Canon finally makes an *f4* 70-200 IS...

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:2WrHg.17973$RD.2223@fed1read08...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06...-200f4lens.asp

Smaller...Lighter...Cheaper.

I already have the 2.8 version, but many are going to jump on this
one...

I'm sure you are right but I'm glad I spent the additional $400 or so
for my 2.8. It's come in real handy.

Ya, I'm frankly a little surprised that it's only $400 less than the 2.8...

And I'm not sure I could justify a $1600 50mm even at f1.2 and L
quality. My cheapo 1.8 is super sharp and I don't need a fast
focusing 50mm lens. I guess there are those out there who have a use
for the new 50 but I don't see it.

Same here... I'm quite happy with my 50 1.4.

I would have rather seen a true fish eye for 1.6 crop.

That might be a pretty tough feat... ??

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." wrote in message
...
And I'm not sure I could justify a $1600 50mm even at f1.2 and L quality.
My cheapo 1.8 is super sharp and I don't need a fast focusing 50mm lens.
I guess there are those out there who have a use for the new 50 but I
don't see it.

I would have rather seen a true fish eye for 1.6 crop.

I find the 50 f/1.8 II to be very good also. I do wish for a distance scale
and depth of field markings, but they took that out for the MkII version
unfortunately.

By true fisheye were you wanting a circular fisheye, or a full frame
diagonal fisheye?

For a fisheye on the Rebel XT, I quite enjoy my Peleng 8mm f/3.5 lens. The
price is quite reasonable on it. It is not quite full frame--the corners
are dark--but you can crop out any rectangle you want or clone in a bit more
sky or ground if you don't like the corners. For the few occasions when you
want the full image circle, then the cheapest way to get full frame is buy a
used Canon EOS film camera for $100 or so and then scan the negatives after.
Manual focus is easy to achieve with the distance scale and the huge depth
of field makes up for tiny errors.

Mark² wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06...-200f4lens.asp

Smaller...Lighter...Cheaper.

I already have the 2.8 version, but many are going to jump on this one...



Canon just issued an amendment to their UK press release = correct price
£989, not £689

David

Mark² (lowest even number here) skrev:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06...-200f4lens.asp

Smaller...Lighter...Cheaper.

Not that much cheaper, unfortunately. It costs almost as much as the
2.8 without IS. I have long hoped for a 70-200 f4 IS, but I also hoped
for it to cost $300 or so less. After all the non-IS f4 is only about
half the price of the non-IS 2.8.

Oh well. I'm prolly going to get it anyways.

Jan Böhme

Jan Böhme wrote:
Mark² (lowest even number here) skrev:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06...-200f4lens.asp

Smaller...Lighter...Cheaper.

Not that much cheaper, unfortunately. It costs almost as much as the
2.8 without IS. I have long hoped for a 70-200 f4 IS, but I also hoped
for it to cost $300 or so less. After all the non-IS f4 is only about
half the price of the non-IS 2.8.

Oh well. I'm prolly going to get it anyways.

-Which means Canon priced it EXACTLY where they should have...for THEIR
benefit, that is...
(You're still buying it!)

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Mark² (lowest even number here) skrev:

Jan Böhme wrote:

Oh well. I'm prolly going to get it anyways.

-Which means Canon priced it EXACTLY where they should have...for THEIR
benefit, that is...
(You're still buying it!)

Yeah, I know. Pretty high-precision exactly, too. *******s. And it
hurts my pride to think that I'm a) so predictable and b) have so
common preferences, that they can land on my personal pain threshold as
their pricing point.

OTOH, if they are so damn good at pricing, this means that they will
make enough money to continue developing other lenses that I want.

One has to look at the bright side of things.

Jan Böhme

AaronW wrote:

I actually switched back to 50/1.8 from 50/1.4. I had a lot of AF
errors with 50/1.4, much more than with 50/1.8. It was not because of
shallow DoF, but significant AF errors. My theory is that because
50/1.4 is less sharp wide open, and AF is performed at wide open, it
creates more problem for the AF sensors.

So you say, giving the AF sensors *more* light to work with and
*greater* knowledge if they are within the DOF at not wide open
apertures makes them worse?

Interesting. What says that theory of yours how AF sensors work?

I saw that the new 50/1.2 is even softer wide open than 50/1.4, from
Canon's MTF.

Well, duh. You have to compare on the same aperture. Of course
the 50/1.2 may be softer wide open than a f/5.6 zoom wide open.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
AaronW wrote:


I actually switched back to 50/1.8 from 50/1.4. I had a lot of AF
errors with 50/1.4, much more than with 50/1.8. It was not because of
shallow DoF, but significant AF errors. My theory is that because
50/1.4 is less sharp wide open, and AF is performed at wide open, it
creates more problem for the AF sensors.


So you say, giving the AF sensors *more* light to work with and
*greater* knowledge if they are within the DOF at not wide open
apertures makes them worse?

Interesting. What says that theory of yours how AF sensors work?



Actually, he's right. AF sensors have a lens, which acts in a way which
reduces the effective aperture of all lenses to f5.6 or so (same way
that most digital SLRs with porro finders and 'bright funky matte
spherical wonderful' focusing screens can't actually see anything over
f4-ish). The accuracy of most AF sensor systems is set at an aperture
which may be around f4 to f6.3 depending on exact exit pupil position,
etc, of the lens in use. This can make f1.4 lenses fail to focus
accurately enough for f1.4

David

Steve Wolfe wrote:
I saw that the new 50/1.2 is even softer wide open than 50/1.4, from
Canon's MTF.

As would generally be expected from going to an even wider aperture...
it's a *lot* easier to get acceptable sharpness at "only" f/1.8 than at
f/1.2.

E.g., 135/2 is sharper wide open than 135/2.8.

So it is because f/1.4 is too difficult, or short focal length
difficult?

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

Jan Böhme wrote:
Mark² (lowest even number here) skrev:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06...-200f4lens.asp

Smaller...Lighter...Cheaper.

Not that much cheaper, unfortunately. It costs almost as much as the
2.8 without IS. I have long hoped for a 70-200 f4 IS, but I also hoped
for it to cost $300 or so less. After all the non-IS f4 is only about
half the price of the non-IS 2.8.

Oh well. I'm prolly going to get it anyways.

Why not the f/2.8? Or 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS, or 70-300/4-5.6 IS?

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr