Tom_W wrote:
True, but a lot of it is to replace previous lenses. The 15-85 is replacing the 17-85. The original 18-55 was replaced with a Mk II. Then again, there are at least 3 18-XX lenses at this time, along with the 17-55 and the new 15-85. So, I suppose that they could duplicate the 10-22, though it would seem much more useful if they produced a nice ultrawide full-frame zoom that could benefit both formats.
I know that as the owner of a 5D2 and a 7D, that would make me happy!
but the 17-85 was horrible and the original kit lens wasn't astonishing
the 10-22 is fairly well regarded considering it is an ultra-wide
robstein wrote:
Well it's relative right... I'm sure all this stuff is "affordable" for Bill Gates (possibly even disposable)... for the rest of us... well <insert sound of snapping rubber gloves>
indeed
he doesn't believe in using filter and he doesn't believe in dust
he pops on a fresh copy after each shot (yes shot, not shoot)
Pixel Perfect wrote:
But as Tamron and Sigma have shown, it doesn't have to be as huge. They are as good optically despite their smaller sizes, especially the Tamron. It's a 28mm not 24mm, but the 28-70L isn't much smaller than the 24-70L.
Craig Gowens wrote:
a full frame sensor, but something is definitely up with the 20-24mm. The opening size and the angle of view would conform to...wait for it, a sensor size of approximately 49.8x33.2mm. SMALL MEDIUM FORMAT! Canon 645?!?!
Dawei Ye wrote:
I think Wide Angles are one class of lens that are really crying out for IS. Their very nature (to get wide encompassing scenes) means that you often have to stop them down to get DOF...meaning less light...meaning greater chance of motion blur. I think (and hope) it's only a matter of time.
Another class of lenses that need IS are things like the 24L, 35L, 85L, 135L. Those are really crying out for IS. The 85L and 135L are impaired in their low light function simply by the need to get high shutter speeds like 1/100
As identified though, there are some possible technical reasons why it is not feasible at this time to give them IS.
If we really are looking for lenses where IS is useless, I would daresay lenses like the 600L IS or 800L IS, which would be crazy to handhold...but that would be my ignorance speaking. Users of those lenses may very well utilise the IS in those lenses too!
Funny that a so-called rumor/news site is reporting old news a month and a half or more old, that has already been reported here on the forums. . Get your news here at FM first! ;-)
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Funny that a so-called rumor/news site is reporting old news a month and a half or more old, that has already been reported here on the forums. . Get your news here at FM first! ;-)
you posted the patents for the 70-200II and 60IS in here? I must have missed them
Ed Sawyer wrote:
No, for the 14-24 and a couple others.
IIRC they had it posted around the same time you posted this, now they have come across the '60IS' and '70-200II' patents so I believe they just figured they'd post them all together. Just a thought.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Not interested in a 14-24 if you can't put a filter on it.
My immediate interest in the Nikon 14-24 plummeted when I held it in the store and saw there was no way to use, or even jury-rig, a filter (this was when it was first available). I may be mistaken, but I think I remember that Singh-Ray (SR) was rumored to be working on a solution. This may have been wishful thinking as there's nothing on the site to lead me to think it's true.
I guess you never know. Certainly Nikon people have to be dismayed too; a great lens handicapped to being used in good/great conditions only. A shame...
<insert sound of snapping rubber gloves> 
. Get your news here at FM first! ;-)