| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/26/2005 11:30:07 AM · #1 |
i spoke with another photographer a few weeks ago and he said that canon is coming out with a 2.8 version of this lens, has anyone heard anything about this? because ive looked high and low on the internet and found nothing. i think he was just trying to start conversation
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 11:51:48 AM · #2 |
Was he winding you up??
Do you mean f/2.8 throughout the range?
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 11:54:36 AM · #3 |
i know, wouldnt it be nice?
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 12:12:32 PM · #4 |
| I'd die to have one of those. If Canon ever releases such lens, it would by far out of my reach :( like $1500 or something. Well, I got a Nikon anyway :) |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 12:21:20 PM · #5 |
A lens like that would be more like $4000, at least. The Canon 300mm f/2.8L is $3900. I can't see that lens being practical for everyday use. It would probably weigh 7-10 pounds.
Even though, I would still love to have one!! |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 12:23:28 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Neurowork:
If Canon ever releases such lens, it would by far out of my reach :( like $1500 or something. |
It will be well beyond that! The 28-300/3.5-5.6L is $2199.95 on B&H. Like krazyivan says, it will be several thousand, easy.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 01:04:03 PM · #7 |
I really doubt that canon would bother with a lens like this. The quality of a lens with this kind of range is not up to that of the shorter zooms, and can't even touch that of primes. It would surely weight 7+ pounds and be huge and awkward. It would also have a very select market of buyers... I know I wouldn't even consider it unless it was every bit as sharp as the 70-200L's throughout the range or close.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 04:33:39 PM · #8 |
I'm pretty sure you all are underestimating.
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
The 28-300/3.5-5.6L is $2199.95 on B&H |
It would take in 4x more light at 300mm, not to mention the extreme optical precision required to make glass that big SHARP. Another thing, having an 11x zoom range is hard enough at slow apertures to make sharp. Large apertures are simply out of the question, they can't feasibly make a lens that versitile.
If ever made, it would be up there with the 1200 F5.6, rare, extremely expensive, very heavy.
Message edited by author 2005-06-26 16:34:17. |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 07:09:09 PM · #9 |
Well anyway, I'm gonna buy a Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300D ED f4.0/5.6. which is much cheeper.
Bye the way, which one is the best ?
Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300D ED f4.0/5.6
or
Sigma 70-300 APO Macro II ? |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 07:17:51 PM · #10 |
wow that would be a gigantic lens. i bet the weight would be less if you just got a 24-70 2.8 L, 70-200 2.8 L, and then a prime 300 2.8 L
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 07:37:58 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Neurowork:
Well anyway, I'm gonna buy a Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300D ED f4.0/5.6. which is much cheeper.
Bye the way, which one is the best ?
Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300D ED f4.0/5.6
or
Sigma 70-300 APO Macro II ? |
I love the qualaty of my Nikon.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2005 02:09:10 PM · #12 |
Instead of waiting for such a lens, which probably will cost more than $5000 or so, I'd get the following and maybe even save some money.
24-70 f2.8L $1500
70-200 F2.8 IS $1600
2nd 20D to hold second lens $1200
Total $4300.
But I doubt such lens is in the works, but who knows.
Message edited by author 2005-06-27 14:10:01.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2005 02:29:17 PM · #13 |
| I have the 70-200 F2.8L and was wishing it had an extra 100mm on it just this past weekend while shooting a tennis match. Not that I would need the extra length that often but it'd be nice. |
|
|
|
06/27/2005 02:30:34 PM · #14 |
same here, you can never have enough reach
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 02:46:33 PM EDT.
