Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 68
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Ultimate sports photography/indoor zoom lens?

    http://www.photohobby.net/webboard/d...?topicid=13406

    80-200mm F/1.4 G SSM!
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,421
    Quote Originally Posted by laydros View Post
    with the introduction of the 80-400 they really offer a great pro-level set of zooms, which is really want a lot of pros use.
    ?? the 80-400 is not really a pro lens. no serious pro i know uses 80-400 f5.6 zooms with mediocre quality.

    Quote Originally Posted by dr4gon View Post
    Ultimate sports photography/indoor zoom lens?

    http://www.photohobby.net/webboard/d...?topicid=13406

    80-200mm F/1.4 G SSM!
    this on the other hand...WOW ! is this real or a fake ? thats insane !
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    me thinks it is fake. even if it is real.....i'll never be able to afford it
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Red face Let's get real!

    Well, the "biggest" aspect that simply makes this effectively impossible, is front-element size. Doing the basic math, which I know I have shared many times with you folks, you get:

    200mm / f/1.4 = 143mm That is friggin' enormous. It would be three-quarters as wide as it is long!

    This so-called adver-teasement says "105mm" filter size ... BUZZ! Not in this life time, unless they have developed some kind of natural "light spectrum enhancement" technology in the lens. Also ... in-the-lens-stabilization? C'mon! This is a G-whiz fantasy lens ... and nothing more.

    Had someone done the homework and said it had a 150mm-filter ... you could have bought into it ... 105mm? -> Uh, nope. The longest focal length you could squeeze out of a lens with a 105mm-filter, with f/1.4 base aperture, would be around 145mm ... not 200mm!

    Let's talk about weight for this, for a second ... if it were a 200mm f/1.4 PRIME ... it would weigh nearly 12lbs (extremely similar to the 600mm f/4, only stumpier. That lens has a 160mm front-element and that is precisely where most of the lens weight is located.).

    Name:  minolta600mmf4apoG.jpg
Views: 69
Size:  14.9 KB

    Add zooming between 80-200mm ... you could probably add another pound or two (call it 6500 grams). That's a far cry from adver-teased 1080g! OMG ... they wish! Maybe they filled it with Hydrogen ... LOL I tell you, you put 14-lbs on the front of your camera mount ... it's going to be gone w/o some kind of kick-butt tripod support! Most tripods and tripod heads are only rated to 8-10 lbs max!

    You would also need a new way to use the focal-assist-lamp, in the camera body, because this lens would totally block it.

    And that's all she wrote, folks.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 04-29-2009 at 10:45 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Everyone's trying to figure out that math. I think it's fake, but the pictures give it a lot of credibility, looks very nice. Interesting that it's white since that G concept they showed off at PMA 2009 was a hunk of silver.

    edit:

    it's fake,

    http://www.alphadxd.fr/viewtopic.php...2964e&start=64

    That explains the shininess!
    Last edited by dr4gon; 04-29-2009 at 05:52 PM.
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    ?? the 80-400 is not really a pro lens. no serious pro i know uses 80-400 f5.6 zooms with mediocre quality.
    I think on Canon a pretty common pro set is 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 + something long like the 100-400L. I was more referring to the fact that the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 f/2.9 are all available now, and by most accounts, very good glass. The 80-400 is just an extra on top, and is more or less pro-level glass. For most serious telephoto stuff (sports/wildlife) people will use telephoto primes, but for a long zoom, the 80-400 is pretty nice.
    Jason Hamilton
    Selective Frame

    EOS 5D - Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 35 f/2, EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II, EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 (with EOS adapter), 430EX, Canon S90
    Nikon FE - Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI'd, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI, F to EF adapter, 2xVivitar 285, other lighting stuff
    Mamiya C220 - 80mm f/2.8

    Gear List flickr

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,421
    Quote Originally Posted by laydros View Post
    I think on Canon a pretty common pro set is 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 + something long like the 100-400L.
    i think we may be talking about different interpretations of the word "pro". by pro i mean someone who professionally takes photographs with those lens'. ie: they do it for their sole and only income. i cant imagine any pros showing up to an event with an 80-400 f5.6 zoom. they are more likely to be shooting a 300/2.8+.

    sure there may be the odd guy using a 100-400 but its certainly not the norm.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    92
    On vacation I met a photographer named Don Getty. He would set up around the hotel and take photos of the birds and wildlife that were all around the pool area. The only lens I saw him use was a Canon EF 500 f4 with an EF 1.4 extension that was attached to a Canon 1D mkIII. You can go to his web site at www.dongettyphoto.com to see his work. I guess under that definition he is not a professional, just another amateur imitating a professional. Looking at his web site though I beg to differ.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    Canon EF 500 f4 would definitely be considered a pro lens. don't think the 500mm would come with anything less than a F4 unless it cost quadruple of what the F4 costs.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,421
    Quote Originally Posted by dbatapbr View Post
    On vacation I met a photographer named Don Getty. He would set up around the hotel and take photos of the birds and wildlife that were all around the pool area. The only lens I saw him use was a Canon EF 500 f4 with an EF 1.4 extension that was attached to a Canon 1D mkIII. You can go to his web site at www.dongettyphoto.com to see his work. I guess under that definition he is not a professional, just another amateur imitating a professional. Looking at his web site though I beg to differ.
    dont be so foolish. a $6k 500/4 PRIME is vastly different than a $1.5k 100-400 ZOOM lens. please, if you're going to respond to a point i make pls try and know what you're talking about.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

Posting Permissions

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