Pick your top three choices...

Can't say I'm adverse to the lens myself. So, what are you willing
to pay? I'd say we're looking at $1500 at a minimum, probably more
like $1800-$2100, given that the 85 / 1.2L non-IS is $2100.
I'd pay $1500-$2000 for a 1.4L and $1000 for an 85/1.8IS (non-L but with the optics and build of the current 85/1.8).

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
  1. 10 is by far the top choice in my BAGGING of L Guns.. $5000.00 would be a great deal..!
--

Tread lightly and carry a Long Range Gun..! Serious case of 'L' Fever Canon Equipment in Profile
 
I'd pay $1500-$2000 for a 1.4L and $1000 for an 85/1.8IS (non-L but
with the optics and build of the current 85/1.8).
...you're pretty much on the money with both. However, I think $1000 might even be a bit steep for adding IS to the current 85 / 1.8 -- $700 is more about right.

I'd still rather a 70 / 2L IS macro for $1200, though.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 
  1. 10 is by far the top choice in my BAGGING of L Guns.. $5000.00
would be a great deal..!
I think your price is in-line here. Also, I have a feeling that lens is coming very soon. It just doesn't make sense not to have it with the 200 / 1.8L discontinued and Nikon introducing their 200 / 2 VR. With all the rumors about new Ls from Canon, it's hard to think they wouldn't have this.

That is, after I get my 50 / 1.2L. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 
Do you know how much the Zeiss Distagon 21mm went for when it was still in production? I think I'd be willing to pay $2000 for a new Zeiss ZF or Canon L 21mm lens.
 
Well ofcoarse Iwould take a EF50mm 1.2L also as that is a no brainer..! But the 200 would be my top pick..How much you think a 50 1.2L would be? $2000.00 or less? Jerry
--

Tread lightly and carry a Long Range Gun..! Serious case of 'L' Fever Canon Equipment in Profile
 
but also
100 2.8 IS Macro (Nikon does it)
24 1.4 L IS (!) or 50 1.4 L IS (!)
16-50 (not 35, at least 40) 2.8 L IS !
but also a new version of 300 4 L IS (with 2nd generation IS)...
and, yes, the 400 5.6 L IS
and, not so expensive, why not a BLACK 70-200 2.8 (or 4) L IS ?

Oh yes, I'd also like to be rich. I mean rich, you know ?

Ah ! All (full) EF, of course.

--
Raoul
 
I'd pay $1500-$2000 for a 1.4L and $1000 for an 85/1.8IS (non-L but
with the optics and build of the current 85/1.8).
...you're pretty much on the money with both. However, I think
$1000 might even be a bit steep for adding IS to the current 85 /
1.8 -- $700 is more about right.

I'd still rather a 70 / 2L IS macro for $1200, though.
Than an 85/1.8IS for $700? I'd be on that in a second. Why would you pay $500 extra for a shorter, slower lens?

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Do you know how much the Zeiss Distagon 21mm went for when it was
still in production? I think I'd be willing to pay $2000 for a new
Zeiss ZF or Canon L 21mm lens.
Well the Leica Super Wide Angle 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit M Aspherical goes for 3,395.00 today at B&H.

So 2000 or more wouldn't be unexpected.

--
---

'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/
 
I'd still rather a 70 / 2L IS macro for $1200, though.
Than an 85/1.8IS for $700? I'd be on that in a second. Why would
you pay $500 extra for a shorter, slower lens?
'Cause I'm gettin' my 50 / 1.2L and love my 100 / 2! : ) Sigma's coming out with a 70 / 2.8 macro at the end of this month (which means October), but, once again, there's no HSM. Why the hell not, Sigma?! Anyway, Canon has no primes at 70mm, which is odd, and I'd like one.

I'd take a 70 / 1.4L over a 70 / 2L IS macro, however, but I'd be happy with either.

Don't get me wrong, I'll take any of the 85s you mention. It's just that, if I had a choice, I'd take a 70 instead.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 
Well of coarse I would take a EF 50mm 1.2L also as that is a no
brainer..! But the 200 would be my top pick..How much you think a
50 1.2L would be? $2000.00 or less? Jerry
The 50 / 1.2L is strongly rumored to be coming soon with a price of $1300. It better be true! : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 
I'd still rather a 70 / 2L IS macro for $1200, though.
Than an 85/1.8IS for $700? I'd be on that in a second. Why would
you pay $500 extra for a shorter, slower lens?
'Cause I'm gettin' my 50 / 1.2L and love my 100 / 2! : )
I'm selling my 100/2 (it's on Fred Miranda right now) and I have no interest in a 50/1.2. I love the 35/1.4L and an 85 would be a good complement to that - not too close, not too far - on two different formats (20D and 5D).

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
100 2.8 IS Macro (Nikon does it)
I agree.
24 1.4 L IS (!) or 50 1.4 L IS (!)
Again, I agree, but I'd be happy with just the 24 / 1.4L II and 50 / 1.2L.
16-50 (not 35, at least 40) 2.8 L IS !
I love my 16-35 / 2.8L. That said, depending on the size, a 16-50 / 2.8L IS would be a welcome replacement if the IQ were the same and the size were not out of hand.
but also a new version of 300 4 L IS (with 2nd generation IS)...
I was impressed enough with the current 300 / 4L IS.
and, yes, the 400 5.6 L IS
A lot want this, for sure!
and, not so expensive, why not a BLACK 70-200 2.8 (or 4) L IS ?
I'd prefer black, too, but I'm over it. : )
Oh yes, I'd also like to be rich. I mean rich, you know ?
...with hot babes on every arm wanting nothing more in life but to make you happy. I know, I know. Life is cruel sometimes! : )
Ah ! All (full) EF, of course.
Of course! : )

As for the 24-85 / 2.8L IS -- depends on the size. But I might be willing.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 
I'm selling my 100/2 (it's on Fred Miranda right now) and I have no
interest in a 50/1.2.
The 100 / 2 is my most used lens -- ridiculously sharp wide open (the sharpest of all my lenses wide open) and a 50 / 1.2L is what I need !

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 
I'm selling my 100/2 (it's on Fred Miranda right now) and I have no
interest in a 50/1.2.
The 100 / 2 is my most used lens -- ridiculously sharp wide open
(the sharpest of all my lenses wide open) and a 50 / 1.2L is what I
need !
The 100/2 is great but it doesn't have IS and I really need IS in this range. I have the 70-200/2.8L IS to cover it but I'd also like a faster lens.

The 35/1.4L is a great wide prime on the 5D and a great normal on the 20D. It's just short enough that I don't need IS. So that's 35mm and 56mm in 35mm-equivalent FOV terms and then there's the 70-200/2.8L IS which starts at 70mm on the 5D. 35, 56, and 70-320 is close enough spacing for me. An 85 would go well in the prime set - 35, 56, 85, 136.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Well you can put me down for one of hte 50 1.2L also. When is the big announcement actually take place Joe? Is it yet this month or? I am getting really anxious for a few more to bag soon..
--

Tread lightly and carry a Long Range Gun..! Serious case of 'L' Fever Canon Equipment in Profile
 
The 100/2 is great but it doesn't have IS and I really need IS in
this range. I have the 70-200/2.8L IS to cover it but I'd also
like a faster lens.

The 35/1.4L is a great wide prime on the 5D and a great normal on
the 20D. It's just short enough that I don't need IS. So that's
35mm and 56mm in 35mm-equivalent FOV terms and then there's the
70-200/2.8L IS which starts at 70mm on the 5D. 35, 56, and 70-320
is close enough spacing for me. An 85 would go well in the prime
set - 35, 56, 85, 136.
After I got the 5D, I just can't go back to the 20D. Nothing bad about the 20D, but the 5D is what the doctor ordered.

Anyway, going with what you're saying, I'll still stick with my 50 / 1.2L and 70 / 2L IS macro, but how about we throw in a 100 / 1.4L IS macro? I could go for that!

Ah, to dream and spend money we don't have, eh? Well, at least I'm spending money I don't have! : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 
Well you can put me down for one of the 50 1.2L also. When is the
big announcement actually take place Joe? Is it yet this month or?
I am getting really anxious for a few more to bag soon..
It was expected to have been announced at the last Photokina when Canon unveiled their groundbreaking 85 / 1.2L II (that's sarcasm, just in case it snuck by). However, it is now assumed to be announced in September's PMA, but we shall see.

There are a lot of people asking for this lens, so I know it's gonna be a big hit, if made.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top