15Bit wrote:
The big deal is that when you first start out you buy an APS format camera. Many folk then go on to buy EF non L lenses (35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 70-300mm) in the knowledge that should they wish to change to FF later the lenses will work there too. Ok, a lot of us also buy L lenses too (17-40mm, 70-200mm), but these tend to be the affordable ones. With canon phasing out EF, those first 4 become redundant, and its clear that new L's are going to cost a massive amount more than their predecessors, which makes them unobtainable for a lot of hobbyists: The direction is obviously that APS camera owners should buy EF-S lenses, with the L stuff priced like platinum to maintain some sort of exclusivity. The problem with this is that those of us wanting to upgrade our APS to FF will either have to swallow the enormous L prices from the outset (which no new hobbyist is going to do) or pay a fortune for new lenses when we do upgrade, which of course makes the upgrade impossible for many people who can currently do so.
I don't think this is such a good deal from the Pro perspective either. It may impose some exclusivity which separates Pros from the "great unwashed", but it will possibly pull the bottom out of the residual market too - who do you think buys used 5D's, 1D's and L lenses? I think depreciation on these lenses and cameras will be higher than previously.
Nobo, your profile lists you with a Rebel XSi plus an expensive collection of lenses. It looks like a textbook example of someone who started out photography from the cheap end and then decided they liked it and wanted to do more. Would you have bought a 100-400 L if it cost twice as much? Likewise the TS-E and MP-E? Under this new direction you are directly affected, whether you like it or not. Canon don't seem to want people like you buying lenses like these....Show more →
The big deal is that many of the non-L primes are quite good (think of the 85/1.8, 100/2 in particular; the 50/1.4 isn't bad stopped down a bit), and they're considerably smaller and lighter than the "L" models in the same focal length. I'll take the 85/1.8 along with me in case I need a wide aperture/low light lens - it doesn't take up much room in the bag or on my belt. The 85/1.2L is a different creature altogether. I don't have much reason to buy the 50/1.2, but sure would pounce on a better-built 50/1.4 with real USM and improved optics closer to wide open. I can't believe Canon will abandon this range of lenses to Sigma, Tokina and the rest.
Someone earlier said they don't consider a 14-24 or 24-70/2.8 to be mainstream lenses. The 14-24, maybe not, but the 24-70/2.8 sure is a bread-and-butter lens for many photographers. I'm waiting for an updated version, which I hope comes with VR. If not, there's less and less reason to put up with under-spec'd (5D2) or way expensive (1Ds3) bodies from Canon, if Nikon ups the ante with the D700 replacement and continues to fill in the holes in its lens lineup.
Another trend is that the alt. manufacturers - Sigma in particular - have been reaching up as well, both in quality and - inevitably - the price. For Sigma, it all became apparent with their 50/1.4 which was priced well above all the current "genuine" brand 50/1.4s. Look at the recent announcements - 70-200 OS at $1500, 85/1.4 at $900. Tokina followed suit with their $13(4)00 16-28/2.8.
So hang on to the better EF non-L lenses like 85/1.8, there'll probably be nothing like those anymore soon.
If you download the 70-300L IS brochure from the Canon.com.au website the second page shows the lens element diagrams for 70mm 135mm and 300mm positions. The diagrams suggest extended lens length when zoomed out. The specifications cite 5.6" as the maximum length dimension but do not specify if that is for 70mm or 300mm sort of implying a constant maximum length like the 70-200L lenses.
The block diagrams clearly show this is an extending zoom. It will not be internal zoom like the 70-200 lenses.
The product brochure also indicates this lens will be compatible with both EF Extenders. But that doesn't really make any sense, since the EF 2x will not allow AF except on a 1D-series and at 70mm.
wickerprints wrote:
The block diagrams clearly show this is an extending zoom. It will not be internal zoom like the 70-200 lenses.
The product brochure also indicates this lens will be compatible with both EF Extenders. But that doesn't really make any sense, since the EF 2x will not allow AF except on a 1D-series and at 70mm.
For a lot of people MF lenses are very acceptable.
AJSJones wrote:
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!...Show more →
Sharing your thoughts, I would like to see MTF at 10, 30 and 100 cy/mm.
Fortunately, MTF charts with 2X teleconverters are already provided, giving an indication of 60 cy/mm performance of the bare lens.
Nill Toulme wrote:
Does the deletion of the replaceable clear glass front element give any pause? I've always taken a bit of comfort from its presence.
alundeb wrote:
Sharing your thoughts, I would like to see MTF at 10, 30 and 100 cy/mm.
Fortunately, MTF charts with 2X teleconverters are already provided, giving an indication of 60 cy/mm performance of the bare lens.
sadly they only give MTF for the new converters on the new super-tele and only MTF for the old converters on the old lenses though....
AlphaB wrote:
If you download the 70-300L IS brochure from the Canon.com.au website the second page shows the lens element diagrams for 70mm 135mm and 300mm positions. The diagrams suggest extended lens length when zoomed out. The specifications cite 5.6" as the maximum length dimension but do not specify if that is for 70mm or 300mm sort of implying a constant maximum length like the 70-200L lenses.
wickerprints wrote:
The block diagrams clearly show this is an extending zoom. It will not be internal zoom like the 70-200 lenses.
The product brochure also indicates this lens will be compatible with both EF Extenders. But that doesn't really make any sense, since the EF 2x will not allow AF except on a 1D-series and at 70mm.
even the 1.4x will mostly only work on a 1 series (with AF)
So the currently available 300 f2.8 sells new for around $4500.00.
The NEW version 2 will sell for around $7000.00.
So what does it take for YOU as a photographer to justify $2500.00 more? Will it help you sell noticably better images to recoupe that extra cost? If not what is your justification for the newer one?
I think that virtually no one will be able to tell the difference between a good image from the mk1 and mk2 versions of the 300 f2.8.
Where the difference will be is in the photograph taken that would have been otherwise missed - because of the (claimed) better IS or faster autofocus on the mk2.
Cphoto1954 wrote:
So the currently available 300 f2.8 sells new for around $4500.00.
The NEW version 2 will sell for around $7000.00.
So what does it take for YOU as a photographer to justify $2500.00 more? Will it help you sell noticably better images to recoupe that extra cost? If not what is your justification for the newer one?
i think it will mostly be what happens when you stick a TC on it
or need to use IS
the new 400 MTFs do look crazily good, perhaps on something high density like a 7D even the new bare 400 might look even yet a little better on something like that although it may take a new 24-30MP APS-C to make it really apparent perhaps
the new 300 MTF don't look all that different, bare, to likely make too much difference, so in this case probably mostly comes down to the IS and when a 2x TC is on it (new one much better IQ? much better AF? -with 2x TC)
skibum5 wrote:
even the 1.4x will mostly only work on a 1 series (with AF)
But the block diagram shows that the elements extend 140,7 mm mimimum from front to rear and the lens is 143 mm long, so how is a Canon TC having a protruding front element going to fit?
What is wrong here? Did the people writing the product sheet automatically assume that a white L will be compatible with TC's?
I called Canon USA to try to find out if the new 70-300 L had internal zoom or extended lens zoom. After a wait of about 10 minutes the girl in customer service told me she never heard of the lens and that salesmen often start rumors about lenses before they get any information. I told her there was a press announcement 2 days ago and she said she would try to get the information for me. After another 10 minute wait she got back on the line and told me the zoom was ETERNAL. I told her she must be thinking about "here to eternity" and that it was either internal or external but she kept insisting she was told it was ETERNAL. So I guess once you start zooming it just keeps on and on for an eternity. Finally gave up and never got the question answered.
looscanon wrote:
I called Canon USA to try to find out if the new 70-300 L had internal zoom or extended lens zoom. After a wait of about 10 minutes the girl in customer service told me she never heard of the lens and that salesmen often start rumors about lenses before they get any information. I told her there was a press announcement 2 days ago and she said she would try to get the information for me. After another 10 minute wait she got back on the line and told me the zoom was ETERNAL. I told her she must be thinking about "here to eternity" and that it was either internal or external but she kept insisting she was told it was ETERNAL. So I guess once you start zooming it just keeps on and on for an eternity. Finally gave up and never got the question answered....Show more →
ROFLCOPTER
It figures that she should pick the ONE word in the English language that could be interpreted to have sounded like either "internal" or "external."
If I were more of a conspiracy theorist I'd think someone at Canon was having a go at you.
But seriously, next time, ask, "does the lens get longer when you zoom?"
Finally gave up and never got the question answered.
