1D Mark IV Ship Date
I’ve heard December 9, 2009 is when the first batch of 1D Mark IV’s will be in the wild. No word on what country(ies) that would be.
G11 vs S90
Canon has been pleasantly surprised by the initial orders for the S90. Originally the camera was pegged to be outsold by the G11 6 to 1, their internal numbers have changed to 3 or 4 to 1.
Micro 4/3
Canon is watching how things go with the new system. Currently there are no plans within Canon to start R&D on a Micro 4/3 body or anything similar. There is also no plans for a third lens system at this time. EF-S is still a confusing thing for consumers. This is no lie, Canon still gets flack for the FD to EF change which happened 22 years ago!
24-70 f/2.8L IS
A great source has said this lens is coming in 2010.
Initial 1D Mark IV Orders
Orders for the 1D Mark IV have been beyond expectations for Canon. They do expect to meet the demand of initial orders.
24 f/1.4L II
This is still a hard lens to come by in a lot of places. I’m told Canon is working on having the supply issue sorted by the start of 2010.
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Once the 24-70 f/2.8 IS is out, Canon should try to produce a 14-24 f/4 lens (with front threading) that is optically as good as the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8, and they will be kings again. With the 7D sensor, Canon has demonstrated once again they have the sensor technology edge.
60D?
Why would you want a 60D? What will it have or not have that would make you want it over a 7D? By the time a 60D comes out it will likely only be a few hundred less than a 7D. It makes no sense to me. I think the xxD line is going to need a thoughtful change, maybe smaller?, to make it competitive with the excellent 7D. Either that or it needs to be significantly cheaper. Like 1099.
But seriously what would the stats be? 50D plus 1080p video?
Mr CR guy did your source tell you around what time next year will the 24-70IS come out? Im about to buy it now but it can wait. Can you please let me know? i could save a few bucks now and save them for later
Prays to the Camera gods for a 24-70 2.8 IS .. and possibly a 5D III before the end of 2010 :)
a 14-24 f4 to compete with a 14-24 f2.8?! Sorry, I will take f2.8 ANY day. That’s not really a landscape focal length, its a PJ focal length. We like our f2.8 :)
Just find a good used one and be happy. It probably wouldn’t be out until mid next year, Canon just released a lot of equipment. Gotta spread it out.
Canon looks more likely to release a FF version of the 7D in late 2010, the 3D around £3k to bridge the price gap between the 5DMk2 and 1DMk4.
I would agree. Get used first or the sigma equivalent. I’m waiting for the is version.
Cr guy thanks for the 24-70is bit. I’ll wait for mine.
Even a camera for as LITTLE as $1500 is a lot of money for many of us. The $1500 is a wild guess and probably won’t happen anyhow assuming the demand for the 7D is high. Also, I do want the “dumbed down” picture control modes on the dial. My wife is not interested in things like aperture and shutter speed, she just wants to pick up the camera and take pictures. Furthermore, I am hoping that the new/improved technology moves “down” to the 60D which could make it an impressive camera. The T1i benefits from both the 50D and the 5DMII. Hopefully your suggested price of $1099 is close, because then I could get the 60D and the 17-40 f4 for only $100 more than the 7D body…not bad!
drool… 3D …. uurrgghhhhgghhh
24-70 IS will finally give the full frame shooter the perfect indoor/outdoor do everything walkaround. Although I wish they could make it a little longer. Like 24-85. I miss the reach on my 17-55 IS. The 88mm equivalent was excellently long.
No 70-200 IS II?
I’d also take a look at a 24-70 IS. I’ve had 5 of the 24-70mm lenses and sold them all. I found them so front heavy on a crop camera that I had to use high shutter speeds to keep motion blur out of the images. They were reasonably sharp, but not like my 17-55 IS, even on a heavy duty tripod as opposed to a hand held 17-55.
I’ve got a 1D MK IV on order, but the lack of sample images and reviews has me wondering if I shouldn’t wait. Its not as if I had $5,000 burning a hole in my pocket.
I’m not suprised by the sales of the S9o, its a nice camera for those who use the LCD to compose their shots. However, outdoors I just can’t imagine being able to frame or compose a shot on the LCD, so it is a indoor camera. I suspect many of the buyers will eventually realize this, and wonder where the viewfinder is.
My sister recently bought a P&S, and when she went to use the camera on hiking trips outdoors, realized it was worthless for that purpose and sold it for a waterproof D90 that at least has a viewfinder.
Another interesting thing she told me is that many of the hikers bring along 5D MK II cameras. These are long hikes at high elevations where hikers weigh everything to the gram, so this was a bit of a suprise that they would carry that much weight when weight is at a high premium.
Music to my ears. I hope the new 24-70/2.8 IS offers sharp wide open performance edge to edge on Full Frame with good resolution for APS-C! I hope they do more than just slap on IS on the old brick.
I can attest to the 24/1.4L II being hard to find – I’ve had to stalk B&H for months before they got some in stock. Totally worth the wait though, it’s a fantastic lens.
If you’ve had so many copies of 24-70/2.8 you surely have a good experience with this lens. As 7D user I’m planning to buy one, but without IS. My question is: how much they differed on account of sharpness and CA? I guess you were not satisfied with them all?
i purchased and sold 3 24mm L II. not hard to find.
my local camera store have 2 in stock.
i will get my 1d4 2 week of december,my location southern california.
2nd week of december.
“Micro 4/3”
If Canon ever offer an interchangeable lens system for mirrorless cameras, I seriously doubt it’s going to use the 4/3 format.
Perhaps it would be better to refer to this paradigm as “Micro APS-C” in Canon’s case.
Why did anyone want the 50D? Or the 40D, or the 30D, or…
60D will essentially be a 50D plus video for around $999.
I’m sure the xxD line will stay to fill the gap between the xxxD and the xD.
What about a new flash?
“24-70 f/2.8L IS
A great source has said this lens is coming in 2010.”
Yawn.. yeah.. it’s been coming for so long.. one will appear sooner or later so that “source” will be eventually right.
any news about an updated 35 mm/1.4?
For me M43 is pointless, Canon already has an alien EF-S line which needs a lot of lenses to fill, wonder if Canon has that much money to invest.
To this day, comparing with another company’s line, EF-S is still a very strange thing to me. Count me old school, sorry.
If they make a new 24-70, I really hope they’ll do something about the weight :(
Yes, they will. They always do. They’ll add one lens more — this movable one, gyro and necessary electronics. They have to increase overall length if they don’t want to deteriorate optical properties. They’ll improve coatings according to new standards and they’ll increase price abt. 25-30% for standard “L”. They can use more plastic glass to diminish weight however. Nowadays there are very good plastic materials.
My 10D and 40D are about the same weight as my 5D and I’ve used a 24-70 on all of them. The 24-70 doesn’t feel nearly as heavy as my 70-200 Sigma. Yes, the lens is heavy but your comment makes me wonder if you’re supporting the camera body or the lens with your left hand.
EF-S is simply an APS-C dedicted lens line that let’s them make the lenses smaller, lighter and less expensive. Many enthusiast and family shooters will never buy a FF body and never need the larger EF glass.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that the S90 is doing better than expected compared to the G11, it’s smaller, lighter and easier to take with you. Had they at least put HD on the G11 it would have been more attractive.
any word on 135mm f2 is it discontinued
EF-S60/2.8Macro, EF-S15-85, EF-S10-22, just to name a few, cost far more than many FF lenses. I cannot find any “cost advantages” comparing with FF lenses.
That may be true, but you need to compare apples to apples here. The most expensive toyota costs far more than the cheapest lexus, but the equivalents are generally 15-20% more. The 15-85 is much cheaper than the 24-105L and the 10-22 costs a lot less than a 16-35L.
I’m not sure an L lens will use plastic glass… is that happening already? I wonder if the high quality plastic used in the body of the 100L is an indication of what Canon is going to do with their shorter focal length lenses. Not sure any plastic is going to be as strong and long lasting as the metal alloy used in L lenses now but they might be getting close enough.
Take a look at this:
http://en.toppreise.ch/prod_162517.html
microspot and architronic are offering a 5DMKII Kit with 24 – 70 IS
“Canon is watching how things go with the new system. Currently there are no plans within Canon to start R&D on a Micro 4/3 body or anything similar.”
In my opinion, we might get pretty good big sensor compact from Canon. The reason is simple – they are watching too long and in order to get the attention the effort must be doubled. However, I’m not sure I’m willing to wait that long, Canon seems to be the company named “tired of waiting”.
The EF-S 60 Macro 2.8 $469 is 96mm equivelent, so it’s a deal compared to the EF 100mm 2.8 at $599.
The EF-S 60 Macro is 3.1″ x 4.7″, 21.1 oz.
The EF 100 Macro is 2.9″ x 2.8″, 11.8 oz
This proves my point. When you compare apples to apples, the EF-S line is cheaper, smaller, and lighter.
Except I switched the size numbers, oops, the 100 Macro is 21.1 oz, the 60 Macro is 11.8 oz
Sharp wide open edge to edge for all focal lengths is like finding Atlantis. Its probably possible, but no one has it, yet.
I doubt plastic glass in a L lens too, their whole claim to fame for L glass is florite, but I imagine high end composit materials could replace metal in terms of quality, I suspect high end composits are currently more expensive than metal.
Not all L lenses have fluorite elements (including the 24-70 which appears to have a UD element and no fluorite), and those that do usually only have one or two.
How about the huge price difference between the 50D and 7D. I’m sure a 60D would be similar in price to the 50.
The two lenses you mention are also much, much slower than their equivalent lenses on full frame. As far as DOF and light collecting capacity are concerned these are their real FF equivalents:
24-136 f/5.6-9
16-35 f/5.6-7.2
In my experience the 24-7 f2.8L has been a sensational lens. I’ve had mine for over three years and it’s been my main workhorse lens – the performance and image quality remains first class (it’s not going to turn into a 35L but for a zoom it’s performance is excellent.
Yes IS would be handy occassionally. If Canon are going to give this lens a complete makeover I’d like to see it as a constant length zoom (like the 70-200 f2.8L IS) and be weather sealed. Those two features would mean more to me than IS.
I look forward to the EF 24 f/1.4 mk II being more available.
Yeah, bummer!!!!!
“My wife is not interested in things like aperture and shutter speed, she just wants to pick up the camera and take pictures.”
So put your DSLR on full auto mode or buy her a nice P&S.
A 3D?. No, the 5DmkIII will likely be the FF 7D. It has no sense to make a new 5D without 7D features, because anything less than a 7D-FF and D700 will continue having an edge on it. Or there is any feature other than huge pixel count present in the 7D and missing from the D700?. Of course, some differences may exist (e.g. no grid in viewfinder, but interchangeable focusing screens, not available for 7D).
I am surprised people actually carried 5D2 cameras for long hikes at high elevations. I tried that with the 7D and already found it too heavy. :)
What he said.
It’s certainly possible; just use significantly more glass. Except everyone who’s calling for it will probably balk at the greatly increased size, weight, and cost…
Which is of course why Canon (or Nikon, or anyone else) doesn’t do it.
Except you can’t apply the crop factor to just one lens. If you’re putting it on to a crop camera (obvs, since you can’t put an EF-S on to a FF) then that EF 100 2.8 is 160mm equivalent. That’s not apples to apples.
I just bought a used 40d as a backup for my 7d when shooting sports. This can be one reason.
The second reason is because not everybody can afford to buy a camera that costs $1699. the xxd line provide a good compromise between specs and price in this case.
I believe that the 60d will get a better sensor as well.
o yea ! at last !
I believe that I should buy a sigma or whatever to live until it is released. :)
I also believe that they will release it with the 1ds mark IV
If anything, they might even make it heavier by adding and IS! :>
That’s probably true. Hopefully it will be at least as good as the Nikon and about the same size. How about that? ;-)
Well, no. That is incorrect. The EF lens mount was designed for full frame 35mm film cameras, and with digital they are designed for 36.0 x 24.0mm full frame cameras. EF-S is designed for APS-C 22.3mm x 14.9mm crop sensors. To compare apples to apples you have to compare them on the formats they are designed for. The smaller sensor of APS-C allows Canon to make narrower diameter lenses, using less glass, and making more compact lenses than is possible making a lens. So a fair price comparison requires a euivelent focal length lenses on their respective sensor designed formats.
The EF-S 10-22mm would be compared to a EF 16-35mm, the EF-S 60mm Macro is compared to the EF 100mm Macro, the 15-85mm is comparable to a 24-136mm, which there isn’t an EF equivelent to, probably one reason for the high price. In every case there is a direct equivelent the EF-S glass is cheaper, smaller and lighter than it’s EF counterpart.
Actually the 24-70mm L has both UD and Fluorite elements. Also, check the dpreview review of it, also says it has fluorite.
Canon lists these lenses as some of the ones with Fluorite:
EF 24mm f/1.4L USM
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
EF 135mm f/2L USM
EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
EF 600mm f/4L IS USM
EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM
EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
TS-E 24mm f/3.5L
Yeah, landscape guys would “never” use a sharp wide angle stopped down to F/11.
LOL
Also, on crop bodies it would be 22.4-38.4 making it a very nice landscape lens indeed.
That said, though f/2.8 would make it expensive, but I’d still buy it (and would prefer to have f/2.8).
I would also buy it if it were f/4, though I wouldn’t want to pay as much as the Nikon if it were only f/4.
Because the 7D wasn’t out then?! :P
Precisely. I sometimes wonder why Canon even bother with a green box mode on DSLRs… then I remember the plethora of GWC that tend to hang around every major event. LOL
Nope, at least half of those don’t. You must be confusing UD/SUD with fluorite.
How about the huge feature difference between the 50D and the 7D. ;-)
It depends what you want/need. Some people don’t really need the extra features of the 7D.
Some people can’t afford the extra features of the 7D.
Some people THINK they need the extra features, but keep it in green box mode all the time (so would be better off with a point and shoot).
Most rich guys will just buy a 5DII and be done with it. More megapixels lets them show off more. LOL
I’m not confusing anything, that list is right from Canon regarding Fluorite in lenses.
Mmm that would make it time to sell my 5D and my 5DII would become the new 5D and the 5DIII would become my new 5DII.
Or something like that. LOL
Time to start saving now.
That lens will be out sooner than the 24-70 2.8L IS I’d guess/hope.
By “motion blur” do you mean “hand shake”? If so, yeah IS might help you a bit, if not… then I wonder if you’d be better off spending money on photography lessons rather than a 1DIV. :P
J/K
I’ve never owned a 24-70, but I have owned a 17-55. I found the colours from the 17-55 to be not as nice as from my 24-105. The IS and 2.8 on that lens are good to have and it’s definitely a great crop lens (pity it’s only EF-S), but the well reported dust problems are certainly true (even though that’s more a cosmetic problem over a IQ problem).
I do wonder how someone could own 5 copies of a lens they obviously don’t get along with.
Category mistake I suspect. “Hikers” can mean “serious mountaineers” to “day walking families”. I’d bring a 5DII on a day hike no problem. Tripod too. Getting a nice photo from on top of a mountain would be my aim (not all mountains are snow topped death traps). ;-)
Are you saying these physics are mythological?
The 24 1.4L II seems to be an example of Canon’s new lens tech that’s being slowly introduced across the range to deal with ever increasing sensor sizes and resolutions.
I sound like a Canon ad I do.
Purchased and sold 3?! Why? You making a profit from it?
Better to compare the 10-22 to the 17-40L not a lot of difference in price there.
I thought it was fluoride, because it gets into teeth like this liquid gets into this chalk.
Constant Length!
*drool*
At least it is available… somewhere. Unlike the 70-200 2.8L IS II I’m waiting for. :P
No, no. Look here:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/infobank/lenses/fluorite_aspherical_and_ud_lenses.do
According to that site, most of the long primes have it, but the in the shorter lengths only the 70-200 f/4 (IS and non-IS) have them (talking current lenses that is).
That’s a list of lenses with “UD or Fluorite” elements. It doesn’t imply they have one or the other, or even both.
How reliable is the release date you have for the Mark IV? I have a deposit on one and leave for assignment two days after the date you have posted. So I’m hoping to cover it with a new rig. Thanks
Take in mind too that m4/3 is just the 4/3 mount with a mirrorless design, i.e. an electronic viewfinder (EVF). Canon’s take vould probably involve a mirrorless APS-C (1.6x) design that can take EF-S lenses (and EF ones…).
Granted, that would make for some extremely interesting (read: front-heavy) camera-lens combos!
Dude, you are not going to win with David, he never lets facts get into the way of him being right.
That proves nothing, you cannot be serious if you are comparing a 60mm lens applying 1.6 crop factor to it and saying it’s as good as a 100mm lens, that is in a word – crap. Crop factor on a shorter-length lens does not influence it’s deeper DOF comparing to the longer lens on a FF sensor, see for example http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
The EF-S lenses should be cheaper and there should be a bigger range of them but as of now Canon has not been shining in this area. In fact what most EF-S lenses are (with a couple of exceptions) are just general purpose, single-lens solutions that are targeted for amateurs.
?
What is not understandable here? Nobody told about FOCAL length fixation in zoom lens, it was about whether lens length changes when zooming or not.
Nice website! Thanks!
May I compare EF-S60/2.8Macro with Nikon 60/2.8D? They are exactly the same focal length, more and less “apple to apple”
I’d love all the lenses to be cheaper, so what? Whining about it does nothing.
I’m just responding to the idea EF-S lenses cost more, which is just not true. So your responce to me is what is crap, as you put it, as what I wrote has nothing to do with optical quality characteristics or comparisons. My point is only that when you compare EF-S to it’s EF EQUIVELENT lens, they are cheaper, smaller and lighter. You want cheaper lenses? Go by a Pentax system or something where all the lenses are dedicated to the smaller APS-C sensor, or buy some off brand glass. No one said Canon is supposed to be the cheap lens company.
Obviously, they are targeted to amatures as well as enthusiasts and are not “pro” lenses, but then so are certain EF lenses. Doesn’t mean they are no good for a lot of people.
no, lol, for no particular reason
you may be right about that, it’s not as clear as it should be on the Canon USA site.
Actually that does clarify the Canon USA site info which gives the impression Fluorite is used in more lenses, but that list may include UD glass too. The EU site lays it out as which is which. Thanks for the link.
Too bad though, “two UD-glass elements gives almost the same effect as one Fluorite element.” Kinda sad to see they are not making all the L glass to the highest standards.
No, I don’t let incorrect info, misunderstood facts or lame insults by morons get in the way. However, the EU site does clarify the info on the USA site, which I hadn’t seen. So you are wrong once again.
wait for it…when we get the 17-40 L II it will cost a lot more and you’ll think the 10-22mm a bargain.
” My point is only that when you compare EF-S to it’s EF EQUIVELENT lens, they are cheaper, smaller and lighter.”
As we have proven, you are mistaken
1)you cannot take a lens, multiply it’s focal length by 1.6 and say it’s an equivalent to any certain EF lens.
2)What exactly are EF-S 18-200 or 55-250mm equivalent of? Nothing. So you made a random point, chose a selection of two lens from the entire line up and drew a false conclusion. The EF-S glass is a separate line of lenses and they cannot be compared directly or indirectly to anything else.
You have proven nothing, Michal, lol. But if you want to disagree with Canon, have at it. I’m not the only one who uses EQUIVALENT in regards to EF-S and EF lenses.
“The new EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM sets a new standard for everyday photography on APS-C sensors. With a focal length range EQUIVALENT to 24-136mm”
Hmmmmmm, according to you, you can’t do this. Shame on Canon for telling people what their APS-C dedicated lenses are EQUIVALENT to in their EF line!
And dang, what could that 18-200mm EF-S lens be equivalvent to? Not even that “prove Michal wrong” EF 28-300mm??? lol Or how about that 55-250mm, not even close to the same range as the EF 100-400mm, is it? LOL
So who drew the false conclusion here, michal, you or Canon and ALL the other DSLR lens manufactures who also regularly advertise what their APS-C dedicated lenses are in terms of EQUIVALENT focal length to full frame lenses?
60mm lens on a crop factor camera does not give you exactly the same picture as a 100mm lens on a FF camera, I do hope that you are aware of that and that’s the whole point David.
Equivalent focal length does not mean that a lens designed for a smaller sensor can be compared directly to a lens designed for a FF one. “Equivalent focal length” is just a unit of measurement, all focal length is expressed in terms of FF, 35mm sensor, but it does not mean that you can in any way, shape or form compare lenses like that directly as the lenses themselves are not equivalent to each other, they are only using one, standardized way of measuring their focal lengths.
Where did I say APS-C dedicated lenses make the exact same picture as the equivalent focal length in full frame cameras?
Nowhere.
The ONLY point being made was in regard to the stated claim that EF-S lenses are more expensive than some EF lenses. No one said ANYTHING about DOF or that the images were exactly the same. I said very clearly, EF-S lenses are cheaper, smaller and lighter than their EF equivalent focal length lenses. It’s a fact, deal with it. Whether you think one is better than another that is your opinion, but I said nothing about that.
Try reading the whole thread before jumping to stupid conclusions and insulting people with your crap next time.
David wrote:
“I said very clearly, EF-S lenses are cheaper, smaller and lighter than their EF equivalent focal length lenses. It’s a fact”
It’s a meaningless fact David, one-meter length of cotton string is cheaper than one meter length of gold wire, so what It really doesn’t matter that two numbers that signify focal length are the same if there are significant differences in lens construction, build quality and IQ.
As I said…
Constant Length!
*drool*
I know what he meant by “constant length” what made you think I didn’t?! ???
LOL
Hey the red ring is of high standard. I hear it’s made of the finest of plastic. LOL
Yeah I agree, but perhaps it would make the price a bit beyond what people would reasonably pay. I mean the long zooms cost heaps, so people demand fluorite… well, at least they expect it for the price.
The 70-200 f/4 (IS) is the surprise. That lens is awesome (and I guess the f/4 keeps the costs down enough to include fluorite.
Perhaps the ever rumoured 70-200 2.8L IS II will have fluorite. ;-)
Oh and the fabled 24-70 2.8L IS too. LOL
LOL too true.
haha michal are you just bitter because you’ve been beating a dead horse in the earlier thread? I’m still not sure what point you were trying to make… Was it that you don’t want to compare EF and EFS because the 1.6X conversion doesn’t create EXACTLY identical images? I’m glad you have such rigorous standards for comparing something for your own personal edification. I for one am going to sink to the depths of foolishness and use the 1.6X conversion to give myself a ballpark reference point for when I’m switching between full frame and crop sensor.
I would like to see them do a 14-24/2.8L and a 14-24/4L (like the 24-70/105 and the 70-200 series).
The 5D3 won’t be out until the 1Ds4 is on the market for about a year or so – and it would probably use the 1Ds4’s 32mpx sensor (maybe, if we are lucky, with the 7D AF).
Or the improvement in optical performance is not worth the cost? Or you simply don’t get a lot of CA that needs to be corrected in shorter lenses? Lots of reasons why Canon didn’t include Fluorite lenses.
Isn’t the current 24-70 (and 24-105 and 28-300) already completely weather-sealed with 1 Series bodies?
Michal, you are arguing things no one is talking about. Mucher made a statement about EF-S being more expensive than certain EF lenses. It’s not fair to compare the price of a EF-S 10-22mm to a EF 50mm 1.8, and it’s silly to expect all EF-S lenses to be cheaper than the cheapest EF lens. That’s what we’re talking about here. Your points have nothing to do with anything being discussed by me or anyone else I can see on this thread as no one is talking about which is better or worse.
It hardly surprises me that a cheaper camera will sell better than expected to a bunch of business analysists. Consumers will justify their reasons for saving money, in this case it’s a wise choice going with the S90 unless you need the extra zoom, viewfinder, or flash hotshoe. Everything else the S90 does better at a lower price. I hope the S90 line continues with future upgrades.
i just testet the 16-35II on a 5dmk2
and its horrible the only edge to edge sharp image can be made with 35mm at f/16
EVEN THE SIGMA 10-20 WAS BETTER ON MY CROP CAM
i pray for a good wide angle lens
seriously 1200 euro for a lens i really cannot use at 100%?!
what if i need to make a crop?
this is completely **************************%$!?$%Ӥ$
“Michal, you are arguing things no one is talking about. ”
David, I’m arguing your statements such as “The EF-S 60 Macro 2.8 $469 is 96mm equivelent, so it’s a deal compared to the EF 100mm 2.8 at $599.” EF-S is NOT equivalent to EF. Period. They are different lenses, different mounts, built to different specifications, built for different markets.
It’s rather obvious that except for a few exceptions EF-S lenses are in general cheaper than EF lenses, just like four-cylinder budget cards are cheaper than luxury, six-cylinder ones. It’s quite obvious or rather should be obvious to anyone.
What I am arguing against are your incorrect and meaningless comparisons, you cannot “compare” lens of different focal lengths and different mounts and seek “equivalence” or “equivalence”. 60mm EF-S is not equivalent to 100mm EF, no EF-S is an equivalent to any other EF lens and to make direct comparisons based on focal length multiplied by crop factor is meaningless, misleading and wrong.
1. A FF camera will have a shallower DOF than a crop cam, so the edges will seem soft (if they aren’t in the same plane as the focal point.
2. A crop cam takes the centre area only (sharper and easier to get edge to edge sharpness).
3. I actually OWN the 16-36II and the 5DII (not just testing it) and I find the corner to corner sharpness to be very good. 5.6 and up. At f/2.8 on a FF at 16mm I don’t expect the edges to be perfect, but they are pretty darn good IMHO.
4. If you need to make a crop, why are you worried about edge sharpness?
5. Don’t tell me you can’t use it at 100%, that’s nonsense (unless you love to pixel peep like crazy) there may be a little softness if you’re wide open, but if you’re any good it should be fine.
Most people overemphasize the edge softness on the 16-35 but in reality is isn’t as bad as 90% of the people make it out to be. In fact when I went to get mine I was super surprised how GOOD it was, I was expecting a totally crappy lens in the corners, but in reality it puts the 10-22 (EF-S) to shame.
I think people love to bash the 16-35 so much, but mostly it is ill thought out nonsense, or regurgitation of things others have said. It may be a little softer than the Nikon 14-24 (which can’t use filters easily).
I have also tried the 14-24 on a D3. It is very good and sharp in the corners, but the 16-35 is only slightly soft in the corners and it really isn’t as bad (again) as people make it out to be.
All that said, I’d still buy a CANON 14-24 if it were like the Nikon one. I’d also keep my 16-35 because it’s a more practical length most of the time (and I really love that lens as you can tell).
It wouldn’t at all surprise me if it was deliberately ambiguous…
I knew the S90 was awesome… gotta get my hands on one someday…
Michal,
you are arguing over your own misunderstanding of what I wrote.
no one is saying they are exactly the same lenses, so for you to say I’m saying that and then call it wrong and incorrect is just stupid on your part.
stop making such a narrow use of the definition of equivalent, you are splitting hairs no one cares about, and arguing with your own misunderstandings. The only reason I’m responding to your nonsense is to say I’m not saying what you are inferring from my words.
Try to comprehend this: my comment is LIMITED to my responding to the idea that EF-S lenses are more expensive than some EF lenses. If you take my comments beyond my responding to that, you will, and are, concluding something incorrect from my words.
If you can not see how EF-S 60mm is 96mm equivalent on an EF lens and UNDERSTAND that does not mean they are exactly the same in every way, then you need to take some English comprehension classes or have a martini or something.
Michal, you claim that:
“Equivalent focal length does not mean that a lens designed for a smaller sensor can be compared directly to a lens designed for a FF one.”
acc. to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary:
equivalent – equal in value, amount, meaning, importance, etc.
You can compare exactly or roughly anything if you define at the beginning what quality you want to compare and optionally how accurately. The word ‘directly’ in this context is confusing even in meaning ‘exact’. So in my opinion David is right. Nevertheless I don’t consider this argument being useless. For example I can compare you and David in respect of the culture of speaking. One of you has probably some problem with testosterone level.
Finally some sense.
You know 98% of the people bashing the edge sharpness of the 16-35mm don’t have one and have never used one, and probably don’t even own a FF body. They just pick up on someone else’s rant and respew the same nonsense in forums every chance they get.
I have the old 16-35mm, and if I blow up a shot at 2.8 on a 5D2 image it is slightly soft in the corners, but it’s quite usable. I didn’t get the II, opted to spend less and get the 17-40mm, which is very sharp.
What, like the 24-105 that they currently have that is a perfect FF walkaround? Yeah, it’s not 2.8, but the range is perfect and I’ll just change ISO from 100 to 800.
Many people have alos become fans of Paul Smith Shoes since they came into the market. I also one of them , I very like Paul Smith Wallets and <a Paul Smith Belts,It designs very good.