Canon going to release two new lenses.

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny


Oh god. The full frame vs. cropped frame thing. I LOVE the extra reach of the cropped sensor because I'm a telephoto nut, and I also LOVE the advantages of full frame.

cropped frames don't give you extra reach...


they should bring back the 50 f/1.0

or better yet, make a *good* 50 f/0.95... the old one was kinda meh

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny


Oh god. The full frame vs. cropped frame thing. I LOVE the extra reach of the cropped sensor because I'm a telephoto nut, and I also LOVE the advantages of full frame.

cropped frames don't give you extra reach...

Ok, technically, no. But let's just put it this way: If I'm taking shots of wildlife from a distance, and I want to get as close as possible, which sensor would I rather have:

a. An 8MP FF sensor on a 500mm lens
b. An 8MP 1.3X crop sensor on a 500mm lens
c. An 8MP 1.6X/1.5X crop sensor on a 500mm lens

The above is provided that the sensor resolution is the limiting factor ie. the lens is excellent and can resolve greater than 8MP when used full frame and also when only using a cropped part of its center image circle. This is also provided that the image noise is the same for all sensors.

 

[aceO07]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: aceO07
I tried out the Canon 24-105f4ISL last weekend. I wish I was crazy enough to afford it. It has a nicer range than my 17-40f4L.

Buy it! Just ignore the price that you paid for it; ignore it and it'll go away

I already ignored the practical side when I bought the 17-40.. Now that I think about it, it was extremely expensive for such a short range. I use it a lot, but the additional 40-105 range would have been nice. If I had to do it again, I might reconsider the 24-105. IF it wasn't so freaky expensive!!? $650 or $1200.. hmmm

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Ok, technically, no. But let's just put it this way: If I'm taking shots of wildlife from a distance, and I want to get as close as possible, which sensor would I rather have:

a. An 8MP FF sensor on a 500mm lens
b. An 8MP 1.3X crop sensor on a 500mm lens
c. An 8MP 1.6X/1.5X crop sensor on a 500mm lens

d. 10MP 1.6X - cheapest of the lot with the most "reach" - i.e. 400D
e. 26MP 1.0x - dream FF with pixel density of 400D

The best answer, not considering price and availability, is (e). The best answer considering price, all else equal, is (d).

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Ok, technically, no. But let's just put it this way: If I'm taking shots of wildlife from a distance, and I want to get as close as possible, which sensor would I rather have:

a. An 8MP FF sensor on a 500mm lens
b. An 8MP 1.3X crop sensor on a 500mm lens
c. An 8MP 1.6X/1.5X crop sensor on a 500mm lens

d. 10MP 1.6X - cheapest of the lot with the most "reach" - i.e. 400D
e. 26MP 1.0x - dream FF with pixel density of 400D

The best answer, not considering price and availability, is (e). The best answer considering price, all else equal, is (d).

What does this, um, prove?

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: aceO07
I tried out the Canon 24-105f4ISL last weekend. I wish I was crazy enough to afford it. It has a nicer range than my 17-40f4L.

There's a Tamron 28-75, a couple of Canon 50s and the 70-200 f/4 L which are all cheaper and fill in where the 17-40 drops off. And the 24-105 still doesn't have the reach of the 70-200.

I'd think the 24-105 is better suited to a FF camera than a crop sensor, as 24 * 1.6 = 38.4, which isn't wide.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
What does this, um, prove?

That the 400D isn't given its due?

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Canon gets away with bloody murder.

Even the "value" lenses like the EFS 17-55 are $1000+. And they refuse to update their cheap primes like the EF 50 F1.4 with modern USM.

That isn't a "value" lens. It's one of the L lenses in disguise, marketed down a bit by Canon's position L = pro-worthy = non crop format, but contradicted by the high price and performance of this lens.

 

[JEDIYoda]

wowza

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: aceO07
I tried out the Canon 24-105f4ISL last weekend. I wish I was crazy enough to afford it. It has a nicer range than my 17-40f4L.

There's a Tamron 28-75, a couple of Canon 50s and the 70-200 f/4 L which are all cheaper and fill in where the 17-40 drops off. And the 24-105 still doesn't have the reach of the 70-200.

I'd think the 24-105 is better suited to a FF camera than a crop sensor, as 24 * 1.6 = 38.4, which isn't wide.

I want a 24-105L + 10-22... but I have a tendency to like wide apertures, so I dunno how f/4 on the 24-105 would fair for me... I should rent one for the hell of it now that I think about it.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: randomlinh
I want a 24-105L + 10-22... but I have a tendency to like wide apertures, so I dunno how f/4 on the 24-105 would fair for me... I should rent one for the hell of it now that I think about it.

Or supplement with primes such as a 50 or 85..

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: aceO07
I tried out the Canon 24-105f4ISL last weekend. I wish I was crazy enough to afford it. It has a nicer range than my 17-40f4L.

There's a Tamron 28-75, a couple of Canon 50s and the 70-200 f/4 L which are all cheaper and fill in where the 17-40 drops off. And the 24-105 still doesn't have the reach of the 70-200.

I'd think the 24-105 is better suited to a FF camera than a crop sensor, as 24 * 1.6 = 38.4, which isn't wide.

I want a 24-105L + 10-22... but I have a tendency to like wide apertures, so I dunno how f/4 on the 24-105 would fair for me... I should rent one for the hell of it now that I think about it.

I have the 10-22 + 24-105 combo. I also have the Tamron 28-75 F2.8. To be honest, I have been underwhelmed by the 24-105. It gets pretty soft at F4 above 70mm. I have to stop it up to 5.6. I find my Tamron to be sharper at F4. In fact the Tamron at F2.8 is as sharp as the Canon at F4. The Canon does have IS which is nice.

Here are Canon vs. Tamron shots.

If I had to do it all over again on a crop body, I would get the EFS 10-22 (great lens!), EFS 17-55 F2.8IS, EF 35 F1.4L, and EF 70-200 F4L IS. But since I plan to go FF next go-around, I am going to sell all of my lenses save the Tamron, buy the 17-40 F4L and 70-200 F4L IS. I'll either get a 35 F1.4L or 50 F1.4. Then I'll just hope Canon releases a 24-70 F2.8L IS and sell the Tamron.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: aceO07
I tried out the Canon 24-105f4ISL last weekend. I wish I was crazy enough to afford it. It has a nicer range than my 17-40f4L.

There's a Tamron 28-75, a couple of Canon 50s and the 70-200 f/4 L which are all cheaper and fill in where the 17-40 drops off. And the 24-105 still doesn't have the reach of the 70-200.

I'd think the 24-105 is better suited to a FF camera than a crop sensor, as 24 * 1.6 = 38.4, which isn't wide.

I want a 24-105L + 10-22... but I have a tendency to like wide apertures, so I dunno how f/4 on the 24-105 would fair for me... I should rent one for the hell of it now that I think about it.

I have the 10-22 + 24-105 combo. I also have the Tamron 28-75 F2.8. To be honest, I have been underwhelmed by the 24-105. It gets pretty soft at F4 above 70mm. I have to stop it up to 5.6. I find my Tamron to be sharper at F4. In fact the Tamron at F2.8 is as sharp as the Canon at F4. The Canon does have IS which is nice.

Here are Canon vs. Tamron shots.

If I had to do it all over again on a crop body, I would get the EFS 10-22 (great lens!), EFS 17-55 F2.8IS, EF 35 F1.4L, and EF 70-200 F4L IS. But since I plan to go FF next go-around, I am going to sell all of my lenses save the Tamron, buy the 17-40 F4L and 70-200 F4L IS. I'll either get a 35 F1.4L or 50 F1.4. Then I'll just hope Canon releases a 24-70 F2.8L IS and sell the Tamron.

that is a bit disappointing considering the price. I'm just going to stick with my sigma 18-50 for now. Was considering tossing it for the 30mm f/1.4, but I can't give up the versatility. I just need to snag a 400D, hadn't realized it used the 30D AF stuff. And then rebuy a 70-200 f/4L. It's a wonderful lens.. just couldn't justify keeping it when I had it.

Want a macro too.. but I like what fuzzy has done w/ a reverse 10-22 lens. I might go that route.

 

[GTaudiophile]

The 18-50 is good. I bought the Sigma 30 F1.4 and sold it. I know someone else on this forum who did the same. It has terrible AF! Save up for the EF 35 F1.4L instead

The 70-200 F4L is brilliant. Be sure to take a tripod! Otherwise I am hearing amazing reviews about the 2xprice 70-200 F4L IS.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
The 18-50 is good. I bought the Sigma 30 F1.4 and sold it. I know someone else on this forum who did the same. It has terrible AF! Save up for the EF 35 F1.4L instead

The 70-200 F4L is brilliant. Be sure to take a tripod! Otherwise I am hearing amazing reviews about the 2xprice 70-200 F4L IS.

IS is nice, but the price is insane. For me anyway. It's an expensive hobby for me Hence why it's probably the only L lens I'd ever have.. I'll be sticking mostly to 3rd party lenses for the time being. Unless canon releases a non-IS/L 17-55-ish f/2.8 lens. It has to have USM tho.. I'm spoiled by my 85mm 1.8

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Holy thread bump!

Yeah, lens prices are rediculous. I'd actually like to know the cost of manufacturing these things.

I'm researching in to cameras and some guy would bitch at me if I made a new thread and I've been here long enough to know better

Koing

 

[foghorn67]

Holy crap. There are some posts with the some 70-200 f4 IS shots. 1/10 and 1/6th TV handheld at 200mm. Wow.