that 3d that was mentioned before (eye focus control and lotsa other cool features) except with a 30mp 6x7cm sensor that somehow could still accept EF lenses would be the absolutely perfect camera for ME.
I would love to see it (50mm 1.2) around $1000, but I doubt that will happen (of course this is all speculation because it hasn't even been announced, this could all just be wishful thinking). On a 1.3x body it will be a 65mm f/1.2 and on a 1.6x body it will be an 80mm f/1.2, really making this the perfect portrait lens for these bodies.
Koivulehto comments:
There was a pretty heated discussion in dpreview forum around 50mm f/1.2, focusing in how crop factor affects DOF and other attributes of perceived image quality. The heat was about the other attributes, but for DOF everyone agreed that 50mm f/1.2 in FF body behaves as 65mm f/1.56 in a 1.3x body and as 80mm f/1.92 in a 1.6x body (= as if you multiply the f value with the crop factor). All are nice values for portrait lens, but not equal to f/1.2.
To avoid the heat of the dpreview forum: Yes, for exposure calculations an f/1.2 lens remains an f/1.2 lens, independent of the crop factor.
I also think that it is a photoshopped image, but I think your argument based on filter size doesn't hold much water. I think zooms and IS can force you to have a bigger filter size than you otherwise would have. The 24-105 IS has a 77mm filter even though the long end is 105 instead of 200; at the wide end, the 24mm f2.8 lens only needs a 58mm filter ring.
Also, when they went from 300f4L to 300f4L IS, the middle section of the lens got much wider. The non-IS lens uses the same tripod ring as the 70-200 f4, but the IS lens uses the same tripod ring as the 70-200 f2.8 IS.
pmp6 wrote:
I also think that it is a photoshopped image, but I think your argument based on filter size doesn't hold much water. I think zooms and IS can force you to have a bigger filter size than you otherwise would have. The 24-105 IS has a 77mm filter even though the long end is 105 instead of 200; at the wide end, the 24mm f2.8 lens only needs a 58mm filter ring.
My point was more in line with the present 70-200 f/4 lens that has a 67 mm filter, and an input pupilthat is considerably smaller than that of the 70-200 f/2.8 (both versions) ((perhaps I should have emphasized entrance pupil, but I was trying to relate it to filter size as that's what is written on the lens)) . While I could see that there might be more need for additional glass with IS, I'll also note that it didn't make any significant difference on the f/2.8 version - both are the same.
BTW, at the wide-angle end of the spectrum, it isn't aperture that dictates input pupil size, but angle-of-view. Look at the front lens element in a block diagram of the 16-35 for example - it is not huge in diameter, but the lens must project corners that are 108 degrees (diagonally) apart, even with a filter attached. That lens uses a 77 mm filter, even though the entrance pupil is considerably smaller.
Also, when they went from 300f4L to 300f4L IS, the middle section of the lens got much wider. The non-IS lens uses the same tripod ring as the 70-200 f4, but the IS lens uses the same tripod ring as the 70-200 f2.8 IS.
I can see the middle getting fatter to accomodate the workings of the IS system, though I doubt that the entrance pupil will need to change much if at all. Both 300/4 models have the same diameter at the entrance end of the lens, and both have a 77 mm filter size.
pmp6 wrote:
I also think that it is a photoshopped image, but I think your argument based on filter size doesn't hold much water. I think zooms and IS can force you to have a bigger filter size than you otherwise would have. The 24-105 IS has a 77mm filter even though the long end is 105 instead of 200; at the wide end, the 24mm f2.8 lens only needs a 58mm filter ring.
Also, when they went from 300f4L to 300f4L IS, the middle section of the lens got much wider. The non-IS lens uses the same tripod ring as the 70-200 f4, but the IS lens uses the same tripod ring as the 70-200 f2.8 IS....Show more →
Correct me if I am wrong, but the 300/4, 70-200/2.8, and longer lenses did not change in filter size when they came out in IS versions. The 70-200/2.8 IS is longer than the non-IS, don't know about the rest.
The 24-105 needs to have a wide lens because it combines wide and tele; there is a lot of light to be pushed around and reangled, so I would think they need more width than a pure 24, perhaps considerably more. Remember that, due to the need to do zoom and include telephoto, the front element must be further from the film plane in the 24-105 than in the 24, the former is 2" longer, so you need a larger front element to compensate.
My question is this: The size of that lens in the picture is basically the size of the 2.8 IS. With all of the metal, etc etc, we'd probably be looking close to 1200g for the weight of the lens. What would be the point? I'd just get the extra stop... I'm not saving much weight and zero size.
On argument about the filter/iris size: if memory serves, the vignetting on the IS version of the lens is worse than the none IS version of the lens...
handheld wrote:
Why on earth would Canon bother with refitting with IS one of their most successful and popular medium telephoto lenses such as the 70-200 f/4 ?
The popularity of that entry level L lens hinges on its fine quality for relatively little money. How will IS improve on that ?
The f4L is popular for three reaons: It's pretty cheap for L glass, it's sharp wide open and it's lightweight.
The only thing that makes me even think of the heavier 2.8 is the IS. At f4, it's hard to get enough light in shade to keep the ISO down. IS would be HUGE if they keep the price less than a grand, keep it sharp wide open and don't get crazy on the size.
Schlotkins wrote:
IS would be HUGE if they keep the price less than a grand, keep it sharp wide open and don't get crazy on the size.
I would bet it would be the most popular 70-200.
Chris
Oh yeah, certainly.....and if they threw in a tripod mount and a B&W CPL, all for <$1k, the lens would be even HUGER.
Why IS for the F4? They have hooked many people on the idea of IS. It's harder to tell people to go practise holding, shooting, stance, aka using a bit of tradecraft as opposed to sending Mr Canon a few hundred bucks. People are looking for assurance. If I spend that much money I want it to be great for sure sort of thing. What's a little bit more for a semiguarantee even if it weights more, cost more, makes it harder for the target market to hold. We humans are funny crew. But after having dis'd the idea choice is good. There's a market for both lensbabys and L's.
pixelman wrote:
Why IS for the F4? They have hooked many people on the idea of IS. It's harder to tell people to go practise holding, shooting, stance, aka using a bit of tradecraft as opposed to sending Mr Canon a few hundred bucks. People are looking for assurance. If I spend that much money I want it to be great for sure sort of thing. What's a little bit more for a semiguarantee even if it weights more, cost more, makes it harder for the target market to hold. We humans are funny crew. But after having dis'd the idea choice is good. There's a market for both lensbabys and L's....Show more →
Yup, I hear ya, good point. Check my forum ID name
dcmiller wrote:
IS has reduced image quality in all zooms when camera shake is not present.
Well, I'm assuming you are even including if you turn IS off. But, I'm game: Minus the 70-200 2.8, what other professional quality zooms has Canon simplied added the IS and the imagine quality declined?
I think quite a few people would argue the IQ of the new 24-105 L is very, very close to the 24-70 even before considering the disadvantage of the 24-105 because of its increaded range.
Rex914 wrote:
It's quite different from that picture...
- 2 screws missing
- zoom ring is completely different
- glass is tinted green for some reason
- no red USM badge
- no red dot on the tip of the lens barrel (at the front)
- contents of the window are different
It might be based off a picture, but it might not be that one.
Schlotkins wrote:
I think quite a few people would argue the IQ of the new 24-105 L is very, very close to the 24-70 even before considering the disadvantage of the 24-105 because of its increaded range.
I'm not one of those people. From what I've seen from good samples of both, they're nowhere close.
Obviously if a new 70-200/4IS is as heavy and big as the 70-200/2.8 non-IS and costs more than it would be less exciting. But assuming IS only adds a half pound, half inch, and $300 - I believe it would become more popular than the non-IS f/4 version is today. With a 1.4 TC you'd get the range of the 70-300IS with the build of an L.
You also have to remember that Canon's strategy is IS in the lens, and in order to push back on Sony they need to put IS in more lenses.
