| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/20/2005 03:14:25 AM · #51 |
uh well, back to the original post (that is, if anyone still cares about that lens) um i was browsing through the dpreview forums and there was a link to canon australia had the specs and everything. i clicked on it and was looking through it. i remembered this thread, but when i went back to the link the page was taken down. but just to prove to you that the link was there: my history bar still has the exact url i saw the specs and everything at. //www.canon.com.au/products/visual/cameras_lenses_accessories/standard_zoom_lenses/ef24-105mm_f4l_usm.html but now when you go there it will say file not found or somehting
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 03:50:44 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by nico_blue:
24-105mm f/4 is a great lens on a canon 5D? (the one coming out next week) full frame digital sensor. You have your general wide angle covered as well as almost 4x zoom in one lens. Wedding photographer heaven! |
Actually, MORE than 4x: 24x4=96... :-)
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 04:00:07 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by nico_blue:
24-105mm f/4 is a great lens on a canon 5D? (the one coming out next week) full frame digital sensor. You have your general wide angle covered as well as almost 4x zoom in one lens. Wedding photographer heaven! |
Actually, MORE than 4x: 24x4=96... :-)
Robt. |
I rounded down :-p
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 06:09:16 AM · #54 |
Just a reminder to please keep this thread on topic - any political discussions should be taken to the Rant folder, thank you!
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 07:12:57 AM · #55 |
I think this might be Canon's attempt to make the equivalent of the EF-S 17-85 IS for full frame bodies. On an EF-S body, you'd be sacrificing wide-angle ability for better overall optics, and slightly wider aperture on the far zoom end. It does fill an important niche on full-frame bodies, though: this allows complete range coverage with just the 16-35, 24-105, and 100-400, with the latter two stabilized, and the former fast. Remember that IS does trump aperture whenever large depth of field is required, making an f/4.0 IS often more valuable even indoors than a f/2.8 without IS (group candids, for instance).
I wouldn't get too excited by it on an EF-S body, though, unless you were truly in love with the 100-400, and didn't want to deal with the gap left by either the 17-85 or the 24-70 f/2.8L.
I heard a rumor a few weeks back that Canon was going to come out with a 10mm EF-S prime, though, and that *does* get me interested, as an alternative to the 10-22. Has anyone heard anything about that? |
|
|
|
08/20/2005 08:35:25 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by Zed Pobre:
I heard a rumor a few weeks back that Canon was going to come out with a 10mm EF-S prime, though, and that *does* get me interested, as an alternative to the 10-22. Has anyone heard anything about that? |
No, but that would be a very interesting lens! |
|
|
|
08/20/2005 01:39:34 PM · #57 |
I've been thinking about this lens and I'm starting to like the idea of getting one. I have a 28-135mm IS right now, and I'll probably sell it and get the 24-105mm F4L IS. That would give me a nice line of "enthusiast" L glass: I already have the 17-40L F4, the 70-200L F4. I just have to decide how much I'll be willing to pay for it. Any idea on the price? I'd guess $850-$900 ish, since it has IS. I'd get the 24-70L F2.8 if it's priced the same ($1200).
I'll be watching the developments closely, and ignoring the politicial bull shit that has developed in this thread.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 01:43:35 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by BeeGee:
JUST SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT, NO OFFENSE INTENDED!
why don't you guys stop whining about those 2.8 vs. 4.0?
Start thinking WHY Canon would put out this lens in the f/4.0 version as they do. The elements of my theory for their reasoning is as follows - nothing original, just compiling what's already floating around:
2.8 was needed as long as there was FILM, because you needed to get as much versatility out of your setup (camera, lens and film/ISO rating) as possible, without HAVING TO change film during a shoot. In the old days, all you could change as easily as you can change the ISO setting with today's DSLRs, was APERTURE.
Now, with even entry level DSLRs like the 300D and 350D delivering the goods at up to 1600 ISO minimum, with less noise and less drawbacks than 1600 speed rated film, there's simply NO NEED for a 2.8 lens anymore.
The IS adds value by letting you handhold shots that you would normally need a tripod for. Now, you don't need a tripod for fast moving subjects, because it wouldn't do you any good. The IS, however, will do you good as long as the shake/move "problem" is on the photographer's side. 2.8 can't help you there now, can it??
4.0 is lighter, more compact and less expensive than 2.8. If you add IS, you have a DSLR owner's dream package - see the posters above who say they would get a 70-200 4.0 IS without thinking twice, IF the price was right. Well to me, the price of the 24-105 could hardly be "righter".
Do yourself and other people a favor and THINK before you rant.
Canon would never put out a lens that isn't up to their own standards. They'd never put an L where an L isn't supposed to be (like the excellent EF-S 10-22, because it doesn't have UD glass elements). Higher zoom ratios do mean less quality at both ends of the zoom range - traditionally, because of the laws of physics/optics, the wide end suffers most, e.g. the EF-S 17-85 (5x zoom) or the 28-300 L (!), an almost 11x zoom.
Stop looking at wide angle shots in full size mode on your screen. They're not going to satisfy your "need" for sharpness because that need is irrational! Imagine blowing up a 35mm (or even an APS-) negative to the size of FOUR TO SIXTEEN computer screens - what's the use?
Get off your high horse, make yourself a happier person by accepting that not even Canon can build lenses that bend more than light. The laws of physics are there to stay - remeber EINSTEIN?
Have a great weekend, be a little less hard on yourself, Canon and new lenses/equipment and simply BE A HAPPIER person that way.
Cheers,
Bruno
PS: If you own a 20D, you might actually consider not going 5D once you realize that f4.0 is just as good as f/2.8. Remember how we, the DSLR users, laughed at those poor souls who bought 5MP, then 6MP, then 7, now 8, soon 12MP compact cameras with noise issues starting as soon as 100 ISO?
Well, I don't think the 20D has noise issues at all, if you use it right. And what the heck do YOU, non-professional DPC-shooter (I'm not judging anyone else), need a 12MP FF DSLR for that performs worse than the 20D when it comes to, for instance, shots per second? |
I don't know much about film shooting. But I know enough about digital to be sure that your theory falls flat on it's face when you try to shoot shots that were not possible with that relatively aged technology.
One of my main probes as I try to find a comfortable niche is shooting sports action. Image Stabilization does not help me at all in that arena. Fast aperture is essential. My 20D is about as good as any camera available in respect to usable high ISO settings, and I still can do much better with my 85mm f1.8 than with my 28-70mm f2.8. A 24-105mm zoom, f 2.8 or faster aperture, L quality, non-IS lens would be very useful to me.
It seems that you are quite confident of the soundness of all the presumptions that led to your theory. Maybe it applies well to the kind of shooting you do. But I'd suggest that you need to expand your horizons a bit if you intend to apply it to other kinds of photography.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 02:42:06 PM · #59 |
Thanks for the giggles this morning, enjoyed all of the POVs political-included. I shoot moving horses and other sports like motocross often in low light, had the 70-200 f4L first (admittedly on the 10D which had much poorer high ISO performance than the 20D) and sold it for the 70-200 2.8 IS. I shoot wide open a lot, and need that faster glass, and the IS helps me with the heft, you know how wimmen are with upper body strength, though I have some "cans and pecs" from using the combo so long. Also enjoy the 24-70's use in low light with higher ISOs, just pushing "what's possible".
Lynne
Just call me "glass poor"
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 04:37:17 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by BeeGee:
WHAT HAPPENED TO "NO OFFENSE" DUDES????? |
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but yelling isn't likely to help.
Originally posted by BeeGee:
2.8: you say it's needed - well, go check the pictures you've been taking with your 2.8 lenses and tell me how many of them (ratio/percentage) were taken with the lens wide open for the reasons you keep giving. |
Quite a lot of my portrait and flower shots are taken at f/2.8 or wider. Some of my scenery shots are as well. In fact, I just posted another one recently at f/2.0 that could not have been taken at f/4:
Here's another couple, that if they had been taken during the right time period, I might have considered for inclusion in the Live Music challenge:
 
Those shots couldn't have been taken at f/4.0, either. I was already at ISO1600.
(By the way, I wouldn't mind comments on those, for anyone who's interested. Shooting concerts turned out to be a lot harder than I was expecting.)
Originally posted by BeeGee:
The bokeh, blurred background you can get with a 2.8 vs. a 4.0 is a joke of an argument. If you take a picture in which subject and background are far enough apart, nice bokeh is much more about the shape of the aperture than the aperture used. |
First you say it's a joke, then you make the argument yourself... That obviously only works *if you can take a picture in which the subject and background are far enough apart*. So what do you do when the subject is only three feet away from your background and you're out of room to back up and use a longer focal length? You use a faster lens.
Originally posted by BeeGee:
Of course it focuses faster, of course it's a little brigter in the view finder, but SFW? |
It not only focuses faster, it focuses *better* (fewer completely incorrect focus selections), *and* the metering is better, particularly flash metering. The 580EX will consistently underexpose on a lens slower than f/2.8, for instance -- and exactly at that threshold, for that matter, as the camera electronics switch techniques when f/2.8 or faster is available.
Originally posted by BeeGee:
Maybe you should read it again, with an OPEN MIND, if you have one. |
Way to make friends and influence people, there. Boy, I know I'm sure more predisposed to think you're making a rational, intelligent argument now.
Originally posted by BeeGee:
Ask yourself instead of leashing out, you hot blooded youngsters. |
Riiiiight. Good advice. You might want to listen to it.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 05:09:16 PM · #61 |
|
|
|
08/20/2005 05:19:09 PM · #62 |
Just a lens..... Let's stop the bitter argument, and Bush, Iraqi...all those craps. the topic has gone to far off. Let's stay with the Lens itself. or 2.8 vs 4.0L
To me, the choice is obvious. I use 4Ls. I am not a pro. But I like good quality photos. I just start photographing three months ago. I don't make money from this new hobby. I do this just for fun. Not that I don't have the money, but I'd rather not to pay that much difference to upscale to 2.8Ls, just for fun. It is like cars. Do I like sporty cars? you bet! but do I want to pay for it? No! If there is a chance that I can get a 2.8L for as low as a 4L, I'd really happy to get one.
So, what I am saying here is people has their own choice. everyone judge a purchase differently. No need to argue. If one wants 2.8L, s/he can find a million reasons. and verse visa.
To me, A 70-200/4L with IS is ideal to me (for the fun/dollar). |
|
|
|
08/20/2005 05:52:27 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by nico_blue:
I personally cant believe anyone would have Bush as a hero especially with him debating evolution, f-ing up stem cell research, and continuing a dumb war for an ever changing reason (remember WMDs that Saddam was ready and prepared to launch, then the WMD that had dissappeared, oh wait... Saddam didnt have anything, he is just an evil person, lets send more troops to iraq call it operation freedom) Just for fun I'll name Michael Moore as my hero. Someday humanity will realize that killing each other has never solved anything and just how precious every life is. The bible clearly says "thou shalt not kill", why do religous people like Bush and his conservative base continually overlook that key part?
|
Hi Nico, just a question....you mentioned the bible clearly says "thou shalt not kill"....however right before you posted that you stated that Bush is screwing up stem-cell research. Just curious...as this didn't make much sense to me as most stem cell research is from embryos (sp?). Not flaming (I promise!) I was just curious :)
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 05:56:38 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Just a reminder to please keep this thread on topic - any political discussions should be taken to the Rant folder, thank you! |
Last reminder. Keep the politics in rant. |
|
|
|
08/20/2005 06:08:39 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by colyla:
Hi Nico, just a question....you mentioned the bible clearly says "thou shalt not kill"....however right before you posted that you stated that Bush is screwing up stem-cell research. Just curious...as this didn't make much sense to me as most stem cell research is from embryos (sp?). Not flaming (I promise!) I was just curious :) |
<_<
>_>
<_<
Lensbabies are lenses too... just because they aren't as developed as L glass doesn't mean they're not lenses....
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 06:13:28 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Originally posted by colyla:
Hi Nico, just a question....you mentioned the bible clearly says "thou shalt not kill"....however right before you posted that you stated that Bush is screwing up stem-cell research. Just curious...as this didn't make much sense to me as most stem cell research is from embryos (sp?). Not flaming (I promise!) I was just curious :) |
<_<
>_>
<_<
Lensbabies are lenses too... just because they aren't as developed as L glass doesn't mean they're not lenses.... |
Good Man Logan :)
Edit to add: I would really like to try one of those lensbabies too...dont know if I want to shell out $100 to buy one....but would definitely like to fiddle around with one... :)
Message edited by author 2005-08-20 18:14:24. |
|
|
|
08/20/2005 08:33:42 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Jinbo:
Just a lens..... Let's stop the bitter argument, and Bush, Iraqi...all those craps. the topic has gone to far off. Let's stay with the Lens itself. or 2.8 vs 4.0L
To me, the choice is obvious. I use 4Ls. I am not a pro. But I like good quality photos. I just start photographing three months ago. I don't make money from this new hobby. I do this just for fun. Not that I don't have the money, but I'd rather not to pay that much difference to upscale to 2.8Ls, just for fun. It is like cars. Do I like sporty cars? you bet! but do I want to pay for it? No! If there is a chance that I can get a 2.8L for as low as a 4L, I'd really happy to get one.
So, what I am saying here is people has their own choice. everyone judge a purchase differently. No need to argue. If one wants 2.8L, s/he can find a million reasons. and verse visa.
To me, A 70-200/4L with IS is ideal to me (for the fun/dollar). |
How about the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM? It costs about what you'd expect a 70-200 f4 IS would cost (see below).
There's only so many lenses Canon can make, and I'd rather have them working on f2.0 zooms so that the price of used f2.8s would become more affordable. :-)
Comparing prices at B&H and rounding,
70-200 f4 $580
70-200 f2.8 $1140
70-200 f2.8 IS $1700
So IS adds $560 to the f2.8
The f2.8 is $560 more than the f4.
Assuming that an f4 IS had the same other "upgrades" the f2.8 IS does (weather sealing, etc), and I'd expect it to cost the same as the f2.8. And the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM is virtually the same price ($1150) at B&H.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 10:06:02 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Originally posted by colyla:
Hi Nico, just a question....you mentioned the bible clearly says "thou shalt not kill"....however right before you posted that you stated that Bush is screwing up stem-cell research. Just curious...as this didn't make much sense to me as most stem cell research is from embryos (sp?). Not flaming (I promise!) I was just curious :) |
<_<
>_>
<_<
Lensbabies are lenses too... just because they aren't as developed as L glass doesn't mean they're not lenses.... |
Good Man Logan :)
Edit to add: I would really like to try one of those lensbabies too...dont know if I want to shell out $100 to buy one....but would definitely like to fiddle around with one... :) |
lensbabies might not be everyone's cup of tea, but i happen to really like mine. takes some getting used to before you get decent shots.
here are some shots with the lensbaby.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 10:32:17 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by nborton:
lensbabies might not be everyone's cup of tea, but i happen to really like mine. takes some getting used to before you get decent shots.
here are some shots with the lensbaby.
|
These are very well done!! I think you did an excellent job on these.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 11:06:52 PM · #70 |
lol i love how you guys helped me play that off! XD
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 11:26:35 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by hankk:
Originally posted by Jinbo:
Just a lens..... Let's stop the bitter argument, and Bush, Iraqi...all those craps. the topic has gone to far off. Let's stay with the Lens itself. or 2.8 vs 4.0L
To me, the choice is obvious. I use 4Ls. I am not a pro. But I like good quality photos. I just start photographing three months ago. I don't make money from this new hobby. I do this just for fun. Not that I don't have the money, but I'd rather not to pay that much difference to upscale to 2.8Ls, just for fun. It is like cars. Do I like sporty cars? you bet! but do I want to pay for it? No! If there is a chance that I can get a 2.8L for as low as a 4L, I'd really happy to get one.
So, what I am saying here is people has their own choice. everyone judge a purchase differently. No need to argue. If one wants 2.8L, s/he can find a million reasons. and verse visa.
To me, A 70-200/4L with IS is ideal to me (for the fun/dollar). |
How about the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM? It costs about what you'd expect a 70-200 f4 IS would cost (see below).
There's only so many lenses Canon can make, and I'd rather have them working on f2.0 zooms so that the price of used f2.8s would become more affordable. :-)
Comparing prices at B&H and rounding,
70-200 f4 $580
70-200 f2.8 $1140
70-200 f2.8 IS $1700
So IS adds $560 to the f2.8
The f2.8 is $560 more than the f4.
Assuming that an f4 IS had the same other "upgrades" the f2.8 IS does (weather sealing, etc), and I'd expect it to cost the same as the f2.8. And the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM is virtually the same price ($1150) at B&H. |
True enough! the 70-300 DO is near the price of a 70-200/4 IS (if canon will develop it). But optically, 70-300 is not even close to the 70-200/4L. You may want to read so many reviews about that lens on the internet. My feeling after reading so many of them was that it was not worth the money it has asked for. That was why I decided to buy my 70-200/4L at the first place.
Hoping a set of 1.8L zooms to press down the 2.8L is a interesting opinion, indeed! :) |
|
|
|
08/20/2005 11:44:08 PM · #72 |
Just let me know when Canon starts shipping the much-rumored 200/1.8L IS (the original -- and still much-sought-after -- 200/1.8L was discontinued quite a while ago because some of the elements contained lead, and Canon no longer uses lead-based elements. Or at least that is what I was told by a Canon rep.)
Now, where did I put that 85/1.2L... |
|
|
|
08/20/2005 11:51:03 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
...Now, where did I put that 85/1.2L... |
You bought an 85mm f/1.2L ? |
|
|
|
08/21/2005 12:01:40 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
You bought an 85mm f/1.2L ? |
LOL... not quite yet... but it is the next lens on my wish-list though.
I was just trying to make a (subtle) point that I like fast lenses. The 85/1.2L really gives a very "ethereal" feel to images when shot wide-open. I just wish Canon would upgrade the thing to USM!!! |
|
|
|
08/21/2005 02:27:32 AM · #75 |
For the ongoing political aspect of this thread, go check out:
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=260197
For more of my technical arguments, if you're interested, go here:
//forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=14702668
I post as beegee over there, too.
Cheers,
Bruno
PS: the admins rightfully deleted the links (why without mentioning the fact or at least copying my carefully researched post over to the rant section?) I posted in my final reply to the political ranting portion of this thread. I'll re-post at least the informative links for those interested (Fetor & kyebosh?) over there (link above). |
|
