I heard a rumour today (local photo store) that canon will be announcing soon a 1Ds MK IV. What does soon mean is one question. Full frame MKIV very cool (if true).
Lets hope!
Bill
PierreB wrote:
I too was hoping for more. 24-70MkII & 14-24L would be nice.
Well, given the body that was announced I can say I'm not surprised that there wasn't a lens announced with it. I think we'll be waiting until spring when the 1DsIV is announced in order to see any worthwhile lenses (i.e. 24-70II, 35II etc etc).
digitalbug30d wrote:
stop motion....its been done with NikonD3 movie "Fantasic Mr. Fox"
and a documentry on the Afghanistan war "Battle for the Hearts and Minds" has been done with a Canon 5dMk2
Nightmare before Christmas was shot with 1D MkII's
I must honestly say that I am very disappointed. I was hoping for some Mark II telephotos, a new pro body and maybe some NEW teles. And it was just cheap consumer stuff.
I just saw the press release about the new Nikkors.....
Nikon's got the idea. They've been releasing SO many new lenses recently. I want to see Canon do it. Going by the Nikon trend, Canon should be releasing a 300mm f/2.8L IS USM II and a 16-35mm f/4L IS USM (or a 14-24mm) at least. I hope Canon is actually working on some new lenses right now....
Doesn't make the Canon Press Release seem any sweeter.
Dpic_arctic wrote:
I just saw the press release about the new Nikkors.....
Nikon's got the idea. They've been releasing SO many new lenses recently. I want to see Canon do it.
But Canon currently has every facet covered, while Nikon is just beginning to release lenses that fill the gaps in its own lineup. Over the past few years Canon has released some spectacular lenses (800/5.6, 200/2, 24TS-EII, 17 TS-E, 24II, 100L, 70-200/2.8II etc etc) some replacing lenses that were great to begin with. IMO the only place Canon presents it's weakness is UWA zoom, other than that it has all of its bases covered very well, while Nikon lacks a complete fast prime and f/4 zoom lineup. While I'm just as excited for new lenses as the next guy, I don't see such a huge need for mass updating. That said, where the heck is my 24-70IS?!
Dpic_arctic wrote:
I just saw the press release about the new Nikkors.....
Nikon's got the idea. They've been releasing SO many new lenses recently. I want to see Canon do it.
M Vers wrote:
But Canon currently has every facet covered, while Nikon is just beginning to release lenses that fill the gaps in its own lineup. Over the past few years Canon has released some spectacular lenses (800/5.6, 200/2, 24TS-EII, 17 TS-E, 24II, 100L, 70-200/2.8II etc etc) some replacing lenses that were great to begin with. IMO the only place Canon presents it's weakness is UWA zoom, other than that it has all of its bases covered very well, while Nikon lacks a complete fast prime and f/4 zoom lineup. While I'm just as excited for new lenses as the next guy, I don't see such a huge need for mass updating. That said, where the heck is my 24-70IS?! ...Show more →
I think Canon should release a high quality fast telephoto zoom, like Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 ED VR.
Dpic_arctic wrote:
I think Canon should release a high quality fast telephoto zoom, like Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 ED VR.
They may feel the same way, but it's more complicated than that. Currently they have a 100-400 for under 2K that sells VERY well. Although it's not an f/4 lens, doesn't have an updated IS system and the AF isn't quite as fast it's also not 7lbs and 6K. IMO They need to shore up their UWA zooms before anything else--there is a reason people shoot the Nikkor 14-24 on Canon bodies, and it's not because the Nikkor has a nice finish.
"Nikon is just beginning to release lenses that fill the gaps in its own lineup."
Hmmm, now that the Nikkor 24mm f1.4 has just been released by my reckoning Nikon only need to release 35 f1.4 G and 50mm f1.2 G lenses and they will have just about caught up. While I love Canon primes, those Nikon zooms look mouth wateringly good. Wish they made their 14-24 G in EF mount.
If Nikon brought out an affordable 20+ megapixel body a la 5D2 I would say system parity would have been achieved. Nikon don't look like the laughing stock they did a few years ago, they look mean and in business to impress, none of their old "crop is enough for all photographers" bollocks. The ball is now in Canon's court IMHO.
Dpic_arctic wrote:
I think Canon should release a high quality fast telephoto zoom, like Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 ED VR.
M Vers wrote:
They may feel the same way, but it's more complicated than that. Currently they have a 100-400 for under 2K that sells VERY well. Although it's not an f/4 lens, doesn't have an updated IS system and the AF isn't quite as fast it's also not 7lbs and 6K. IMO They need to shore up their UWA zooms before anything else--there is a reason people shoot the Nikkor 14-24 on Canon bodies, and it's not because the Nikkor has a nice finish.
The lens would not be for the same class of people. What I am trying to get at is that Canon should start a family of professional zooms. In other words, lenses with the versatility of a zoom, but the high IQ of the big whites (or close to it).
Dpic_arctic wrote:
The lens would not be for the same class of people. What I am trying to get at is that Canon should start a family of professional zooms. In other words, lenses with the versatility of a zoom, but the high IQ of the big whites (or close to it).
Here is the thing. If Canon were to produce a 200-400/4 they would most certainly discontinue the 100-400, a lens that still sells very well and is relatively affordable for a larger number of people. I don't have the numbers but if I had to guess I'd say that the 100-400, a $1500 lens, would outsell a 5-6K 200-400. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see a 200-400/4, I'm just looking at things from another perspective.
M Vers wrote:
Here is the thing. If Canon were to produce a 200-400/4 they would moist certainly discontinue the 100-400, a lens that still sells very well and is relatively affordable for a larger number of people. I don't have the numbers but if I had to guess I'd say that the 100-400, a $1500 lens, would outsell a 5-6K 200-400. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see a 200-400/4, I'm just looking at things from another perspective.
I don't see any reason why they should or would discontinue the 100-400 were they to release a 200-400 f/4 at over 4x the price. With the price, size, weight and aperture differential I'd say these two lenses would be targetted to different shooters, many of which would likely buy both.
Another data point, Nikon has both a 200-400 and a 80-400, when they released the 200-400 they didn't discontinue the 80-400, likely for the very reasons mentioned above.
