New Canon Lenses...

nakedyak · Aug 30, 2006

sorry if this has been posted before, but i thought i'd mention something about it:

Canons new f/1.2 standard lens

Canon EF 70-200 mm F4L IS USM len

Man these will be sweet lenses. Does it seem to you guys like every time you buy new gear, they improve it a few months later? I mean i guess the 70-200 f4 has been around for a while, but i just got mine like 3 months ago! Now I have lens envy! But they say it will be going for $1250, so couldnt you just get the 70-200 f2.8 IS for almost that much??

Alex_B · Sep 1, 2006

I really look forward hearing of first experiences with the 50mm lens. I was always waiting for 50mm, fast and L ! However the price is a killer

I really like my 50mm 1.4 prime, I am sure I would love this new lens if it holds
what it promises!

nakedyak · Sep 2, 2006

Is 1.2 really that much faster than 1.4? The build and focus speed will be much better though i'm sure.

Alex_B · Sep 2, 2006

1.2 makes a difference ... but one you can always also achieve with higher ISO I guess. Regarding Depth of Field in some extreme situations it could help.

But mainly it is (probably) much better built as you say, it will be better environmentally sealed, AF might benefit and hopefully optical quality such as sharpness and resolution and all. It might give better quality at 1.4 than the 50mm 1.4 at 1.4 (which already is fairly good).

We have to wait and see until first tests are out and some of us actually own it!

thebeginning · Sep 2, 2006

that lense's f/1.2 max ap. surely isn't the selling point. I sure hope that the wide open optical quality and the AF are improved over the 1.4...at least the consistency and accuracy.

Unimaxium · Sep 2, 2006

I think I read that one feature of the f/1.2 is that it has a better kind of USM motor in it, which lets it report distance data back to the camera's CPU. I'm pretty sure the 1.8 and 1.4 don't do this. I suppose it can help with flash exposure calculation, and it would be nice to have the focus distance recorded in the EXIF data too.

thebeginning · Sep 2, 2006

Unimaxium said:
I think I read that one feature of the f/1.2 is that it has a better kind of USM motor in it, which lets it report distance data back to the camera's CPU. I'm pretty sure the 1.8 and 1.4 don't do this. I suppose it can help with flash exposure calculation, and it would be nice to have the focus distance recorded in the EXIF data too.

ooh that would be neat. I don't think it's AF will be as fast as the 'standard' canon USM, like in the 85 1.8 or 50 1.4...it's surprising how much more the extra aperture size will slow it down.

markc · Sep 2, 2006

BTW, there are two different Canon USM motors.
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/lens-motors
The good ones, usually in the L lenses, are ring USM. They can be focused manually even when the switch is set to AF. If you do that with the non-ring USM, you can ruin it.

Most non USM motors are AFD, and the 50/1.8 has the worst of the bunch, the MM. The 50/1.4 has the non-ring USM motor, but has a clutch in it that lets you manually focus with the switch at AF. The 85/1.8 has the real deal, the ring USM. It looks like the 50/1.2 does also. That would make it a huge step up from the 1.8 in focus performance.

Here's a chart: www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/pdf/spec.pdf

Alex_B · Sep 3, 2006

thebeginning said:
ooh that would be neat. I don't think it's AF will be as fast as the 'standard' canon USM, like in the 85 1.8 or 50 1.4...it's surprising how much more the extra aperture size will slow it down.

Hmm, maybe I just missed something (not an expert here), but why should AF be slower if you have a larger aperture? I thought more light (as in 1.2 wide open compared to say 1.8 wide open) usually helps the AF to find its target?

Or do refer to the mechanical issues that the USM has simply to move more material around for the larger and more complicated 1.2 lens?

Alex_B · Sep 3, 2006

BTW, interesting to see that we mostly talk about the 50 prime here.
It seems to be more interestign than the telezoom

This all then contradicts what many people say, that 50mm primes are boring

Unimaxium · Sep 3, 2006

Alex_B said:
Hmm, maybe I just missed something (not an expert here), but why should AF be slower if you have a larger aperture? I thought more light (as in 1.2 wide open compared to say 1.8 wide open) usually helps the AF to find its target?

Or do refer to the mechanical issues that the USM has simply to move more material around for the larger and more complicated 1.2 lens?

My assumption is that the extra glass needed to collect enough light for a 42mm-wide aperture is what would cause the slow down in AF. That's just a guess, though.

Alex_B said:
BTW, interesting to see that we mostly talk about the 50 prime here.
It seems to be more interestign than the telezoom

This all then contradicts what many people say, that 50mm primes are boring

Who said 50mm primes are boring? bah! :lol:

I think the 50mm 1.2 is interesting because canon's pushing a new extreme in one of their classic lens focal lengths. The 70-200mm F4L IS USM is kind of boring because it's sandwiched in their lineup between three other very similar lenses: the 70-200mm F4L non-IS; the 70-200mm f2.8L IS, and the 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS.

Alex_B · Sep 3, 2006

Unimaxium said:
Who said 50mm primes are boring? bah!

I think the 50mm 1.2 is interesting because canon's pushing a new extreme in one of their classic lens focal lengths. The 70-200mm F4L IS USM is kind of boring because it's sandwiched in their lineup between three other very similar lenses: the 70-200mm F4L non-IS; the 70-200mm f2.8L IS, and the 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS.

Well, lots of people say... they seem to assume you need it either wide or either tele to get interesting shots

... but I myself always liked 50mm as it gives a natural perspective and hence you concentrate more on composition of the image than on perspective effects.

As for the 70-200mm F4L IS USM you are probably right that it is the "yet another" effect

thebeginning · Sep 3, 2006

Alex_B said:
Hmm, maybe I just missed something (not an expert here), but why should AF be slower if you have a larger aperture? I thought more light (as in 1.2 wide open compared to say 1.8 wide open) usually helps the AF to find its target?

Or do refer to the mechanical issues that the USM has simply to move more material around for the larger and more complicated 1.2 lens?

that's it.