News For camera nerds only

[old.user4556]

Didn't see Cal's post before I posted (couldn't edit either), but it seems we agree.

 

[old.user4556]

Much difference between the mkI and mkII? mkI seems to be about half the price or less...

The Mk2 is only just out, but early reports seem very favourable.

 

[caLLous]

Much difference between the mkI and mkII? mkI seems to be about half the price or less...

Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L Version 1 vs Version 2

New optics, more bits of glass in the same amount of groups. Lighter body, better sharpness and chromatic aberration (apparently). Still no IS though. Some side by side comparison here.

 

[old.user4556]

Cal, I read an interesting comment that the size / optics are very similar to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 that we have. Lends credence that the 17-55 f/2.8 is almost L quality .

 

[caLLous]

Yeah, I'm sure I saw somewhere that Canon really wanted to put a red ring around it but they had basically promised themselves that they wouldn't make any L lenses in the EF-S format.

 

[old.user4556]

Money no object, I'd have:

- 16-35mm L f/2.8 II
- 24-70mm L f/2.8 II
- 70-200mm L f/2.8 II
- 24mm L TS-E II

That's about £5500 though.

 

[old.user4556]

Yeah, I'm sure I saw somewhere that Canon really wanted to put a red ring around it but they had basically promised themselves that they wouldn't make any L lenses in the EF-S format.

Which is a shame, as Pentax and Olympus cater for the APS-C weather sealed market and I wish Canon would do the same . Maybe there's no demand, or maybe it would pinch sales from their other L lenses.

 

[caLLous]

I would be all over that 200-400mm f4 like a rash. If I went full frame it would be fantabulous for sports. I already have the 70-200 f2.8 but... money no object you say? I guess an upgrade to the mk2 wouldn't hurt.

If money was *really* no object there's about 6 primes that I would quite fancy. The EF 85mm f1.2L for a start.

 

[old.user4556]

Why do we lust after such items?

... and yes, that 200-400mm looks frikking awesome.

 

[old.user4556]

... and how could I forget about the 24mm L f/1.4 II

 

[Wazzerphuk]

24-105 looks appealing for sure at that price.

If I did get that I would probably want something with say ~f1.8/2.8 as well though...

 

[old.user4556]

At what focal length?

You've got the 16-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm all at f/2.8.

If you want faster apertures than f/2.8 then you're into primes.

 

[caLLous]

Hope this or this help, Wazz.

 

[old.user4556]

Those prices, my eyes, MY EYES.

 

[TdC]

lol you can get 4 Xpro 1's for that. hook em together and take wtf uber pics

 

[Wazzerphuk]

At what focal length?

You've got the 16-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm all at f/2.8.

If you want faster apertures than f/2.8 then you're into primes.

24-70 really. Which means I either get the mkII, or I get the mkI and get both, but I can't help feeling that'd be a waste and I'd only really use one.

Hope this or this help, Wazz.

Lol, fuck you

 

[Clown]

What camera are you getting?

 

[caLLous]

24-70 really. Which means I either get the mkII, or I get the mkI and get both, but I can't help feeling that'd be a waste and I'd only really use one.

If you get the EF 24-105mm f4L IS and the EF 24-70mm f2.8L that is a *lot* of duplication of focal length, better off with just the new 24-70mm f2.8L II imo (even though you don't get IS) and then figure something else out for focal lengths >70mm. The 70-200mm f4L IS or 70-200mm f2.8L IS II for example.

 

[old.user4556]

Just thinking wazz, the best thing to do would be to hire a couple of lenses in your scope and see what works best for you?

http://www.lenspimp.com/

 

[Wazzerphuk]

What camera are you getting?

5d3/x, depending on what they are/cost on release.

Lens rental is a decent idea but hella expensive. The 24-70mkII is tempting but 2k and no IS is a bit... shit.

 

[old.user4556]

Yeah, not sure why they skipped on IS but tbh unless you're shooting in lower light and down at 1/50th of a sec then it's not the end of the world. Just crank up ISO.

 

[old.user4556]

Is the wait over?

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/announcement-soon-cr3/

 

[old.user4556]

Wazz, are you serious about a 5D X / Mk3?

You do realise I will demand RAWs, lots of RAWs.....

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Yes I'm serious. I can't continue with a 300D. As I said to Clown the other day it's a fair bit of whack for someone like me, but I can't see myself buying another camera for at least a decade after I make this purchase so I might as well spend a little more and have new tech that'll last me and not frustrate.

RAWTASTIC

 

[old.user4556]

That makes sense, the full frame bodies seem to last longer in their product lifecycle where as the APS-C models seem to change every 1 to 2 years.

A 5D Mk1 will still set you back a good £600 or so and that's seven years old now.

 

[Clown]

I'm getting one too!

 

[caLLous]

I hope I am too, not til the Summer though probably. Bear in mind all your EF lenses will be "shorter" on a full frame body, Wazzles.

 

[old.user4556]

Some other camera news.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/02/21/canon-patent-details-18-45mm-kit-lens-for-mirrorless-camera/

 

[old.user4556]

I'll be left behind in the land of APS-C

I could be tempted, I have two EF lenses and could sell all my other kit and be able to replace at least one lens, but I have two requirements of this new camera:

1) 14 stops of DR
2) absolutely no banding in base ISO

If it falls short of those, I'm staying put. Sony have already pulled 14 stops of DR out the bag for APS-C and I would expect Canon to be able to do the same.

 

[caLLous]

It's by no means certain that I will be going FF, but I would certainly like to upgrade from the 50D and FF seems the logical progression. It's just all about the money, or lack thereof.