Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by cfusionpm, Aug 27, 2010.
Discussion popped up here and there in the 60D thread, but here's its own thread for the new lenses.
I hadn't heard that there were going to be new extenders out soon.
Thanks for the info. I was about to buy the 2x II, but now I will probably wait for the III.
The new lenses themselves are either out of my price range, or not what I am looking for.
If I had the money to buy the new 300mm 2.8, I would probably just buy the 200mm f/2 and a 180mm macro instead.
I am guessing that the 300 and 400mm 2.8's are going to be bad ass lenses in every way.
Some people want to act like Canon can't compete with Nikon anymore, but this is simply not true.
Canon has a long history of making outstanding cameras and lenses, I have no doubt these will live up to the name.
i'm curious about the 70-300L and fishzoom.
the rest i can care less about because you know what it's going to look like, basically perfect.
The idea that Canon lenses cost less than comparable Nikon lenses seems to be changing rapidly...Nikon 300mm f/2.8 $4799 for the VR-I model, imported
Nikon 300mm f/2.8 $5899 for the VR-II model
Nikon 400mm f/2.8 $8899 VR model USA
Prices from B&H Photo August 27,2010
Same holds for the Canon 200mm f/2 versus the Nikon 200mm f/2...the new Canon lenses seems to be priced higher and higher. The 70-300 4-5.6-L will probably be a decent lens,and will sell well. THe old 75-300 they made for so long was a total dog...the current 70-300 is better; perhaps the 70-300-L will be a worthwhile lens which will develop a good following.
Shaving 28 percent off the weight of the 400/2.8 will mean that a good number of the older 400/2.8's will be sold off as sports guys shift to the lighter wright lens, provided that it focuses as fast and as well as the lens it replaces. The price point seems awfully steep though...will it still come with a one-year warranty when the competition offers a five-year warranty,and at a lower price???
Maybe the new teleconverters will be better and worth the money; did they go aspherical on the new TC's, like NIkon did? Or did they just add a new model number and jack up the price??
I'm trying to figure out the 70-300L
* The 100-400L is well overdue for a Mark II
* Its shorter than the 100-400L
* Its slower than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS
* Its not as compact as the 70-200 f/4L
* The 70-200mm lens offerings by Canon is crowded.
The non-L 70-300mm was suppose too offer decent glass to the consumer line (at that price point). So exactly the purpose of this lens?
I'll bet the purpose of going L on this new lens was to make a tele-zoom that is good enough to work on high-resolution, ultra-dense 1.6x sensors...many of the current lenses are simply not good enough to leverage the sensors in the newest, high-resolution cameras: Nikon's new 70-300 is good enough for the 24 megapixel D3x for critical shooters like Thom Hogan...Canon's new 70-200 f/4-L IS is sharper and a better performer than the older f/2.8 L-IS USM model...because it is newer, and better-computed for higher MTF on high-density sensors...these new sensors are really stressing older lens designs.
My guess is that Canon's new 70-300-L is an L because it will deliver high enough optical performance to help leverage the pixel density in the small 1.6x sensor bodies that are now at 17.8 MP...and which might well creep up to 25 MP or so within the useful life of the 70-300L as a viable design...
With pixel density going through the roof, it would be very wise for Canon to compute the 70-300-L to be extremely good wide-open, since wide-open will be only f/4 to as small as f/5.6, and as we know, on 1.6x sensors, diffraction starts to kick in at f/4.5...so the lens needs to deliver EXCEPTIONAL performance between f/4 and f/5.6 to make it a worthwhile upgrade for use with today's 17.8 MP Canon bodies, and for anything that comes down the pike in the next 5 or 6 years. The "old" 75-300 was woefully inadequate above 200mm on the 10 MP Rebel my buddy Steve had...the 70-300 was better...this new L-series 70-300mm model ought to be, will have to be, a really good design to make it worth buying and using on the current Canon cameras.
They didn't mention any aspherical elements:
Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. :thumbup:
Yeah... they have to be. I'm curious about the "lightweight" 400 f/2.8, though, as Canon's other "lightweight" super tele "L" lens, the 800... is far from perfect, IMO.
The 400 f/2.8 will be far, far more important in their lineup, though. If it weighs 28% less AND it's optically superb - what everyone expects - then it's certainly a breakthrough lens.
I'm very curious about the optical performance of the new primes (as well as the upcoming 500 & 600 L) with the new TCs. Especially because they were basically designed together - if I'm reading things correctly.
Here's a good example of why ultra-dense sensors like that in the7D fail so badly with current lenses....
The Canon EOS 7D Review Darwin Wiggett
Sample after sample, as well as 12 MP Rebel files up-scaled to match the 7D's native size...theoretical garbage from Cambridge in Color is nice reading...but a bumblebee cannot theoretically fly either...the 7D's high density, tiny-pixel sensor falls victim to diffraction quite easily.
Leave the poor, abused 7D pixies alone for now
As for me the new 300mm f2.8 IS L M2 sounds fantastic - both with an overall IS upgrade and a lighter construction being great things to get in a lens that already is ultra sharp - the sharpness upgrade is of course great as well -especially with new teleconverters (and check out the 400mm with teleconverters its aiming to beat the 800mm L)
Sadly with the prices on everything I think the only new bit of glass I'll be getting in the near future will be the 2*TC upgrade - my 1.4 works well already and its the 2*TC that will benefit the most from an upgrade.
Where do you dig this stuff up lol?
From the dpreview.com EOS 7D review:
Canon EOS 7D Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review
Page 30. - Conclusion, Image Quality.
"It's visibly better than the EOS 50D and as good as it gets in the APS-C class (if you prefer the 7D or Nikon D300S in this respect is probably a matter of taste). If you require significantly better high ISO performance than the EOS 7D can provide, your only option is to move into the full-frame segment."
I trust these guys far more than random little sites like the one you posted.
Also from my personal experience the 7D has flat out outstanding resolution and sharpness if you put good glass in front of it.
There are plenty of lenses that can handle the resolution. All of my L lenses can, especially the 70-200mm 2.8 II.
Please don't bash the 7D just because you hate Canon lol. :mrgreen:
Just kidding man, you rock. :thumbup:
Separate names with a comma.