Reading mode: Light Dark

New Canon Lenses in the near future?

Go to last post
I own both the 400 2.8L and the 400 DO so how in heck is that a trade off? So isnt that the best? hmmm getting confused myself..





--

Tread lightly and carry a Long Range Gun..! Serious case of 'L' Fever Canon Equipment in Profile
 
New..? There already opened and used.. I have no new lenses at the moment.. I need a NEW Lens tho.. The EF200 f/1.8L IS USM.. Now that would be new to me.. Cheers, Jerry
--

Tread lightly and carry a Long Range Gun..! Serious case of 'L' Fever Canon Equipment in Profile
 
So? Most of the great pictures in history were take with slow lenses and no autofocus.

It's a non issue if you understand the basics of photography and want the best possible image.

--
---

'I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated.'
-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
 
PeaceFrog said:
Of course the Z and L lenses are relatively slow and lack AF.
Click to expand...
.........I'm not convinced that manual focus is that much of a compromise for a wide angle prime. Aren't the three tilt shift lenses MF only? My only experience with this is with my 28/2.8 Zeiss and it's at infinity if the subject is more than maybe 8 ft(?) away anyway. Also, for close up use, the 5D's viewfinder makes focusing quite easy unless there's too little contrast in the subject or if the light is dim. If you're not in a big hurry, focus and aperture bracketing is a good way to insure that you get the shot as well.

BTW.......the 28/2.8 Distagon is a tremendous value. They go for about $200 to $300 on Ebay. The 21 mm Zeiss is a much better choice for those who can afford it but that's at about 10x the cost!
 
........shooting his Sony in his office and posting the results here.
 
Well if the optical quality is really good, I should be interested by such a lens.
--
I love the crop factor at the long end, I hate it in the wide range
 
I have seen reviews which state that the 24/1.4 will better all of the zooms from at least f/4 and wider. Not suprising. Distortion is of course better controlled with the prime than any of the zooms, but I agree that if you only shoot landscape photography then a zoom will be much more flexible and will probably give indistinguishable results when both are stopped down. Regarding lens flare, the 17-40 is more resistant than the 16-35. The 24/1.4L does have a huge front element, but it also has a hood designed exclusively for 24mm coverage.

--
Stu.
 
The BulbMogul said:
I own both the 400 2.8L and the 400 DO so how in heck is that a
trade off? So isnt that the best? hmmm getting confused myself..
Click to expand...
No it isn't the best. If you already have the 400/2.8, you don't need the 400/4 DO since the L is better. And you claimed to only buy the best, remember.
 
Oh i can guarentee you another body is just a B&H Phone call away. I am going to buy a 2nd one, however i really want to wait until september if ican to see what happens with the 1Ds Mk2 as i surely dont want the old model if a new one is in the make. Your right..That Sony Cybershot has to GO..! Its a 3.2MP and over 5 years old.. I have another Sony Cybershot thats a 8.2 I bought last year and i have not even opened the box yet. I wonder how much a loss i will take selling it on ebay?
--

Tread lightly and carry a Long Range Gun..! Serious case of 'L' Fever Canon Equipment in Profile
 
I'm looking forward to some great pictures. :)

Rich
 
Actually I need them both and the 300 2.8 to boot. Also the 5 and 6 hundred in DO would be great also to be bagging..



Boy the 300 2.8 and the 400 DO are almost identical except for a green band vrs a red band..
--

Tread lightly and carry a Long Range Gun..! Serious case of 'L' Fever Canon Equipment in Profile
 
The BulbMogul said:
Actually I need them both and the 300 2.8 to boot. Also the 5 and 6
hundred in DO would be great also to be bagging..
Click to expand...
You need the slower and cheapo model of the 400/2.8? So you do buy lesser, slower and cheaper equipment on purpose.
Err. but you also said:
Fret you are most ascertaneously correct. I would NOT and i will
repeat myself, would not by the Cheapo model of nothing. Hope you
caught my drift. Slower =Cheaper...
--
Click to expand...
You are even more confused than I thought.
The BulbMogul said:
Boy the 300 2.8 and the 400 DO are almost identical except for a
green band vrs a red band..
Click to expand...
I know. I've worked with all of them remember.
The BulbMogul said:
Its a 3.2MP and over 5 years old.. I have another Sony Cybershot thats > a 8.2 I bought last year and i have not even opened the box yet.
I wonder how much a loss i will take selling it on ebay?
Click to expand...
Why wonder about the couple of hundreds bucks you'll lose when you put it in the perspective of the amount of money that you have. You're such an economizer!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top