| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/15/2007 02:07:42 PM · #1 |
Looks like they finally released new versions of these lenses - everyone covets the 200 1.8, and they never got around to making an 800 with autofocus yet.
//www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20071015_eflens.html
//www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/genhtml_photo/20071015_pkit_eflens.html
I wonder how much the 200 will cost... I'd rather have that than a 300 2.8, I think. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 02:14:27 PM · #2 |
Both way, way out of my price range anyway. =D
Edit: Check.
Message edited by author 2007-10-15 14:47:04. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 02:17:54 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 02:27:04 PM · #4 |
Nice... 200mm 2.0 IS L... I would buy that, I think :-D
Ofcourse, I still have my eye on the 200mm 2.8L
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 02:41:59 PM · #5 |
Finally an update to the vaunted 200/1.8! Prices for good used 200/1.8s were just crazy. Could have bought one three years back for <$2k, now looking at >$5k.
It will be interesting what the pricing turns out to be on the new version. I'm betting $3k. Given the stellar optical quality of the original, I know Canon won't take a step back, so the new one will be a stunner to be sure. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 03:14:51 PM · #6 |
| Hmm, I might actually be interested in that 800mm thingy but totally depends on how big and heavy it is and well of course the pricetag too. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 03:23:20 PM · #7 |
Shame they couldn't get that extra 1/3 stop and go all the way to f1.8.
I guess that's what arsenic and lead give you. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 06:41:45 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I guess that's what arsenic and lead give you. |
I've heard similar comments about the Pentax Limiteds; apparently, the optical quality has gone down slightly now that lead is no longer used in the constuction (as in, the first couple years of production yielded better quality than the present).
Maybe lens companies should be moving their factories to china... :-0 |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 06:51:39 PM · #9 |
I've just preordered them! J/K...With the 800 f/5.6 L IS, Canon really wants to stay ehead of Nikon, cause Nikon finally have the 400 f/2.8 VR, 500 f/4 VR and 600 f/4 VR to compete with Canon super telephoto IS lenses....
Message edited by author 2007-10-15 19:58:52. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 08:20:52 AM · #10 |
this is just as tempting |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 01:38:43 AM · #11 |
| I'm seriously lusting after that 200mm f/2... |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 02:01:54 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Larus:
Hmm, I might actually be interested in that 800mm thingy but totally depends on how big and heavy it is and well of course the pricetag too. |
I'm guessing around $8000- $8500
|
|
|
|
10/17/2007 02:05:06 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Fetor:
this is just as tempting |
yea thats where the 4/3rds system would come in handy, that thing is hUUUGGEEE :P i bet you could take some sweet pictures with it what size is it?
Message edited by author 2007-10-17 02:05:29. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 02:21:08 AM · #14 |
It weighs about 35 lbs.
 |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 02:58:05 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by mobster:
It weighs about 35 lbs.
|
Perfect macro lens for getting up close to those little things that crawl and move away from you :P |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 10:02:15 AM · #16 |
*/** not approved for sale...waiting on FCC and FDA approval.
Excuse me, but what has the FCC and FDA have to do with selling camera lenses?
As to the lead comment- it's in lots of things, like kids' toys - there are no standards for acceptable levels and no laws against it. I don't see why it can't be in optical glass if they can put it in Barbie Cameras!
|
|
|
|
10/17/2007 10:06:15 AM · #17 |
Two things, the lens posted appears to be the Sigma lens not the new canon 800.
Next I'm seriously considering buying the 200 F2.0 IS lens. Even with a 1.4 thats still a fast prime lens!
MattO
|
|
|
|
10/17/2007 10:10:10 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
*/** not approved for sale...waiting on FCC and FDA approval.
Excuse me, but what has the FCC and FDA have to do with selling camera lenses?
As to the lead comment- it's in lots of things, like kids' toys - there are no standards for acceptable levels and no laws against it. I don't see why it can't be in optical glass if they can put it in Barbie Cameras! |
There have been state laws regulating lead content in products for over 25 years. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 10:14:48 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
*/** not approved for sale...waiting on FCC and FDA approval.
Excuse me, but what has the FCC and FDA have to do with selling camera lenses?
As to the lead comment- it's in lots of things, like kids' toys - there are no standards for acceptable levels and no laws against it. I don't see why it can't be in optical glass if they can put it in Barbie Cameras! |
Lead has been regulated in paint since the '70's in the US, much earlier in Europe.
And, it's not just the lead, it's also the arsenic. It also doesn't have so much to do with the safety of the end product, it's mainly the hazards associated with the production of the optical glass itself that contains lead and arsenic. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 11:17:15 AM · #20 |
I guess if it's made in China then it's OK? US workplace and EPA laws don't apply overseas, so lead glass or coatings can be made someplace, i'm sure.
You can buy lead crystal - even new from what google shows me. and put FOOD in it! (lead crystal decanters). I don't know about you, but I'm not putting brandy in my $8000 L lens so it should be OK.
Seriously, state laws or not, toys PAINTED with lead paint (which has been banned in the US for 30 years) is happening today. Leave the lenses alone and start testing all the other stuff from China!
|
|
|
|
10/17/2007 01:34:04 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I guess if it's made in China then it's OK? US workplace and EPA laws don't apply overseas, so lead glass or coatings can be made someplace, i'm sure.
You can buy lead crystal - even new from what google shows me. and put FOOD in it! (lead crystal decanters). I don't know about you, but I'm not putting brandy in my $8000 L lens so it should be OK.
Seriously, state laws or not, toys PAINTED with lead paint (which has been banned in the US for 30 years) is happening today. Leave the lenses alone and start testing all the other stuff from China! |
It was not a legislative matter, it was one where corporations decided that in order to be good corporate citizens and behave in an environmentally responsible manner, they needed to eliminate lead and arsenic in their optical components and they kept their word.
Again, it's not about the lead or arsenic leaching out of the optical elements themselves, it's about generating waste, made hazardous by the lead and arsenic, in the manufacture of those lenses.
Message edited by author 2007-10-17 14:01:11. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 01:41:53 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Fetor:
this is just as tempting |
Why don't they just make a lens with the camera embedded into it :)
|
|
|
|
10/17/2007 03:00:47 PM · #23 |
| Don't forget the 1700mm f4 Zeiss lens for Hasselblad. I think it has this Sigma beat by a wee bit... |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 03:29:09 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by magnus:
Don't forget the 1700mm f4 Zeiss lens for Hasselblad. I think it has this Sigma beat by a wee bit... |
Well, the two that I've got seem a bit soft in the corners wide open when viewed at 200%.
Believe that, and you'll believe anything.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2007 03:43:03 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by magnus:
Don't forget the 1700mm f4 Zeiss lens for Hasselblad. I think it has this Sigma beat by a wee bit... |
In focal length, yes. However, if you consider field of view, the 1700mm lens for a Hasselblad is roughly equivalent to an 850mm lens on 35mm and only a 530mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera. |
|
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: 12/30/2025 06:58:01 AM EST.
