What’s next from Canon?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
++++ F 1.8 does not ring a bell?
A.M.: Yeah... 1/3 of a stop faster @135mm. So...?
++++Sigma has 105mm f1. 4 with 105mm thread.
A.M.: and....?
++++ And in general how about future proofing gear purchases. Would you buy 24 year old tech as new?
A.M.: I absolutely would if the lens offers a unique rendition, amazing colours and contrasty, vivid imagery.
Just FYI: I have a first hand experience with Sigma 135/1.8 Art and Sigma 105/1.4 Art. Sold and never looked back since.
Upvote
0
Maybe - I should X-ray the lens but I do not want to damage its chips
Wasn't the old 24-70 2.8 EF lens designed that the lens hood worked perfect for all focal lengths
by shifting the (effective) principle plane for 24mm to the front? The effective aperture should be located
in or close to the principle plane.
Upvote
0
If it meets my needs I most certainly would (and have).
The optics in the EF 135mm f/2 L still produce images no other lens can duplicate. Who cares how old the design is?
Sure, there are newer lenses with a more "clinical" look that can reproduce the edges and corners of a flat test chart at relatively close distance better than the EF 135mm f/2 L.
But who buys camera gear to be the best "flat test chart shooter" the world has ever seen?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Maybe - I should X-ray the lens but I do not want to damage its chips
Wasn't the old 24-70 2.8 EF lens designed that the lens hood worked perfect for all focal lengths
by shifting the (effective) principle plane for 24mm to the front? The effective aperture should be located
in or close to the principle plane.
The EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L is a retrofocus design from one end of the focal length range to the other. This means the rear parts of the lens are like a telephoto design turned around backwards.
The lens is fully extended at 24mm and fully retracted at 70mm. This is unlike many designs with focal length ranges that start out shorter than a mount's registration distance but go past the registration distance by the longest focal length in the lens' range (such as all of the 18-55mm variants that start out retrofocus at the wide end but move some groups in one direction while moving other groups in the opposite direction as the focal length is increased and are not retrofocus by the time they are at their longest focal lengths).
The hood attaches to the main barrel as the secondary barrel extends and retracts inside the stationary hood.
This means the front element is much nearer the front of the hood at 24mm and furthest from the front of the hood at 70mm.
I'm not sure if the hood works "perfectly" at every focal length, but it certainly provides much narrower coverage at 70mm than at 24mm.
I still use mine regularly.
As to the "effective aperture" (more properly called the entrance pupil), its location does not correspond to the physical location of the diaphragm any more than its size is the same as the physical diaphragm. The size and location of the entrance pupil are determined by the effect of all of the lens elements between the physical diaphragm and the front of the lens. The size and location of the exit pupil are determined by the effect of all of the lens elements between the physical diaphragm and the rear of the lens.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Uhh - being the owner of a 6D (and a fair collection of EF lenses) I am looking for a replacement/upgrade in a few years from now. I am looking in the direction of a 5DmkIV - that will for sure be an upgrade. Price wise it is also within reach, and I do hope for an 5DmkV, giving me a chance to pick up a 5DmkIV new or slightly used for a fair price.
I find the R6 not really to be and upgrade for the 6D in terms of resolution and place in the EOS R lineup. And R5 is very expensive and a video overkill for a stills photographer. And going on the R-route I will need a RF 24-70 f/2.8 and that is expensive too.
My plan is 5DmkIV - and then, 8 to 10 years from now a R-series R5, or even better a "R3" (or something) a R6 priced R5 focused on stills.
I find the R6 not really to be and upgrade for the 6D in terms of resolution and place in the EOS R lineup. And R5 is very expensive and a video overkill for a stills photographer. And going on the R-route I will need a RF 24-70 f/2.8 and that is expensive too.
My plan is 5DmkIV - and then, 8 to 10 years from now a R-series R5, or even better a "R3" (or something) a R6 priced R5 focused on stills.
Upvote
0
(you were responding to my 135mm comment)
I just think that adapters are not the same... I have an EOS M sries and hate having to use adapters.
And the control wheel thingy.
I wouldn't mind the exact same optics. I use primarly 50mm 1.2L and 135 f/2L 90% of the time on a 5D3.
Upvote
0
I’m dying to get a rumored release date for an RF 35mm L
I just switched to the RF 35mm 1.8 from adapting the EF 35mm 1.4L ii so I could finally have an all native RF kit and.. the 1.8 is great. It’s small. Sharp enough. But I need an L! F1.2 please!
I just switched to the RF 35mm 1.8 from adapting the EF 35mm 1.4L ii so I could finally have an all native RF kit and.. the 1.8 is great. It’s small. Sharp enough. But I need an L! F1.2 please!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
