My most wanted list, anything more to add?

[Colin]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


Only problem with it seems to be the DO part....


The 5.6, at 5.6 other than the IS, kicks it's butt on clarity.

[Jon Ruyle]

Dan has an interesting list- in particular, the long slow lenses... I've often wondered why they aren't more of them made, *especially*macro, where the reach is very useful and (very expensive) wide aperture isn't. Part of the problem with a long macro, though, is the huge amount of travel required... to be able to focus on infinity and at 1x, a 300mm macro would require a foot (300mm) of travel. So it might be a heavy tube. On the other hand, it would have barely more aperture-- and probably less glass-- than lightweights like the 100mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8.


I've noticed that slow lenses tend to be more expensive than faster ones of the same aperture. (For example, 400mm f/5.6 costs more than 200mm f/2.8, 800mm f/5.6 costs more than 400mm f/2.8). Faster optics of a given aperture should be much less expensive to make, so I'm not sure why this is. Anyone out there have a clue?


I happen to own a very sharp 800mm f/8 lens manual focus lens (otherwise known as a 4" refracting telescope), and it cost under $2000. One can get them cheaper than that, and I would say that in general, telescopes (refractors, anyway) can make decent long slow mf lenses if you are aware of certain drawbacks. Below is a link to a sample pic. (I'm not holding it up as an example of good photography, mind you , or even as a good use of the 800mm f/8. It's just what I got when I told my daughter to stand still 20 feet from the lens). The sharp vignetting is caused by a star diagonal, which I didn't have to use. The pic is much sharper than it looks in this scaled down version (a 100% crop reveals more detail, like tiny wrinkles on my 6-year-old daughter's perfect skin).


http://picasaweb.google.com/jonruyle/January2009#5301770473802868274

[Daniel Browning]

I've noticed that slow lenses tend to be more expensive than faster ones of the same aperture. (For example, 400mm f/5.6 costs more than 200mm f/2.8, 800mm f/5.6 costs more than 400mm f/2.8). Faster optics of a given aperture should be much less expensive to make, so I'm not sure why this is. Anyone out there have a clue?

I've wondered about this a lot as well. In the case of the 200 f/2.8, I think the reason is aberration correction. The 400 f/5.6 is corrected to a much higher standard than the 200 f/2.8. In fact, the 400mm f/5.6 has even less aberrations than the 400mm f/2.8 (when both are wide open).


The 800mm f/5.6 is definitely an outlier. Some have postulated opportunism on Canon's part, but who knows what the reason is.

[Jargon]

<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]14-24/2.8L &ndash; Nikon has one and it&rsquo;s phenomenal.

The problem with a 14mm lens is that it is too concave to support a filter thread. And I can't imagine shooting landscapes without the option to use a CPL filter.

<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]EOS 1D Mark IV &ndash; I know this camera will arrive just in a while. Hopefully it can match D3 in performance, FF and IQ while surpass it by offering better resolution. I will get one when available.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

EOS-1D Mark IV that has both a super-fast frame rate and a full-frame sensor, now that would be something!

[Keith B]

I'd bet a decent amount of money the 1D IV will be FF.


If it is, I will have a hard time not buying it. I'll probably sell my 5D2.


I'd love to have the focusing speed. 5D2 really lacks on the outer focus points even on fast lenses.

[Benjamin]

I'd bet a decent amount of money the 1D IV will be FF.


If it is, I will have a hard time not buying it. I'll probably sell my 5D2.


I'd love to have the focusing speed. 5D2 really lacks on the outer focus points even on fast lenses.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Agree, that's why I went for a 50D for digital recently since it doesn't go deep into my wallet and it is fast. I somehow found thatspeed is not an issue for the9-point focusing system, however, the coverage on 5D is pathetic especially if you compare with a 1-series body... I'll be sure to get the 1D IV if it's overall better than the D3, and probably my 1V-HS will retire soon after

[kmackins]

I am shocked that Canon hasn't gone FF with the 1D. Afterall, it would force people to buy a 400mm or 500mm lens when they have been getting away with a 300mm x the crop factor!


Dear Canon, please make the 1D Mark IV FF! I promise that I will buy one!

[Jon Ruyle]

Me, too. If it is full frame and not substantially more expensive than the 1D III, I want it. But then, I'm not the target market

[Bob]

They have, it is called a 1Ds, otherwise the 1D and the 1Ds would be redundant.

[Jon Ruyle]

They have, it is called a 1Ds, otherwise the 1D and the 1Ds would be redundant.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I thought the idea was that the 1D would have lower resolution. 1D and 1Ds would be more like the Nikon D3 and D3x. Hopefully with a similar price ratio...


Nikon has shown that it is possible to make a full frame camera with a pro body that doesn't cost $6000...