rscheffler wrote:
The probably got the price, in Japanese Yen, on the Canon museum site, then converted it based on the currency exchange at that time.
690,000 Yen at the time..
Or someone in the US bought it when it first came out. I mean, its the internet, obviously at least one person purchased it here.
There is a difference between inner/internal FOCUSING and ZOOMING. It would be amazing if it had internal zoom at that size, but I don't expect it. Close inspection of photos that show the front of the lens indicate there is a gap that would allow for barrel extension.
rscheffler wrote:
If you replace 400 in the link with 300, you'll get the info on the 300..
I was (mostly) right--the new Mark II's have the same basic formula (with a minor difference in the rearmost group).
The reason why the front meniscus lens was removed is because with two fluorite elements, no UD glass was needed, and so the front element is now made of normal optical glass. Since normal glass is not as soft and prone to scratching as UD and fluorite, it needs no protective element.
All these weight savings are due to the increased use of fluorite, which not only eliminated the meniscus lens, but allows the use of higher refractive index glass, thereby slightly shortening the overall length of the barrel.
Re: demise of EF non-L lenses. Perhaps they're weeding out that aspect in anticipation of another EF subsystem based on an upcoming EVF/EVIL platform. Now that Sony is involved in that end of the market, and it's not only Oly and Panny, Canon can't really ignore it much longer.
rscheffler wrote:
Close inspection of photos that show the front of the lens indicate there is a gap that would allow for barrel extension.
That baby is gonna look ugly with the black zoom sub-barrel sticking out 4" beyond the white barrel. However, the telescoping sub-barrel might be white as well.
PetKal wrote:
That baby is gonna look ugly with the black zoom sub-barrel sticking out 4" beyond the white barrel. However, the telescoping sub-barrel might be white as well.
thedigitalbean wrote:
Yea there have been numerous studies done to confirm this. Basically, what it came down to was that money spent on a physical item led to only short periods of contentness where as money spent on experiences (such as travel) generally led to much longer periods of happiness.
very believable, i still fondly recall a gaint 6 week vacation we took when I was in the third grade
ScooberJake wrote:
I believe I said there is nothing HERE (as in the lenses announced today) for portrait, wedding, and landscape shooters. But you do make a good point, some of the lenses important to us who don't use the super-teles have been updated recently.
However, by all accounts the last generation super-teles were all fantastic. What is the point in updating them? Especially when Canon's deficiencies at the wide end are well known. My dream lens (and that of a lot of other folks) is the Nikon 14-24, which Canon has not answered. What about a 24-70 with IS (which again, Nikon has)? Would be a bread and butter lens for so many working photogs. 17-40, 35L, 50 1.4, or 135L would all make sense as well. Yes Canon gave use TS lenses last year, but again exotic (in both price and utility). Unless I am mistaken, there has been only one mainstream lens update over these last two years.
I don't expect that Canon must cater to my every need. I'm just surprised. Seems to me that they are skipping over mainstream needs to provide exotic options. But of course I don't look at the profit margins, sales figures, etc. ...Show more →
Most people would not call 14-24 and 24-70 IS mainstream lenses. And at the same time saying the TS-E lenses are very expensive. If Canon released those two lenses you like, they would easy cost as much as the TS-E lenses.
"" Canon's deficiencies at the wide end are well known"
maybe a few years back. But not today, What about Canons line-up
14/2,8 mkII
24/1,4 mkII
35/1,4
17 TS-E
24 TS-E mkII
8-15mm f/4
16-35 mkII
It would make sense, for the super teles at least, to post MTF charts at 50 or more cycle/mm (that would represent the ability of the lens to produce good MTF at 10 µm spacings, still well above the pixel spacings as the resolution of the sensors continues to increase) Having the 10 and 30 cy/mm MTF lines (on their traditional format MTF charts) slammed up at ~1.0 does not allow one to assess differences up at the higher spatial frequencies the sensors can still pick up. The 7D has 232 pixels/mm, so it could distinguish improvements in the "well over 30" lp/mm range in the new models. Testing these new lenses out will need really good sensors to be meaningful!
I was thinking about selling my 70-200/4 non-is and getting that new 70-300, but that $1500 price seems way to high to me, should be more like $1000-1050. For $1500 it should come with the optional tripod collar.
Well, as a hobbiest I have now come to the conclusion Canon wants me to be the little brother of the photography world. In other words, I'll be taking all of the pros hand-me-downs. Ah well, as long as I still love it, right?
