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.
Some people in Europe swear they saw a new lens tested by some Canon guys
during the World Championships in Athletics in Helsinki last week.
Short, big glass - fits description of 300 f2L IS. I'm sure there will be more lenses
introduced this time...
BTW there is always a new version of 200 f1.8 rumored...
Edited by snowboarder on Aug 15, 2005 at 07:07 AM GMT
No way. 300 f/2...?? Such a lens will be HUGE. Probably something close to th size and weight of the 600mm. And the price would be somewhere in the region of the 600, too. I don't think Canon would produce such a lens; there will not be enough demand for it. They will sell relatively few.
John--G wrote:
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.
Wasn't the center point on the 1-series high-precision up to f4?
Well anyway, on the lens itself... I suppose there's a market for such a lens, but I'd personally really rather have a f2.8 IS, even if it'd be something like 24-85 instead of 24-105. It's just that I shoot at available (low) light so much, that even f2.8 is kinda slow Still, I wouldn't mind one, but I'm guessing it won't be exactly cheap (maybe around $1000?), hence no way I'd afford it, and would probably rather go for a 24-70/2.8 at that point anyway
20Dshooter wrote:
No way. 300 f/2...?? Such a lens will be HUGE. Probably something close to th size and weight of the 600mm. And the price would be somewhere in the region of the 600, too. I don't think Canon would produce such a lens; there will not be enough demand for it. They will sell relatively few.
Given that they did stop production of the 200/1.8, it'd be surprising. Not impossible though. Nikon has made such a lens before: http://www.cameraquest.com/nf3002.htm - quite a beast!
20Dshooter wrote:
No way. 300 f/2...?? Such a lens will be HUGE. Probably something close to th size and weight of the 600mm. And the price would be somewhere in the region of the 600, too. I don't think Canon would produce such a lens; there will not be enough demand for it. They will sell relatively few.
I'm not sure about the size of such a lens, but the price is not the problem I guess... with high quality glass at high prices it's like with supercars (IMO). They don't need to sell very much due to the high price...
Just saw a report of the new Maserati MC 12 yesterday.... absolutely crazy car! They only produced 50 of them, but at 700'000 Euros a piece, that's enough
First they throw the poor guy in the mud and now they kill him off entirely. If that is how they treat their employees, imagine how they must feel about us! I'm switching to Nikon where they know how to be nice to a fellow.
20Dshooter wrote:
No way. 300 f/2...?? Such a lens will be HUGE. Probably something close to th size and weight of the 600mm. And the price would be somewhere in the region of the 600, too. I don't think Canon would produce such a lens; there will not be enough demand for it. They will sell relatively few.
Why would it be huge? It would be just 15cm diameter glass and 25cm long.
Price? - you're right, it would be very expensive...
You don't think that a lens with a 150mm front element is huge? Most people see a lens with a 77mm front filter as pretty big. Don't forget that the amount of glass needed goes up with the square of the diameter so f4->f2 needs at least 4 times as much glass and 4 times the weight (in fact more than that because each lens needs to be thicker at it's thickest section).
That would be a 300mm lens with the front element slightly larger than the current 500/4. Yes, such a lens would be very heavy. And if a 300/2.8 costs $4000, imagine what the f2.0 version would cost. :-)
snowboarder wrote:
Some people in Europe swear they saw a new lens tested by some Canon guys
during the World Championships in Athletics in Helsinki last week.
Short, big glass - fits description of 300 f2L IS. I'm sure there will be more lenses
introduced this time...
BTW there is always a new version of 200 f1.8 rumored...
Edited by snowboarder on Aug 15, 2005 at 07:07 AM GMT
Canon makes special order lenses as well... The fact that those guys saw a new lens does not mean it will be produced for the masses
Good, fast telephoto primes are always welcome. I wouldn't poo-poo a 300 f/2 as it has been done before and arguably the demand for fast super telephotos has never been great, but they're still made. Case in point, 1200mm f/5.6 and 600mm f/4 are hardly Canon breadwinners. They probably make the most profit from their crappy consumer lenses. At the very least, respond to the Nikon 200mm f/2 VR. The warm reception it has received should be an eye opener to Canon. As well as the eye opening, absurdly high prices of 2nd hand 200mm f/1.8s. Even crappy ones with bubbled glass, huge dents covered with chicken grease are selling for almost 3K.
PS- I personally dislike the idea of a 24-105 f/4. f/2.8 is not that fast, f/4 is just plain slow. At minimum, they could have made it 24-105 f/2.8. Tamron's managed to make compact, constant aperture f/2.8 in a similar focal length and Canon's a much bigger, better funded company. For all the debate about whether the Tam 28-75 is better/worse than the 24-70L, it's pretty amazing that the Tamron is so small in comparison.
IS is useful, but being able to use a higher shutterspeed at lower ISO's is even more useful in many situations. I'm usually taking photos of things that are alive and moving.
snowboarder wrote:
Some people in Europe swear they saw a new lens tested by some Canon guys
during the World Championships in Athletics in Helsinki last week.
Short, big glass - fits description of 300 f2L IS. I'm sure there will be more lenses
introduced this time...
BTW there is always a new version of 200 f1.8 rumored...
Edited by snowboarder on Aug 15, 2005 at 07:07 AM GMT
Antony wrote:
I may get this lens to go with my new 1D MkII N
On a full frame body this would be my perfect single lens travel solution. I love my 24-70mm f/2.8 for weddings but this will give it a run for its money for event photography when I am shooting in low light. IS at 35mm f/4 gives me the effective speed of the 35mm f/1.4 L but with better DOF for group shots. It also gives me effectively 2 stops on the 24-70mm in low light.
This WILL be making its way to my bag.
Except for the fact that you'll have a lot of motion blur at 1/4 second if you're going to equate it to the speed of the f1.4L lens...
If you blow up the tiny photo of the lens from the CPS page and compare the apparent lens mount width to the rest of the image it appears the lens would be about 3 3/8" across (slightly more girth than an 85 1.2) and about 4 3/4" long (about the same length as the 24-70 at its shortest). Filter size would appear to be 77mm. Given the IS and extended focal length, don't you think that it would cost more than the 24-70?
Nerme wrote:
If you blow up the tiny photo of the lens from the CPS page and compare the apparent lens mount width to the rest of the image it appears the lens would be about 3 3/8" across (slightly more girth than an 85 1.2) and about 4 3/4" long (about the same length as the 24-70 at its shortest). Filter size would appear to be 77mm. Given the IS and extended focal length, don't you think that it would cost more than the 24-70?
I don't think so. What makes the price is the max. aperture. So f/4 is pretty 'cheap' compared to 2.8. See 70-200 L (IS), 300 L IS, 17(16)-(35)40 L.
The IS might drive up the price a little, but I think it should definitely be cheaper than the 24-70 to be a hot seller...
Still, I wouldn't mind one, but I'm guessing it won't be exactly cheap (maybe around $1000?), hence no way I'd afford it, and would probably rather go for a 24-70/2.8 at that point anyway 
