| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2005 01:00:18 PM · #1 |
link here
very interesting
Message edited by author 2005-08-16 13:00:38. |
|
|
|
08/16/2005 01:34:53 PM · #2 |
the IS sounds good, but the f/4? that might be a bit dissapointing
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 02:16:33 PM · #3 |
I agree. I suppose it's a good studio portrait lens as long as it's sharp wide open, but if you're in a studio, you don't really need IS. It's not wide enough for landscape, not fast enough for sports or indoor work, not long enough for nature, etc.
It's basically a "walk around" lens that isn't specifically suited for anything.
Originally posted by art-inept:
the IS sounds good, but the f/4? that might be a bit dissapointing |
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 03:12:24 PM · #4 |
Would be a great walk around lens.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 03:15:37 PM · #5 |
Sounds like an interesting lens, probably akin to the 17-40/f4 L...
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 03:16:45 PM · #6 |
Canon's 24-70mm f/2.8L is an insanely good lens, better than most primes in its range, nearly as good as the rest. I can only assume if they're adding a 24-105 f/4L, they are trying to bring that quality in at a decent price range. If they succeed, it'll be a hell of a lens...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2005 03:21:27 PM · #7 |
Damn! Another lens to buy...I'm going to need a bigger bag soon. LOL!
Sounds like a great lens. As lons as it's small in size.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 12:42:20 PM · #8 |
When was the last time Canon introduced a truely fast (f2.8 or better) aperture lens? I don't think IS is an adequate substitute for fast aperture.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 12:45:48 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
When was the last time Canon introduced a truely fast (f2.8 or better) aperture lens? I don't think IS is an adequate substitute for fast aperture. |
16-35/2.8L, 24-70/2.8L, 70-200/2.8L, 300/2.8L, 400/2.8L..
What f/2.8 lens are you looking for? ;-)
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 01:07:28 PM · #10 |
Okay, so I finally get what I think I want and they go and (possibly) release exactly what I was looking for in the first place %$@#
I have 28-75 & 70-200 and find it a little awkward since I spent years and years using a 35-105 on a film SLR and am obvously in a habit. This would be 38-168 equal which is a great match for me.
Now if the released a 70-200 f4 IS then I would be bummed and pleased at the same time :-) |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 01:50:38 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by coolhar:
When was the last time Canon introduced a truely fast (f2.8 or better) aperture lens? I don't think IS is an adequate substitute for fast aperture. |
16-35/2.8L, 24-70/2.8L, 70-200/2.8L, 300/2.8L, 400/2.8L..
What f/2.8 lens are you looking for? ;-) |
Maybe I wasn't very clear. My point is that it seems all of Canon's new introductions are slower aperture lenses, many with IS. And that they are not bringing any new fast aperture lenses to market. I know that they have put out such in the past. I own a few of them. The new 24-105mm would be more attractive to me if it were f2.8, with or without IS. Note that the first word in my post was "when".
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 01:55:52 PM · #12 |
It's relatively disappointing to me as well that Canon seems to be so focussed on slow-aperture zooms, seemingly to the exclusion of fast zooms or primes. The truth of the matter is, however, that the bulk of the market is in those lenses, sad to say.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 02:45:52 PM · #13 |
I suspect this lens fits in nicely with the prosumer market. IE. 17-40/4L, 24-105/4L and 70-200/4L.
I would doubt they'd release a 24-105/2.8L because it would be 4.4x zoom, which I can't imagine being the same quality as the 24-70/2.8L. I see the f/2.8 lenses as being the top-end pro lenses.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 03:27:22 PM · #14 |
Are there a whole lot of gaps that need to be filled in the fast variable and prime lenses right now though? I don't see Canon focusing on 'lesser' lenses as much as I see them filling potential sales gaps in their lens lineup. They already have fast zooms and primes available at pretty high prices, and slower variable zooms at low prices. These seem to be more middle ground lenses to me, which frankly are a welcome addition. I love my 17-40L for example.
On that note are there (realistic) fast zooms or primes to be had that people think are missing from the existing lineup? By realistic I mean don't throw out a 17-300mm F/2.8 :-) |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 03:29:07 PM · #15 |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 10:50:04 PM · #16 |
what Canon really should do next after the release of this new 24-105/4L IS is: give existing 70-200/4L uses an option to get an IS!
curse Canon! the 70-200/2.8L has an IS, which it does really need, as it is a fast lens already. But 70-200/4L does not have IS option, which makes it really a useless lens in a forest or indoors even during daytime when handhold. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 10:53:41 PM · #17 |
Well, I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and now I want the 24-70 2.8 IS. Same lens, add IS. Happy as a pig in its on fecal matter.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 10:54:29 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Well, I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and now I want the 24-70 2.8 IS. Same lens, add IS. Happy as a pig in its on fecal matter. |
errrr... is there a 24-70 2.8 IS?
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 10:55:53 PM · #19 |
No, rich asked what else we want that's realistic. That's the one! :)
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 11:10:32 PM · #20 |
yeah, it's been a rumor for awhile now. Looks interesting... I think it will cost a lot. Probably over $1000. I really would have liked to see a 2.8 lens :-/
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 11:54:01 PM · #21 |
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!
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 12:49:59 AM · #22 |
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?
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 12:55:36 AM · #23 |
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? |
um... what? Not even close! 2.8 is brighter in the viewfinder, it will focus faster than a 4.0 lens, it has twice as much light come through as a 4.0 lens... sure you can bump up the iso but eventually you will run out of iso to use! You cannot get the same DOF with F4 vs 2.8 at the same focal lengths! F4 is never as good as F2.8, EVER. The IS is good for up to 2 stops, this does help handholdability, but it cannot ever stop motion as well as the 2.8 lens.
edit: ISO on a digital camera is like gain on an amplifier. If you start with a very weak signal and pump up the volume, which of course is completely possible, you will get a worse sound. With a 2.8 lens you double your starting volume and that seriously helps image.
Message edited by author 2005-08-20 01:01:39.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 01:12:39 AM · #24 |
yeah dude thats bull crap
2.8 and less is needed
and more preferred
|
|
|
|
08/20/2005 01:37:31 AM · #25 |
WHAT HAPPENED TO "NO OFFENSE" DUDES?????
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. 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.
Of course it focuses faster, of course it's a little brigter in the view finder, but SFW?
"bull crap" sounds like ignorant rant and taking offense - DID YOU EVEN READ MY POST FROM START TO FINISH?
Maybe you should read it again, with an OPEN MIND, if you have one.
Think about whether you're pissed off at yourself for getting expensive L-glass for a "job" that could just as easily be done by using the cheaper f/4.0 L-glass.
Are you contemplating getting the 5D, Fetor? Are you a pro? Or trying to become one? Well, if you do, get the 1Ds or the 20D, not some compromise. The 5D is the rich man's 350D, stupid.
Why are you, kyebosh, using your outdated 1D with a self-respect killer like the ok but far from excellent tamron 17-35 instead of getting the Canon 16-35 2.8 L? Because you can't afford it right now? Because you prefer to "drive" your 1D with a plastic fantastic 50 1.8 II instead of dishing out some real money to get an up to date camera like the 350D or 20D or even the upcoming 5D and treat yourself with enough respect to buy a 35 f/2.0 or 50 f/1.8 I or 50 f/1.4?
Ask yourself instead of leashing out, you hot blooded youngsters.
Oh, and by the way, did you help to re-elect that idiot president of yours?
Bruno, Switzerland, a little older (31) and hopefully a little wiser - I shut everyone else up didn't I? Plus, what the F are you still doing in front of your computer at this hour? Shouldn't you be out partying or in bed at your age on a Friday night? ;-)
NO OFFENSE DUDES!! R-E-S-P-E-C-T (yourselves)! |
|
