Canon EF 28-135mm f4L IS USM possible?

[neuroanatomist]

Stuff on Canon Rumors can be fun to discuss...but almost all of it is completely bogus (although I give the guy props for re-interpreting his previous predictions in light of what Canon actually does, in such a way that he was right instead of way off base!).


Here's my take (again):



<div class="post"]
<div id="msg_2576" class="inner"]How can it be the 28-135mm f/4L IS II when there's not a Mk I version of that lens? It's the same reason all the clowns who email that they've seen the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS II are bogus - there is not an IS version of that lens, so if they add IS it would be not be a MkII.</div>
<div class="inner"]</div>
<div class="inner"]I don't get the 82mm filter size. </div>
<div class="inner"]</div>
<div class="inner"]Also, what the heck is, "both in longitudinal and lateral vibrations will be dampened." IS damps<span class="bbc_u"]angularvibrations. Lateral vibrations are currently damped only by the new Hybrid IS. Longitudinal vibrations would mean forward-back motion of the camera; AI Servo AF helps correct for that, but for IS to perform a similar correction it would actually have to move the focusing groups - something that seems unlikely. And why does the rumor state that this new 'IS2' provides 5 stops of stabilization, then list the specs as, "Image stabilizer 4-stops tested"? </div>
<div class="inner"]</div>
<div class="inner"]Given that the vast majority of Canon bodies sold are 1.6x crop, I don't see them taking anything from the wide end of a walkaround zoom.

I declare shenanigans! [:P]

Of course, the original post on photo.net beat me to the declaration - look at the last line, "**all of the above statements are<del>mearly</del>merely speculation and rumors."</div>
</div>

[Daniel Browning]

<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />

<div>

I like myself with a blurry, rough around the edges fetching mystique and I'm lucky that my skill level delivers like that for me.

I like your sense of humor!

I declare shenanigans!

</div>


Excellent deconstruction, John.

[Steve U]

<div class="post"]
<div class="inner" id="msg_2576"]How can it be the 28-135mm f/4L IS II when there's not a Mk I version of that lens? It's the same reason all the clowns who email that they've seen the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS II are bogus - there is not an IS version of that lens, so if they add IS it would be not be a MkII.</div>
<div class="inner"]</div>
<div class="inner"]I don't get the 82mm filter size. </div>
<div class="inner"]</div>
<div class="inner"]Also, what the heck is, "both in longitudinal and lateral vibrations will be dampened." IS damps<span class="bbc_u"]angularvibrations. Lateral vibrations are currently damped only by the new Hybrid IS. Longitudinal vibrations would mean forward-back motion of the camera; AI Servo AF helps correct for that, but for IS to perform a similar correction it would actually have to move the focusing groups - something that seems unlikely. And why does the rumor state that this new 'IS2' provides 5 stops of stabilization, then list the specs as, "Image stabilizer 4-stops tested"? </div>
<div class="inner"]</div>
<div class="inner"]Given that the vast majority of Canon bodies sold are 1.6x crop, I don't see them taking anything from the wide end of a walkaround zoom.

</div>
</div>

A clinical disseection, you sir are a mythbuster.

I declare shenanigans! [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

And to work the "shenanigans" into any reply is very creative. I also noted there was no red L attached to the "Rumor lens" that honor must only go to lenses that can be viewed on the Canon website.


Oh well, it did seem like a good partner for my 5Dmk3 and 100-400mm 4-5.6IS ll combo, guess I'll just put that back into the cupboard too.[*-)]


Should probably go and take some photos.