I mean we got the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 50 1.2L. the perfect companion to these two is a 200 2,0.
Framerate, viewfinder, ergonomics, shutter life....
Not a difficult call
Regards,
DaveMart
(what happened to my 50 1L vs 50 1.2L vs 1.4 vs 1.8 vs 2.5 thread? )
Well, Jeff did say this was the place for rumours, so until tomorrow...
Regards,
DaveMart
rceres wrote:
"Doesn't anyone want to see some MTF and crops and comparisons of a 50 f/1.2L to the 50 f/1.4 before spending $1200?" - No. I always regretted getting the FD 50mm 1.4 and not the FD 1.2L. Sharpness is not the reason, but I'm thinking an L series 1.2 would be sharper than either the 1.4 or the 1.0L. Now I'm ready to buy the EF 50 1.2L sight unseen. 900 bucks difference would seem like a bargin.
You know, the only reason I may not go for the 1.2 is that the 50mm has always been the one lens (first the 1.8, and now the 1.4), that I can toss in my bag at any time that will give me some low-light ability 'just in case' and not add to much weight or take up too much room. I really like it for that.
With the 35 1.4, the 85 1.2... I'm not sure I really I'd use the 50 1.2 that much... but darn, a 50 on a full frame is sort of ~the~ lens to have.. so maybe I'll have to keep the 1.4 for the 'just in case' role, and have the 1.2 for everything else. Unbelievable how Canon can make me even consider this strategy. Damn them! (And bless them too). Bah.
rceres wrote:
"Doesn't anyone want to see some MTF and crops and comparisons of a 50 f/1.2L to the 50 f/1.4 before spending $1200?" - No. I always regretted getting the FD 50mm 1.4 and not the FD 1.2L. Sharpness is not the reason, but I'm thinking an L series 1.2 would be sharper than either the 1.4 or the 1.0L. Now I'm ready to buy the EF 50 1.2L sight unseen. 900 bucks difference would seem like a bargin.
Nope to MTF. Only use MTF's as a guide, Just hoping it's half as good as my FD 1.2L is. I also hope it doesn't have any IR hotspots like the 1.4. I managed to get an original 1.8 Mk1 with metal barrel that I use on my modified IR 5D. But I've been wanting an L EF series 50mm for quite awhile, and hopefully the rumor is true come tommorow, then I can buy, but until it's official it's still just a rumor.
Well according to ebeaydojraes, there are 3 lenses coming, so if he also confirms 50 1.2 and adds the 200 1.8, that leave one, which would be 70-200 4.0. Everything fits in
ebeaydojraes wrote:
My Canon rep. just confirmed it today over the phone.
Canon EOS 400D and 3 new lenses. 2 of them are: 50mm F1.2 and 200mm F1.8
EllitoGuy wrote:
where is this timer everyone keeps mentioning
If true, the EF 200mm f/1.8L IS USM will literaly abort that nifty little trade in the used original lens. However, there is a good news therein for those who have chosen to wait....for one, the old lens should become available at much reduced prices.
Oh, I know, there would be endless threads and posts insisting on optical performance superiority of the obsolete lens, quoting benefits of lead doping and god only knows what else.
Edited by handheld on Aug 23, 2006 at 08:04 PM GMT
Please delete your post on page 87, Philippe Arnez. It is messing with the format of the page and has clobbered a couple of other posts on the page. The second post (on page 88) is ok.
On edit: OK, thanks. Jeff fixed it. (Page numbers above no longer apply.)
the picture of the 70-200 f4 IS looks more real from the Aephid link. You can see how the barrel is thicker than the current f4. Now, just hoping for $1000 or less, less than 900g and just as sharp as the current version.
Also, the 50L picture - it's definitely not a 58mm filter lens. Check out this pic of the 85 f1.8:
Schlotkins wrote:
the picture of the 70-200 f4 IS looks more real from the Aephid link. You can see how the barrel is thicker than the current f4. Now, just hoping for $1000 or less, less than 900g and just as sharp as the current version.
)
) 
)