Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: 300mm f/2!

  1. #11

    Re: 300mm f/2!



    hey jon, i beg to differ on that quote of yours "I could readily believe that if canon made a 300 f/2 today it would easily be their most expensive current lens.".. lol


    look at this.



  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    113

    Re: 300mm f/2!



    That lens isn't a currentlens

  3. #13

    Re: 300mm f/2!



    not current but certainly the most expensive on the canon line

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    B'ham WA
    Posts
    940

    Re: 300mm f/2!



    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Browning


    Looks like a neat lens. It would probably go well with the Carl Zeiss 150mm f/1.2 (not a typo):



    <div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>




    Could you repost that link to the lens, it seems to be broken and I never got to see it. I can't find it on google.


    John.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,956

    Re: 300mm f/2!



    You can read about it in the ARRI Master Prime PDF catalog from their web site, but there's no pictures. You might try searching Google Images for one.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,156

    Re: 300mm f/2!



    Quote Originally Posted by trosky


    hey jon, i beg to differ on that quote of yours "I could readily believe that if canon made a 300 f/2 today it would easily be their most expensive current lens.".. lol
    <div style="clear: both;"]</div>


    300 f/2 indicates a 150mm effective aperture. The 1200mm f/5.6 indicates a 215mm effective aperture. Let's look at the current white lenses:


    200/2 = 100mm EA (200/2.8 = 72mm)


    300/2.8 = 108mm EA (300/4 = 75mm)


    400/2.8 = 143mm EA (400/4 = 100mm; 400/5.6 = 72mm)


    500/4 = 125mm EA


    600/4 = 150mm EA


    800/5.6 = 143mm EA


    300/2 would be pricey, but not in the league of the 1200/5.6; probably on the order of the 400/2.8 or a smidge above.
    We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    B'ham WA
    Posts
    940

    Re: 300mm f/2!



    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Browning


    Carl Zeiss 150mm f/1.2 (not a typo):




    Actually it's a150mm f/1.3 and it's made in collaboration with Zeiss and ARRI.Here is the link http://www.arri.de/camera/lenses/35_format_lenses/master_primes.html#_blank.


    There are 14 lenses all with f/1.3 apeture, from 14mm to 150mm. They are suposed tohave incredible image quality.


    John.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,956

    Re: 300mm f/2!



    Quote Originally Posted by Fast Glass


    Actually it's a150mm f/1.3


    Only the "T-stop" is 1.3; the "F-stop" is 1.2.


    A T-stop tells you the transmissivity of the lens. Some light is lost as it reflects off the lens elements, so a 20-element f/2.8 lens is much dimmer than a 7 element f/2.8 lens. If there were no loss in transmissivity, the t-stop and f-stop would be the same, but in practice they are slightly different.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    B'ham WA
    Posts
    940

    Re: 300mm f/2!



    Thats interesting, I new that there was some light loss because of reflections in the lens. But I didn't know that they actually made a measurement for it.


    Thanks for the correction,


    John.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    327

    Re: 300mm f/2!



    But those are cinematography lenses--they cast image circles that are significantly smaller than what is needed for a 36x24mm sensor. And even then, with the smaller format requirement, the 150/1.2 weighs 8.8 pounds! I think it's safe to say that if Canon ever made such a design for a full-frame 35mm camera, and included USM and IS, it would weigh a lot more....


    It's easier to design lenses for smaller formats. You need less glass; more specifically, you can get away with smaller glass.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •