rest of us. Not purchasing all these f4 lenses. I will use EF with the mount adapter and gain a stop of light.Same old story, ridiculously wide maximum aperture exotica at what will be equally ridiculous prices
... or super-cheap lenses with slow-focus STM motors.
***SCREAM for INBETWEEN***
I had the 70-300 DO for a while. As I have done with several lenses I had some doubts if I really wanted or not, I bought it used. It was very convenient with a size almost identical to the 24-105/4 (although it was f/4.5-5.6). Perhaps with the current state of DO lenses (which Canon seems to no longer be labeling as such, e.g. 600/11 and 800/11), I wonder if they could make a 70-300/4L with a DO group that is quite compact. Seems possible. That, I'd be sorely tempted to buy.Darn it. That got me thinking. If they made a 70-300 f4 L (Replacing both the 300 F4 prime and the 70-300 L) I might find such a lens hard to resist.
Ribbit, ribbit! One of the great things about going to the tropics is listening to the myriads of frogs, each species with its own distinctive voice, chirping away through the night. Thanks for bringing those memories back!I had the 70-300 DO for a while. As I have done with several lenses I had some doubts if I really wanted or not, I bought it used. It was very convenient with a size almost identical to the 24-105/4 (although it was f/4.5-5.6). Perhaps with the current state of DO lenses (which Canon seems to no longer be labeling as such, e.g. 600/11 and 800/11), I wonder if they could make a 70-300/4L with a DO group that is quite compact. Seems possible. That, I'd be sorely tempted to buy.
The 70-300 DO wasn't a bad lens, but it did have it's optical quirks as far as bokeh goes. I ended up selling it, for the same price I paid – a free, long-term rental is a great way to evaluate a lens! My track record with that approach has been good. Of the 5 lenses I bought used, I sold 4 of them and ended up net in the black after selling them (others were the 300/4L, 28-300L, and 24-105/4L although that last one I just replaced with a new one bought in a kit with a 5DII). The only one I kept after buying used was the MP-E 65 – a great lens, lots of fun, and I only paid $500 for it.
Here's a shot with the 70-300 DO, in the hopes that Canon brings out an f/4 L version in RF.
"Ribbit"
View attachment 205518
EOS 7D, EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM @ 300mm, 1/500, f/6.3, ISO 640
I predicted/ hoped for a 12mm lense quite a while and based my conclusion on every UWA zoom getting wider and therefore canon needs to release wider prime than the EF 14mm L F2.8. It looks like I’m right but I’d guessed it might an F1.8 aperture. I assigned my F2 guess was wishful thinking at best…
12mm F1.8 will attract a lot of people but it will be expensive as hell… I like to burrow it once or twice but I’m unlikely to pay 3 k for it because in Germany chances for astrophotographers are really slim pickings… but, if there was an extensive trip to Iceland or somewhere with A LOT of dark and clear sky, I might get tempted…
12mm F1,8 and 14-35mm F4 L would make a killer combo but it’ll cost somewhere around 5k… so I’ll stick to the 15-35mm which I got at a „modest“ price.
There was no FD f0.95.I believe the FD 50 f/0.95 was both exotic and high-priced for its time.
I didn´t forget about it. Although it´s not a lot over 1200 $, it is above that price and in Europe it´s between 1400-1500 Euro, Compared to around 900 $/Euro that you pay for an exelent Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 G2 for the E-mmount, that´s still way more money for less light.I think you're forgetting the 24 - 105 f/4 L IS. It's not f/2.8, but it's much faster than f/6.3. It's only slightly over $1200, and you can get a refurb for much less.
I actually am stoked for a 12mm f1.8.A 12mm f1.8? That seems......odd. I would think milky way/aurora photographers would prefer a 16mm 1.8. who would the 12mm be for? Architecture perhaps?
16mm/1.8 would be great but we do have the 16/2.8 already.A 12mm f1.8? That seems......odd. I would think milky way/aurora photographers would prefer a 16mm 1.8. who would the 12mm be for? Architecture perhaps?
Canon has brought in smaller/lighter lenses but has pricing reflecting that R&D.I agree with all of that neuro, but it still frustrates me that there are very few mid-range, mid-price L-quality lenses with modest apertures that would result in smaller, lighter lenses.
It's difficult to gauge how much demand there is for such optics, but I honestly believe they would sell in high enough numbers to make it worthwhile to Canon, and I also believe that the "policy of extremes" is alienating a lot of existing customers, and discouraging new customers.
Not for a long time. Lenses like the EF 17-40/4L and 200/2.8L would probably fit the bill of mid-price (<$1K) L-series lenses. No weather sealing, though.Has Canon ever released L quality lenses at mid-price levels besides the RF24-105/4L kit lens?
The field of view difference at these UAW focal lengths is extreme though so cropping wouldn't be equivalent.If you like 16mm just shoot and crop or get one of the other UWA options.
The EF17-40/4L wasn't a great lens though and I wonder whether it met our expectations of what a L series lens would be.Not for a long time. Lenses like the EF 17-40/4L and 200/2.8L would probably fit the bill of mid-price (<$1K) L-series lenses. No weather sealing, though.
Goodness, someone avoiding going to Sony because of a rumoured RF lens?!?I actually am stoked for a 12mm f1.8.
I was going to buy an A1 along with my current R3 because they have that 14mm f1.8.