Right from the Source
As reported yesterday, a new DSLR will bring about a new battery, the LP-E8. Canon Asia has an MSDS sheet for the battery on their web site.
Link (.pdf): http://support-ph.canon-asia.com/
cr
Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.
26 Comments
I would like to see a price under $1200, but an initial price <$1500 may still work. You need to consider what they are asking for the new 70-200 2.8 IS II, it isnt cheap.
Yes, I know. The problem is, that Canon would probably never make EF-S lens as much mechanical quality as L, yet the price tag would be among L class. I hate this about 17-55/2.8 IS USM. Optically, it’s an amazing lens, but it’s no match for L class, even 70-200/4L USM employs magnesium-alloy shell and it’s priced 60% of 17-55/2.8 IS USM. I’d like to get some sturdiness as well, for this kind of money. That’s why I chose 17-40/4L USM over 17-55/2.8 IS USM. Optically it’s mostly on par with each other, but EF-S is left in the dust in the mechanical side of things. That’s my worry about lens as such abovementioned.
I am also very happy with the endurance of the LP-E6. While I was never disappointed by the endurance of the LP-E5 in my 450D, the 1800mAh vs. 1080mAh really make a difference.
But, as you mentioned, I guess the most significant difference comes from the rear display being lit much less often (unless one enables Q menu), so that the durability is more than doubled.
When I go for a walk I do not hesitate to leave the spare battery at home even if the one in the camera is at less than 50%.
I have not really used video so far, I guess then the larger capacity will be really needed.
I two doubt that the price point of such an EF-S 50-150 2.8 would be too attractive compared to the 70-200 f4 IS and non IS.
While the 17-55 compares favorably to the 24-70 or 24-105 due to the latter two missing wide angle on APS-C, the difference between 50 and 70 at the wide end is much less pronounced and I think most people would prefer the 200 on the long end over having 2.8.
Well, if such a lens was introduced, if it was less than 1000€, and if it were a REALLY great performer in particular regarding wide open sharpness and bokeh quality, then I might consider getting one, despite already having the 700-200 f4 IS.
But these are some considerable IFs here, and I guess in particular the one about the desired price point would not be met.
While I agree that an EF-S 50-150 would have a hard time against the existing 70-200s, I find the 17-55 much more competitive. I have always been wondering why people were going for the 17-40. Its not only slower, with 40mm its already so short that it is no longer useful for portraits. It also lacks IS. And even the usual justification “if I ever go full-frame, I can keep it” does not really apply here, given the rather mediocre reviews this lens gets on FF (corner sharpness!).