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

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." wrote in message
...

"SkipM" wrote in message
news:hCtHg.14347$lv.3489@fed1read12...
OTOH, that 50mm is on my list, one reason I've held off getting the f1.4
version. If it is a good as it can be, that should be an awesome lens.



Skip, educate me if you don't mind. What exactly excites you about the
50mm? Is it the speed? The promise of faster focus? The L quality? The
DoF? Exactly what would you use it for that make this feature important
enough to spend $1600? I ask because other the focus speed my cheap 1.8
is fantastic. Image quality can be as good as my L lenses. Of course the
build sucks but the images are great. What am I missing?

--

Rob
"A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing"



All of the above, except for focus speed. Low light photography, build
quality, quiet focus, full time manual focus, DOF control all contribute to
the desirability of this lens. Any one of these wouldn't be enough to get
me interested, it's the combination of all of them. Focus speed on a 50mm
should be fast, no matter what the price. There's not much to move.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:bWuHg.17991$RD.669@fed1read08...
Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:


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... ??


Nikon makes one for their 1.5x crop sensor, a 10.5mm, IIRC.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"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...

-Mark²

PS-- Oh, and how about a $1600 50mm f1.2 L while you're at it???
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06...n50f12lens.asp


It's already on my wife's shopping list, she feels the extra weight of the
2.8 IS isn't worth the extra stop.
OTOH, that 50mm is on my list, one reason I've held off getting the f1.4
version. If it is a good as it can be, that should be an awesome lens.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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...

-Mark²

PS-- Oh, and how about a $1600 50mm f1.2 L while you're at it???
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06...n50f12lens.asp

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

Mark² (lowest even number here) 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...

PS-- Oh, and how about a $1600 50mm f1.2 L while you're at it???
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06...n50f12lens.asp

I wish to see a $200 50/1.8m3 with sharper wide open, and more solid
build.

And a 45-135/2.8 IS, which should be cheaper than 70-200/2.8 IS, close
to $1K instead of $2K. If it is difficult to make the short end at 45mm
without retrofocus, a little bit longer is OK, 50mm, or 55mm.

If they want to make a consumer zoom first, I'd buy a good quality
45-135/3.5-4.5 IS, too.

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

"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.

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.
--

Rob
"A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing"

"SkipM" wrote in message
news:hCtHg.14347$lv.3489@fed1read12...
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:2WrHg.17973$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...

-Mark²

PS-- Oh, and how about a $1600 50mm f1.2 L while you're at it???
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06...n50f12lens.asp


It's already on my wife's shopping list, she feels the extra weight of the
2.8 IS isn't worth the extra stop.
OTOH, that 50mm is on my list, one reason I've held off getting the f1.4
version. If it is a good as it can be, that should be an awesome lens.



Skip, educate me if you don't mind. What exactly excites you about the
50mm? Is it the speed? The promise of faster focus? The L quality? The
DoF? Exactly what would you use it for that make this feature important
enough to spend $1600? I ask because other the focus speed my cheap 1.8 is
fantastic. Image quality can be as good as my L lenses. Of course the build
sucks but the images are great. What am I missing?

--

Rob
"A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing"

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
"SkipM" wrote in message
news:hCtHg.14347$lv.3489@fed1read12...
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:2WrHg.17973$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....

PS-- Oh, and how about a $1600 50mm f1.2 L while you're at it???
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06...n50f12lens.asp

It's already on my wife's shopping list, she feels the extra weight of the
2.8 IS isn't worth the extra stop.
OTOH, that 50mm is on my list, one reason I've held off getting the f1.4
version. If it is a good as it can be, that should be an awesome lens.

Skip, educate me if you don't mind. What exactly excites you about the
50mm? Is it the speed? The promise of faster focus? The L quality? The
DoF? Exactly what would you use it for that make this feature important
enough to spend $1600? I ask because other the focus speed my cheap 1.8 is
fantastic. Image quality can be as good as my L lenses. Of course the build
sucks but the images are great. What am I missing?

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.

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

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

Bill wrote:
AaronW wrote:
PS-- Oh, and how about a $1600 50mm f1.2 L while you're at it???
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06...n50f12lens.asp

I wish to see a $200 50/1.8m3 with sharper wide open, and more solid
build.

And a 45-135/2.8 IS, which should be cheaper than 70-200/2.8 IS, close
to $1K instead of $2K. If it is difficult to make the short end at 45mm
without retrofocus, a little bit longer is OK, 50mm, or 55mm.

If they want to make a consumer zoom first, I'd buy a good quality
45-135/3.5-4.5 IS, too.

Where were you when we discussed this kind of thing before?

We already submitted the request for a 9-900mm f/1.0 IS/VR lense that's
sharp as a tack wide open and CA & distortion free for only $29.95 to
both Canon and Nikon.

$200 is 3 times more expensive than the current 50/1.8. And I am
willing to pay that amount to get a lens a little better. Do you think
it is too expensive, or too cheap as your $29 lens? Too expensive so
that nobody will buy it?

And an $1K 45-135/2.8 IS too expensive or too cheap? Without
retrofocus, it must be cheaper than 70-200/2.8 IS, because it is a
shorter tele.

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

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.

steve