RobertLynn wrote:
70-300 may be a nice travel alternative for those who already own a 70-200 2.8
Like myself. :P I remember bitching just a couple of days ago that there's no getting away from the 70-200 lest the IQ is down the drain, and here it is...
Dave Bachrach wrote:
With the prices of these new super tele's, I may have to go back to Nikon to save money! Well at least I know their AF works!
Dave
Hey, this is no joke. I've started to build up a Nikon system, due primarily to the sub-par focusing system of the 5D2 compared to the D700. Now the new Nikon lenses are often less expensive than Canon's offerings. If Nikon releases a full-frame body around 16mp, and keeps it under $3000, the tables will tilt even further toward the dark side.
wickerprints wrote:
This is why I am very eager to see the block diagram for the Mark IIs. I wonder what kind of changes they made to enable such weight savings on the 400/2.8L IS II.
Thinner walled lens bodies, strategic use of titanium to reduce weight further... Just thinking back to when I got my Cannondale bike back in the late 80s... all the traditional chromoly road bikes had relatively thick walled tubes, whereas the Cannondale was aluminum with a much larger diameter but thinner walls. The EF 400 2.8 MkI was a monster, but you could feel that it was really solid. All of the newer super teles have a different feel to them, though not necessarily cheaper feel. I'm sure there will be optical changes as well to reduce lens element mass, but my guess is a lot of the weight savings comes from the non-optical components because you won't drop over one kg just by eliminating one element. But it's just a guess. The new optics are 12/16 whereas the previous gen was 13/17. Interesting to note that it's two fluorite elements and no UD. Since Canon always claims that one fluorite is the equivalent to two UD lenses, this might be where the change was made.
wickerprints wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that the new superteles have IS modes 1, 2, and 3? What is that all about?
And how about AF, PF, and MF? WTF is "PF"?
Oh, and the fisheye zoom pic: obvious PS job is obvious. Terrible simulation of the front element.
Mode 3 is explained in the DPReview press releases. It appears IS is activated only at the time of exposure. Sounds kind of counter intuitive to me since IS has always need some time to 'spin up' but maybe it's just a lot faster now.
Where did you read that the 400/2.8L IS II has two fluorite elements? The Canon USA website indicates only one, if I am to understand the symbol correctly.
BTW this new 70-300L is Canon taking a leaf out of Sony's book - they released an updated 70-300 with a G label (and the orange ring ) a couple of years ago to much disdain... because the price was $800.
rscheffler wrote:
Mode 3 is explained in the DPReview press releases. It appears IS is activated only at the time of exposure. Sounds kind of counter intuitive to me since IS has always need some time to 'spin up' but maybe it's just a lot faster now.
Yeah I read it right after I posted that. Doesn't make much sense to me, either. I guess the only reason to use it is to save on battery life, but it obviously comes at the expense of an unstabilized viewfinder. Not something I care to use...batteries are replaceable and rechargeable. Accurate composition is not.
wickerprints wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that the new superteles have IS modes 1, 2, and 3? What is that all about?
From Dpreview:
A new third IS mode has been added, assisting users when quickly switching between subjects by activating the IS unit only during exposure.
I also noticed that the new lenses now have "Power focus mode" for video:
A new Power Focus mode aids focusing during video shooting, allowing the photographer to smoothly adjust focus during filming by twisting the focus recall ring.
wickerprints wrote:
Where did you read that the 400/2.8L IS II has two fluorite elements? The Canon USA website indicates only one, if I am to understand the symbol correctly.
On the specifications page. On the 'overview' page it only shows one and no UD.
Lens Construction: 16 elements in 12 groups (Including drop-in rear filter, Fluorite: G2 and G4, UD Lens: None)
wickerprints wrote:
Yeah I read it right after I posted that. Doesn't make much sense to me, either. I guess the only reason to use it is to save on battery life, but it obviously comes at the expense of an unstabilized viewfinder. Not something I care to use...batteries are replaceable and rechargeable. Accurate composition is not.
Canon's logic seems to be more that if you're constantly changing shooting directions, then the IS won't get all messed up because it's only being activated at the moment of exposure. I can see some logic in this, but will have to see first hand how well it works. Though based on the prices, I doubt I'll be replacing my 4 or 6 anytime soon...
Aug 26, 2010 at 02:54 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Well at least I know their AF works!
) a couple of years ago to much disdain... because the price was $800.