Guys, I've got a funny feeling...

[cwphoto]

...that there are more products to come over the next few days:

EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM
EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
EOS-1Ds Mark II N

What are your thoughts?

[cdifoto]

I don't know what specifically but I do agree that there has to be more than the 3 items listed so far.

[timmciglobal]

If the 18-200 IS costs less then 1200$ I'll chuckle alot :p

Tim

[cwphoto]

If the 18-200 IS costs less then 1200$ I'll chuckle alot :p

Tim

All I can say is f/2.8...

[cwphoto]

I reckon there's also room for a 6.3MP EOS 3000D too.

[TheObiJuan]

I certainly hope for more to come out. A nice wideangle FF prime so I can take advantage of sharp edges on a 1.6.

We are living in exciting times... :D

[coldrain]

All I can say is f/2.8...
All I can add is two UD elements... 2 APO elements... and a lot less distortion than a 18-200.

[cwphoto]

All I can add is two UD elements... 2 APO elements... and a lot less distortion than a 18-200.

Tim, you sure you ain't a little bit envious of the new 17-55mm f/2.8? Your awfully hostile about this puppy; buyer's remorse on the 24-105mm maybe?:p

[coldrain]

I don't know why Canon would introduce items on separate days in one month... So I am not sure we will see more during the PMA.

But at least one photo of the "3XD" was not fake, and it did not have a 30D attached to that 85mm f1.2 L USM II.
I have only seen nonsense rumors about a 3000D, and I do not know why they would ax the 300D to only replace it with an inferior 3000D.

What would be cool is for Canon to replace the 16-35mm f2.8 L... and give that 17-35mm f2.8 from Nikon some competition.

Canon Spain DID mention there would be 70 new products over all ranges...

[TheObiJuan]

What would be cool is for Canon to replace the 16-35mm f2.8 L... and give that 17-35mm f2.8 from Nikon some competition.

No joke, it's about time..

[cwphoto]

No joke, it's about time..

The 16-35mm gets a bad rap for some goddam reason, it's not like the Nikon isn't without issues either - more pin-cushion and barrell distortion for starters...

[timmciglobal]

No, annoyance over the idiotic "2.8" obsession.

Let me explain this as plain as white walls to you guys...

IS IT NOT FOR PEOPLE.

F2.8 is NOT FOR LANDSCAPES.

WIDE ANGEL has less USE OF IS then TELEPHOTO

INFERIOR BUILD QUALITY AND ERGONOMICS > IMPROVED BUILD QUALITY AND EGONOMICS.

What does this give you? Is F 8 reflector with high image quality good for 10,000$? No. Is a 17-50 F2.8 consumer lens good for 1200? No.

The 24-105 factors into it but not where you think. The 24-105 is built VERY VERY well, it focuses very fast and has very high image quality @f4. Now the "new" lens which could feesibly replace my 17-40 is.... what? I don't have IS on my 17-40. I've never once said "Damn if only I had IS on this" so that adds nothing. Now for only DOUBLE the price I gain... f2.8.... but lose build quality.

Does build quality matter? Ironic since so many preach the 'don't buy the xt buy the 20d (or 30d now) because of the build quality.

Sorry, yes it annoies me that so many are flocking to this over a MTF chart and "is"

I'll change my tune if it hits stores for 600>700 but at 1200 it's a ripoff and paramount to blackmail from canon for a far inferior quality product to what they should be offering.

Tim

[timmciglobal]

Oh and need I point out the MTF's for the nikon 18-200 were VERY VERY good.

I'm going to be dollars to donuts this doesn't have an L for a reason and it isn't that it's EF-s.

Tim

[coldrain]

You are being unreasonable, you are on purpose skipping the optical elements arguement. The Nikon DX 17-55 is one of their best zoom lenses, and loved by most owners for a REASON.

And if this EF-S 17-55 will deliver "L" quality and sharpness (and it just might, if you consider what elements Canon put into it) it will be a hit, regardless of that a red ring and such is missing.

It is all about optical quality (which most of the time does come at a price) and you refuse to even consider that.

[cdifoto]

Tim,

Just because YOU think telephoto is more useful than wide angle, just because YOU think IS is useless on a wide angle, just because YOU think f/2.8 is useless...


...doesn't make it so.


Chill out man.


If you want, I can get some old steel pipe and put a couple coke bottle bottoms in it, paint a red ring around the end of it, and sell it to you for a grand. Based on your posts, that should make you happy. Build quality would be excellent. As for optics, well...you don't seem to care.

[cwphoto]

No, annoyance over the idiotic "2.8" obsession.

Let me explain this as plain as white walls to you guys...

IS IT NOT FOR PEOPLE.

F2.8 is NOT FOR LANDSCAPES.

WIDE ANGEL has less USE OF IS then TELEPHOTO

INFERIOR BUILD QUALITY AND ERGONOMICS > IMPROVED BUILD QUALITY AND EGONOMICS.

What does this give you? Is F 8 reflector with high image quality good for 10,000$? No. Is a 17-50 F2.8 consumer lens good for 1200? No.

The 24-105 factors into it but not where you think. The 24-105 is built VERY VERY well, it focuses very fast and has very high image quality @f4. Now the "new" lens which could feesibly replace my 17-40 is.... what? I don't have IS on my 17-40. I've never once said "Damn if only I had IS on this" so that adds nothing. Now for only DOUBLE the price I gain... f2.8.... but lose build quality.

Does build quality matter? Ironic since so many preach the 'don't buy the xt buy the 20d (or 30d now) because of the build quality.

Sorry, yes it annoies me that so many are flocking to this over a MTF chart and "is"

I'll change my tune if it hits stores for 600>700 but at 1200 it's a ripoff and paramount to blackmail from canon for a far inferior quality product to what they should be offering.

Tim

IS has tremendous applications for photographing people - we had this conversation already in another thread.

f/2.8 gives you more options over f/4.

Your 17-40 L example is a valid argument, however I can imagine many people would prefer the extra reach in the one lens + IS + f/2.8. Granted the 17-40 has the pro build, but optically they will probably be close - who knows?

Hey, no-one's pointing a gun to your head to buy it Tim. You've got a good set-up already and for your work it's obviously not the answer, but make no mistake this will be a VERY popular lens and will sell better than the 24-105mm L IMO.

[coldrain]

If you want, I can get some old steel pipe and put a couple coke bottle bottoms in it, paint a red ring around the end of it, and sell it to you for a grand. Based on your posts, that should make you happy. Build quality would be excellent. As for optics, well...you don't seem to care.
Do you do fanta bottle bottoms too? I think the colour cast would be more agreeable....:D

[timmciglobal]

I don't think F2.8 is useless.

If this lens ends up "L" quality optics threw and threw and drops in price I'll call it a smash.

The price point though still bothers me and on other forums many are questioning the value of a 1200$ "is" wide lens.

Tim

[timmciglobal]

As far as selling better I doubt it, as far as making more money I'm sure of it. It's gotta cost alot less to produce.

Tim

[cwphoto]

As far as selling better I doubt it.

Tim

We'll see, I reckon the 17-55mm has wider appeal:

1) IS
2) f/2.8
3) more useable range (ie; FF equivalent of 28-90mm)

against:
4) limited market (only EF-S)
5) it's not an L

It will be an interesting battle...

[timmciglobal]

Your comparing it to the L which also has IS.

As far as F2.8, it'll depend how it is wide open. As far as the range, it'll depend on what you want/need. As a walk around lens it doesn't make it for me, either does 24-105 on Crop. I'm more of a zoom then a wide person so given choice of less zoom more wide or more zoom less wide I'll take 38>170 over 28>80 but idealy I'd like 28>170.

We'll see how the optical quality is, so far all there is is a F6.3 stoped down shot to look at.

Tim

[cwphoto]

Your comparing it to the L which also has IS.
Tim

You're right, overlooked that.

[aparmley]

I think you should cut Tim some slack. I think he was simply stating why he isn't so excited about the lens. He makes a very good arguement - but we all must understand that this arguement is for his bag - why it isn't all that important to how he would intend to use it. Having a wide angle at 2.8 when shooting landscapes etc isn't really a must have. I see that point as clear as white walls Tim. Tim you could have also stated that for someone who plans to get creative with this lens shooting people that they may like the extra choice of throwing a distractive backgrounf out of focus. . . The point about IS being more useful on a telephoto lens is very valid - doesn't mean that people couldn't use it on a wider zoom - I could have benefited greatly from this lens back in December shooting my GF's new nephew - 1/30 to 1/60 @ ISO 1600 at 2.0 on my 35 and 50, could have used IS ofcourse it would have been something more like 1/8-1/15 at ISO 1600 but I bet I could have gotten equally as sharp of pictures with IS just seeing what jamie did at 1/40 with his images.

Point is that Tim made some very valid points supporting his viewpoint. I believed this to be seperate from him saying that this lens is going to suck in sales and anyone who buys it, especially you Don, is a bafoon! :D j/k

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you guys are just giving him a little harder of a time than he deserves.

[timmciglobal]

I think jamison is an idiot for not laughing at my picture of the box I took for taunting him!

He can buy the lens though, I'll take the 24-70L off his hands :p

Tim

[aparmley]

Oh yea. . . back to the OP - I agree Christian. Theres gotta be a little something along the lines of and one more thing. . . "heres the new. . . " 50 or entry level DSLR or update to this or that or the other thing. . . I think there will be something else. . . . 2 new high end printers, 2 new expensive lenses, 1 new mid range DSLR - theres gotta be something else. . .

[jamison55]

I think jamison is an idiot for not laughing at my picture of the box I took for taunting him!

He can buy the lens though, I'll take the 24-70L off his hands :p

Tim

LOL, I may be an idiot ;) but I'll see your 1/15 flash shot and raise it a 1/8 no flash at 135mm (70-200 IS):

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/jamiewexler/sm0221079.jpg

[TheObiJuan]

The 16-35mm gets a bad rap for some goddam reason, it's not like the Nikon isn't without issues either - more pin-cushion and barrell distortion for starters...

On a 20D the lens is great, it isnt super sharp wide open, but what AF WA lenses are?
It would be revolutionary to have a sharp, fast widezoom.

I almost purchased the 16-35, but after using it enough I decided agianst it. The 2.8 was not necessary for me at that focal length and the sharpness was not outstanding. I suppose I could have just used it at f/4 since I didn't need the f/2.8 and enjoy being stopped down. :p
That being said, it sure is awfully nice to have the OPTION of using f/2.8 when light is getting low or wanting less DOF.

[cwphoto]

LOL, I may be an idiot ;) but I'll see your 1/15 flash shot and raise it a 1/8 no flash at 135mm (70-200 IS):


Trumped! (show-off)...

[timmciglobal]

Pfft, my wide angels only 39 counting crop don't make me beak out the 1/4 second shots!

I'll do it! Even if it takes me all night!

Then you'll buy the the 17-50IS and make a 1/2 second shot :p

Tim

[sherlock]

Then you'll buy the the 17-50IS and make a 1/2 second shot :p

You keep saying 17-50 IS...isn't it 17-55? Am I missing something?

[aparmley]

You keep saying 17-50 IS...isn't it 17-55? Am I missing something?

Yes. Tim drinks, heavily at times, its best to agree and move on! Otherwise he'll bounce that beer mug right off your forehead! :D

[timmciglobal]

Fine I'm now going to say "the K lens" It's a consumer lens that thinks its an L but secretly knows it's not.

:p

Tim

[sherlock]

Yes. Tim drinks, heavily at times, its best to agree and move on! Otherwise he'll bounce that beer mug right off your forehead! :D

Oh, my bad! :D Not that I'd know anything about beer...:p