Here is some reality check for those of us who might feel that Canon's new offerings are becoming too rich :
(1) 20 year old design 200 f/1.8 has IQ very similar to 200 f/2 IS.
(2) 20 year old Pipe IQ is as good or better than any of today's 70-200 lenses.
(3) 20 year old design 500 f/4.5 IQ practically indinstinguishable from 500 f/4 IQ.
(4) 20 year old design 300 f/4 non-IS is sharper than 300 f/4 IS.
gocolts wrote:
So, this 70-300L....is the same MSRP as I paid for a "bargain" 28-300L from KEH. And besides some scratches on the barrel, the thing is perfect, and picture quality is great with the 1k or so shots I've put on it so far.
For those looking for that flexability, I would think, even a mint condition 28-300L for $1,900 or so would make more sense than the 70-300L...maybe I'm wrong...
Being a 28-300 owner and lover myself, there's no way in hell that it will be able to keep up with the 70-300L unless that new lens has been dropped off the plane on the way to you. Based on all the recent Canon lens releases 50L aside, I have no doubt that all the new lenses will be nothing short of spectacular, and while the 28-300 is the mother of all flexibility, a superb performer (at least on my 1Ds3) it ain't.
How long does Canon usually service a lens that has been replaced? I'm sure these high prices are ment to clear remaining stock. The current lenses look inexpensive at the moment :-)
Door is wide open for Tokina, Tamron and Sigma. I would love to see some modern primes like the Sigma 30 (but for FF) and QUALITY CONTROL. Anyways. Nothing here for me. Still waiting on for the Tokina 16-28 2.8 to start shipping for Canon.
James Taylor wrote:
How long does Canon usually service a lens that has been replaced? I'm sure these high prices are ment to clear remaining stock. The current lenses look inexpensive at the moment :-)
James I would think that after all those records you've sold you would be more inclined towards newer gear.
Now then, to answer your question. I expect Canon to support the 500 I for at least 5 years and at most 10.
PetKal wrote:
Master SR777, quite the opposite....a thought has just crossed my mind to sell a couple of 500s in order to buy the MkII with the sale proceeds.
That is a shocking thought process, Supreme Commander PetKal Unfortunately, you would need to sell a couple of the Mk1s to get a Mk2 of the 500 when it comes out.
SR777 wrote:
That is a shocking thought process, Supreme Commander PetKal Unfortunately, you would need to sell a couple of the Mk1s to get a Mk2 of the 500 when it comes out.
A sub-3kg 500mm would induce me to sell my 500 as well. But after I got my 500 I's lens foot replacement today I changed my mind.
I do hope the 600 will be as lighter than the 400 II!
SR777 wrote:
That is a shocking thought process, Supreme Commander PetKal Unfortunately, you would need to sell a couple of the Mk1s to get a Mk2 of the 500 when it comes out.
That may well be right, master SR777......but...but....who do you think I am ? Dennis Gibson ? I ain't got two Mk Is.
A FF fisheye zoom and a L version of the 70-300 IS? Am I the only one who's saying what the Hell?
Why not an updated UWA reticular like the Nikon 14-24? - now that's a lens that I could get excited about. Or the lens that would sell like crazy - the 24-70 f/2.8 IS? Or how about a decent 50 1.4 with true USM? This is definitely a strange release offering IMO.
As others have said, most of these are worthless to me. The only thing that interests me at all is the 70-300 as a travel lens. But who buys a $1500 travel lens?
I'm hoping that this is not a complete reflection of Canon's future plan and priorities. These announcements are almost 100% exotic lenses. While I realize that the super-teles are important to a lot of wildlife and sports folks, there is nothing here for portrait, wedding, and landscape photogs.
While I don't see myself switching any time soon, I would certainly encourage anyone buying into a system right now to go Nikon. More and more strongly every year.
ScooberJake wrote:
... While I realize that the super-teles are important to a lot of wildlife and sports folks, there is nothing here for portrait, wedding, and landscape photogs....
Agreed.
They would likely sell a lot more 24-70 f/2.8 IS, a new UWA (non-FE) or an updated 50 1.4 with USM.
ScooberJake wrote:
As others have said, most of these are worthless to me. The only thing that interests me at all is the 70-300 as a travel lens. But who buys a $1500 travel lens?
I'm hoping that this is not a complete reflection of Canon's future plan and priorities. These announcements are almost 100% exotic lenses. While I realize that the super-teles are important to a lot of wildlife and sports folks, there is nothing here for portrait, wedding, and landscape photogs.
While I don't see myself switching any time soon, I would certainly encourage anyone buying into a system right now to go Nikon. More and more strongly every year....Show more →
The thing that concerns me is that by stocking Canon's lens lineup with mostly expensive L lenses and only a few consumer lenses, Canon-branded photography is increasingly becoming further and further removed for amateurs like myself.
kakomu wrote:
The thing that concerns me is that by stocking Canon's lens lineup with mostly expensive L lenses and only a few consumer lenses, Canon-branded photography is increasingly becoming further and further removed for amateurs like myself.
Well, I guess its important to note that the announcements are not done yet.
Perhaps canon will have something for everyone.
Just want to add to the earlier discussion about where the weight savings and one fewer lens element in the super teles might have come from...
Reading the info over at Rob Galbraith reveals that the new design no longer includes the front protective element. Considering the size of the 400's front element this probably eliminates at least a few hundred grams.
:
Unfortunately, you would need to sell a couple of the Mk1s to get a Mk2 of the 500 when it comes out.