Actually, I think that would be an EF10-600mm IS f/2L MacroOriginally Posted by Raid
Actually, I think that would be an EF10-600mm IS f/2L Macro
5DS R, 1D X, 7D, Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, 24mm f/1.4L II, 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.8, 100mm Macro f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L, 580EX-II
flickr
You forgot the bit about it having its own tripod and gyro motors, so it can automatically track a bird and fire the shutter with no need to press a pesky button or anything.Actually, I think that would be an EF10-600mm IS f/2L Macro
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
Gear Photos
That's exactly what I was thinking. Those who did not want to see a 24-70 with IS said "well, be careful what you wish for... a 24-70 IS would probably be, like, over two thousand dollars!"
So it looks like we're getting a 24-70 with the IS price, just without the IS.
Yes, the IQ had better be good.
I'm not a Canon basher- really, I 'm not. I love my canon lenses. But I'm with you: recent announcements have not been particularly exciting.
Another perspective...
Looking forward to a new 24-70 2.8ii
Willing to pay extra for a zoom that is sealed and doesn't extend (worth at least $300 to me)
Willing to pay for 14% less weight (worth at least $300 to me)
Willing to pay for the additional IQ if it is as noticeable as the 70-200 2.8 v2 compared to v1 (worth $300-$500 to me)
After turning the IS off on my 24-105 and spending some time shooting what I would use the 24-70 for, realized that IS is not really a decision factor for me at this focal range. I am looking forward to these shots at much lower ISO!! (my 5 year old jumping off the couch, doing cartwheels through the living room, etc.)
I am looking forward to my new lens!
Well, you're apparently looking forward to overpaying by $300, then.
The 24-70mm f/2.8L II is an extending zoom lens, similar to the MkI. Similar, but not the same - the 24-70 II extends as the focal length increases, just like the 24-105 (and most extending zooms). The original 24-70 has reverse zoom design, meaning that deep lens hood was just as effective at the long end as at the wide end. Not so for the MkII, where the hood will be effective primarily at the wide end.
I believe the 24-70 f2.8 II would be an outstanding lens, IS or no IS. If you look at the trend of L lenses that Canon have been delivering lately, I can almost smell a performance close to the 70-200 II. What hurts me is the price, i think it should be competing with the Nikon version which happens to be about $1700.
Well maybe the street price will settle down to 1700 or less after the initial excitement. I am however looking forward to the reviews, if the price falls like i hope, I will be replaceing my Mark I.
When pigs fly.....
Originally Posted by dj 7th
Well maybe the street price will settle down to 1700 or less after the initial excitement.
When pigs fly.....
Then, I guess you won't be replacing your Mark I.
So, this means that the hood is attached to the red ring area in your picture, and doesn't move with the extending part of the lens? How silly is that!? This would seem to imply that you have the least amount of hood when you want the most, and vice versa. Is this true?Well, you're apparently looking forward to overpaying by $300, then.
The 24-70mm f/2.8L II is an extending zoom lens, similar to the MkI. Similar, but not the same - the 24-70 II extends as the focal length increases, just like the 24-105 (and most extending zooms). The original 24-70 has reverse zoom design, meaning that deep lens hood was just as effective at the long end as at the wide end. Not so for the MkII, where the hood will be effective primarily at the wide end.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
