Question:
At FF/105mm/f4 what kind of DoF can one expect with regard to isolating "in-focus" subject [eg street portraits]?
Quick Notes:
1.Given that it is an "L" it almost surely has weather sealing.
2. IS at this range will be extremely useful for capturing subject motion.
3. Curious as to weight/size?
4. What's the guess on price? Over/under 24-70L?
My guess : weather sealing, will weigh 650 g, 72 mm filter thread and priced 10-20% cheaper than 24-70.
Sorry, but pretty easy to fake. 3 posts from the poster....
Right, he signed up in 2003 and waited two years to pull a hoax on us all.
It's one thing to say that something you found anonymously on the Internet might be faked, but can't we give fellow members the benefit of the doubt? --c
Pretty dissappointed if this lens is true and the only one available. Looks like Canon doesn't think a new UWA is needed because of the FF sensor? Sucker everyone into buying this, then in a year and a half come out with a new 12-24L and an EOS 3D. Then we'll have to spend our money all over again. Smart. Frustrating, but smart.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Bigger focal length means smaller size.?
It's an f1/4.0, not an f1/2.8, so that makes it a lot lighter, I guess without IS about 500-550 gr. IS adds some weight100 - 150 gr I would say. But you are right, I forgot the additional FL, lets say 750g
charlesk wrote:
Sorry, but pretty easy to fake. 3 posts from the poster....
Right, he signed up in 2003 and waited two years to pull a hoax on us all.
It's one thing to say that something you found anonymously on the Internet might be faked, but can't we give fellow members the benefit of the doubt? --c
I didn't see the 2003, but I'm not a trusting person when it comes to rumors....
IngoZ wrote:
Used prices on the 24-70 should come down! Yeah!!!! 800 bucks used would be great
I don't see that happening. When the 17-40 f/4 came out the 16-35 2.8 did not drop in price.
A f/4 lens is not going to replace the capability of a 2.8 lens. Two different lenses with different applications. IMHO
Rob
Edited by Rob Eckert on Aug 15, 2005 at 09:50 AM GMT
Rob Eckert wrote:
I don't see that happening. When the 17-40 f/4 came out the 16-35 2.8 did not drop in price.
A f/4 lens is not going to canabalize a 2.8 lens. IMHO
Rob
Yes, a new L with this range + IS should not be much less expensive than a 24-70 L, even though f/4.0. Possibly the same price.
And I am not sure it is that usefull a range on 1.6x crop cameras. Probably, it can be much more useful on a 1DmkII camera (almost the 30-135 range) or on a full frame camera (I enjoy a 24-105 as a light travel kit on my minolta film SLR), especially for travel.
charlesk wrote:
Sorry, but pretty easy to fake. 3 posts from the poster....
Right, he signed up in 2003 and waited two years to pull a hoax on us all.
It's one thing to say that something you found anonymously on the Internet might be faked, but can't we give fellow members the benefit of the doubt? --c
plus, his DPReview stats are quite impressive
Joined Monday, January 21, 2002 (1/21/2002)
Total posts 2046 (Average 11 messages/week)
cineski wrote:
Pretty dissappointed if this lens is true and the only one available. Looks like Canon doesn't think a new UWA is needed because of the FF sensor? Sucker everyone into buying this, then in a year and a half come out with a new 12-24L and an EOS 3D. Then we'll have to spend our money all over again. Smart. Frustrating, but smart.
Isn't that how the market works? And besides, I think your mentioned 12-24L would (given canon finally improves on WA performance) bring up a nice combo with the 24-105L...
Let's also not forget - f4.0 means no support for high-precision AF on bodies that support it (like 1-Series). You'll also lose some of your cross-sensors.
It all looks very logical and possible. The 430 EX seems a logical upgrade to the 420 EX. I imagine TTL-II capability is the major upgrade to the 430 EX along with some of the custom features available on the 580 EX. A logical upgrade.
The 1D Mark II N is also a logical upgrade for Canon. Probably 12 megapixel bump up. 1.3 crop (there is nothing wrong with the 1.3 crop) and some other tweaks but nothing major. The 1D Mark II is a solid camera. There is a lot of life left in that puppy's design. IMHO
Rob
Edited by Rob Eckert on Aug 15, 2005 at 09:58 AM GMT
