wickerprints wrote:
That's all well and good for you, but what does your 50/1.2 have to do with a 300mm or 400mm f/2.8 supertelephoto lens? They've NEVER been cheap, manual focus or not. Indexed to inflation, lenses may actually be more affordable today than they were decades ago, especially for what you get.
I may not like the exorbitant prices of these new designs, but it's not like I start posting snobbish replies like yours where you give off this aura of being superior just because you don't desire the latest and greatest.
Its hardly snobby to say I can't afford expensive gear. When I was building my Canon kit I pretty much set a limit for myself at around a thousand dollars, which i exceeded on a couple of occasions. When I started building a Nikon kit because I was so impressed by the D700 I knew I couldn't dream of building a kit similar to the one I'd built with Canon over five years. Exploring modestly priced manual focus glass does not make me a dilettante.
Frankly, I think thou dost protest too much. My opinion is simply my opinion and it belongs on this board for the simple reason that Canon releasing expensive new lenses does not mean the sky is falling for those who may not be able to afford to buy them. I posted only after reading the thread and hearing the lament of those who are experiencing sticker shock. I'm simply suggesting that there are alternatives...
Lars Johnsson wrote:
yes keep on dreaming if you think a super-tele with
a 2x will be better than another without extender.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Like I wrote before. Only you talked about image quality. I was refering to how many Fluorite & UD glass the lens had. We don't have to wait until the lens come out to talk about that
EF 14-24/2.8L (replacing the EF 16-35/2.8L II)
EF 15/2.8 USM fisheye (just tweak the existing design...not this f/4 zoom for 3x the cost)
EF 24-70/2.8L IS (still holding out for this one but at this rate it'll be like $3000)
EF 35/1.4L II (give it a SWC treatment for better flare resistance)
EF 50/1.0L II (yeah, like there really was a chance for that)
EF 400/5.6L IS (not for me, but for all those others who have wanted it)
EF 600/5.6 DO IS (yeah, right)
The one revision I did wish for and get was the Extenders. Guess I'm waiting for December to buy the 2x III. I'll keep my 1.4x II, it does just fine, but I've held off on the 2x because I was never really happy with it attached to my 300/2.8L IS.
Here's a few quick thoughts from moi, only speculation but this is my working logic trying to decide if I need any of these!
That fisheye looks to be a lot of fun. Not a replacement for my 17-40 but still good fun. I think ultimate sharpness won't be an issue (if it's sharp, hooray! If not, well, it's still only a bit of fun, right?) My only wonder is how they kept it fisheye at 15 - not being a full 180 at 15 by the looks of it, only 175 (only!) but still, opens up a lot of fun from the looks of it. F4 doesn't bother me too much as I'm used to the 17-40 and lets face facts, ISO performance is so good these days it's not a massive deal.
The 70-300 may be "professionally sharp" but the thought of using a variable aperture lens to replace my 70-200/2.8 IS? I don't think so. But, for a travel lens (being but a little over a kilo) is very tempting indeed. What does bother me, is it looks like the zoom ring is at the front? Not too sure how much I want to reverse the way I hold my lens. But still, it is primarily a travel lens I guess, so not too much issue there.
I'm unsure just /how/ the 300/400 could be any better, BUT, the weight saving on the 400 looks to be the biggest practical improvement for me. It was just ridiculous hand holding the 400 for aviation work in the past - the 500 is far more comfy - so now it might make it a nice lens to hold all day long. I'm not sure what else can be said about these 2 lenses as they're just refreshes, we need to hold out to see the MTFs and real-life sharpness compare - the 400 MTF does look absolutely nuts though. I hope the sharpness issues found in the 70-200 2.8 II aren't present in these lens too, Canon doesn't need another QC issue with it's lenses. The 3rd setting of IS doesn't sound convincing, but never know, could turn out to be amazing! At least it'll save a bit of battery .
The extenders look nice, and the anti-smear is no bad thing. If the AF is faster on the previous generation of 300/400 2.8s and 70-200s then it may be worth the upgrade just for that. I'm positive the 70-200/2.8IS mk1 will still be mush when used with the extender though! Redesigned optics sound nice though, but if the 2x will be useable with most lenses is still up in the air until we see samples.
rscheffler wrote:
Maybe both companies have joined to devise a secret plan to price pro level equipment out of reach for the majority, thus assuring that at least some pros will still have a technical edge over the unwashed masses currently overrunning the profession....
The irony is that increasingly, except for the most exclusive and high priced publications, the quality of image being produced by these high priced lenses will be lost on the masses because they will be presented in media that can't convey that quality. A friend who for decades shot large format and whose work regularly appears in Sierra Club Wilderness calendars told me recently that the Sierra Club no longer requires submission of film. In fact, 12 megapixel digital images are occasionally used, including one of his.
It would be great fun to own a Ferrari, but fact is,when I'm driving in California the highway patrol would frown on me driving a 150 miles per hour just because the car can go that fast...
M Vers wrote:
Lars, my point was wait for the lens to actually come out. According to Canon the 2xIII is supposed to be a large improvement over the 2xII and the 400/2.8 II also appears to be improved. The difference may not be as large as you think--You never know
If Nikon's AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III is any indicator the IQ of the Canon Extender III will be worth the upgrade from the II's.
CGrindahl wrote:
The irony is that increasingly, except for the most exclusive and high priced publications, the quality of image being produced by these high priced lenses will be lost on the masses because they will be presented in media that can't convey that quality. A friend who for decades shot large format and whose work regularly appears in Sierra Club Wilderness calendars told me recently that the Sierra Club no longer requires submission of film. In fact, 12 megapixel digital images are occasionally used, including one of his.
It would be great fun to own a Ferrari, but fact is,when I'm driving in California the highway patrol would frown on me driving a 150 miles per hour just because the car can go that fast... ...Show more →
If you look at the history of photography, from a technical perspective, it's been downhill since nearly the beginning with increasingly smaller formats, so this isn't a surprise.
OT, but I get a kick looking at 100 year old images over at http://www.shorpy.com/ or at the Library of Congress's Flickr site.
dolina wrote:
If Nikon's AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III is any indicator the IQ of the Canon Extender III will be worth the upgrade from the II's.
If they worked together, maybe . All bets are off until we see the results, Nikon's improvements doesn't mean Canon will have upped their game the same amount.. although it'd be very nice if it was better!
Canon/Nikon's main market for super teles are news photo agencies like Getty/Reuters/EPA/AP/etc so they can afford it. Not to mention that these companies outfit their photojournalists with new gear on an 18 month cycle.
I have yet to hear of amateurs with deep pockets and wild life photographers (working or otherwise) have that type of upgrade cycle. At most they would only buy one focal length per generation and try to complete the EF lens lineup.
The quality of these optics will present itself once higher density sensors, like the 120 Megapixel APS-H CMOS that was just announced a few days ago, that can outresolve the version I lenses start selling.
The more dense the sensor the easier you will see the flaws of lenses. And these photojournalists who work for these news photo agencies tend to do major cropping up to say 90% of a said frame. Not to mention computer LCDs are now reaching DPIs surpassing those found on CRTs so consumers of these images will want more detail than on a now standard 1280x800 screen.
So these lenses were designed to be used & in production for the next 10-15 years.
When everyone is heading towards Autobahn speeds why then insist that they sell a now slow & inefficient Lamborghini Countach?
CGrindahl wrote:
The irony is that increasingly, except for the most exclusive and high priced publications, the quality of image being produced by these high priced lenses will be lost on the masses because they will be presented in media that can't convey that quality. A friend who for decades shot large format and whose work regularly appears in Sierra Club Wilderness calendars told me recently that the Sierra Club no longer requires submission of film. In fact, 12 megapixel digital images are occasionally used, including one of his.
It would be great fun to own a Ferrari, but fact is,when I'm driving in California the highway patrol would frown on me driving a 150 miles per hour just because the car can go that fast... ...Show more →
14-24's nice but not exactly a priority for front screw in filter crowd?
15 was designed for full frame. At least now Canon has a low volume product for FF, APS-C and APS-H and it doesn't cost as much as Nikon's 8mm!
Who needs an astronomically expensive 600 DO that's so slow? 600 II's gonna be 3.7kg more or less very hand holdable.
wickerprints wrote:
I was really hoping for the following:
EF 14-24/2.8L (replacing the EF 16-35/2.8L II)
EF 15/2.8 USM fisheye (just tweak the existing design...not this f/4 zoom for 3x the cost)
EF 24-70/2.8L IS (still holding out for this one but at this rate it'll be like $3000)
EF 35/1.4L II (give it a SWC treatment for better flare resistance)
EF 50/1.0L II (yeah, like there really was a chance for that)
EF 400/5.6L IS (not for me, but for all those others who have wanted it)
EF 600/5.6 DO IS (yeah, right)
The one revision I did wish for and get was the Extenders. Guess I'm waiting for December to buy the 2x III. I'll keep my 1.4x II, it does just fine, but I've held off on the 2x because I was never really happy with it attached to my 300/2.8L IS....Show more →
Wonder how that 2x will work with the 200 f/2. Never did like either the 1.4 or 2x. If that 2x works pretty well with the 200 f/2 then maybe I can sell the 300 2.8, time will tell I guess.
Aug 26, 2010 at 05:00 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
John P Mulgrew wrote:
Wonder how that 2x will work with the 200 f/2. Never did like either the 1.4 or 2x. If that 2x works pretty well with the 200 f/2 then maybe I can sell the 300 2.8, time will tell I guess.
I'm sure the new ones are good. But not that good If you didn't like the 1,4x quality before, I don't think you will use the new 2x either
dolina wrote:
14-24's nice but not exactly a priority for front screw in filter crowd?
It's only to shut up all the Nikon fanboys who keep bragging about how much better their wide-angle selection is. And you know what, they're right. Canon's wide- and super-wide-angle lenses are not that impressive in the corners, and the Nikon 14-24/2.8 is an insanely good lens.
I think for the people who care about screw in filters, they wouldn't be shooting ultra-wide anyway. The ones who use this lens have other filter solutions. And filters are not going to be a make-it-or-break-it deal for most.
15 was designed for full frame. At least now Canon has a low volume product for FF, APS-C and APS-H and it doesn't cost as much as Nikon's 8mm!
Yeah, but it's f/4. I don't like slow glass. I'd rather have the extra stop rather than to be able to zoom a fisheye, because I can think of plenty of low-light situations for a fisheye where f/2.8 would be highly preferable to f/4--whereas I can't imagine a lot of demand for zoom from a circular to a diagonal 180, especially for $1500.
Who needs an astronomically expensive 600 DO that's so slow? 600 II's gonna be 3.7kg more or less very hand holdable.
*shrug* I don't need it, personally. But I think there are others out there who would like a lightweight 600mm DO lens.
I think Canon has noticed they've been losing some supertelephoto market share to Nikon in the past several years. It used to be that a large majority of shooters at 300mm and up were sporting white lenses. My impression is that these new lenses are part of their strategy to recapture that market. But at these prices, I think they've miscalculated. I also think they've not quite understood why they lost that market share. It wasn't because Nikon started making AF-S VR superteles to compete. It's because Nikon has done a better job with their AF system in their bodies, and keeping the MP count low has allowed them greater tolerances.
Canon's approach with high pixel density sensors is a tough road. A lot of flaws show up once you make the sensors that dense. The resolving power is so high that you start to be able to observe more lens aberrations and diffraction, but you also set the bar higher for AF accuracy. For the life of me I can't figure out why they haven't done something about their AF system. The 5D2 AF is a joke--and that is coming from someone who owns one and loves to shoot with it--the 1D3 had problems, and the 1D4 is still not quite where it should be for a flagship product. We can talk all day about equivalent print sizes but in the end, when you advertise a high-MP body, you're invariably going to get people who expect it to be accurate at 100% crop. They don't buy 21 MP so that they can downsize it to 12.
dolina wrote:
Canon's MSRP will stay for about 6-12 months after initial shipment started then match Nikon prices as it gets closer to the 2012 Olympics.
Now where are those 35L, 135L, 180L Macro updates? Those three lenses should be upgraded by now!
To be fair I think Canon are upgrading a lot of lenses. They have been upgrading nearly everything on the wide-angle side. And now they are upgrading most of their tele lenses. I belive a few of the lenses you write about will be upgraded later also
Xavier Rival wrote:
I actually wonder. It is actually heavier than a 70-200 f/4L IS + TC 1.4. Sure the new 70-300 is probably doing better at 300 than the zoom with TC, but I doubt many people will find it makes sense to get that lens in addition to their 70-200 (esp. at $1500).
I'm wondering since that 70-300/4-5.6L IS has 67mm front why did they not make it a 70-300/4L IS... maybe 77mm front?
I currently use 70-200 f/4L IS + 1.4x TC when traveling and have been happy with that. However, with the TC I lose 30mm at the wide end and that prevents me from keeping the TC mounted all the time. Also, the TC seems to slow down AF somewhat. Even without the TC the lens is a bit too long for my bags.
The 70-300 seems to be clearly shorter and it'd be a relief not having to use a TC. If the image quality is similar maybe I'll sell 70-200/4IS and TC and get the new 70-300. However, I don't like it when lenses get longer when you zoom, so we'll see.
.