Anyone disappointed by today's releases?

Very disappointed, i was hopping new IS in 100-400L but seems like we will hang in limbo. As for now Canon only concern about deep pockets.

TGrundvig wrote in post #10799276
It is also pretty obvious to me that both are more concerned with bodies as of late. This new body to beat the other guy's new body.

Because they read these forums. They see that we all say glass over bodies and glass is forever bodies come and go. So they think that if we all keep our glass forever they might as well make us want "better" bodies.


As for upgrades, yes I agree. There are a bunch of older lenses I'd love to see upgraded. Not necessarily to L's but I'd love to see the consumer grade EF primes get a little better, of course without much price increase, since the prices seem to be going up all the time. I'd love a 17 f/4 prime like the FD one, an upgrade to the 20 2.8, the 24 2.8, the 35 2.0, the 50 1.8 and 1.4, and the 85 1.8. I wish they made the 15-85 an EF lens and dropped the price a bit. Or make it a 14-xx. They seem to only cater to the Ls and high end EF-s or really really cheap EF-s. I want more middle ground!

jmark252 wrote in post #10799329
I too am disappointed in the 60D.
I held on to my 40D through the release of the 50D and it looks like I'll be holding on to it for a while longer. As a mostly outdoor shooter, I still have my sites set on a 5D MkII / 7D combo. This seems to offer the best features of both sensor sizes in two fine cameras. The 60D has not changed my mind.

I'm in the same boat with my 40D and have changed my long range target to the 8D assuming it evolves logically from the 7D The 40D is suiting me fine right now.

twoshadows wrote in post #10798862
50mm f/1.4
400mm f/5.6
100-400 IS

These are just 3 lenses that are in bad need of an upgrade.

So what does Canon do? They "upgrade" what is arguably the best lens they make in the 300 f/2.8 IS along with other super teles.

Canon, if you are listening, you dropped the ball on this one. BIG TIME.

I agree , I really thought the 400mm 5.6 would be next . It's long over due and the one i've been wating for . But I think when they do upgrade it , it will be overpriced like this last batch of lens.

I dig the screen. I want one on all Canon bodies. It's like LiveView or Video. If you don't have a need for it, don't use it. No big deal. For those of us that shoot at varying heights other than standing straight up, this will come in handy, big time.

TGrundvig wrote in post #10799276
There are quite a few Sigma lenses that hang and/or exceed the Canon/Nikon equivalent.

i think that's debatable. even the revered sigma 50 1.4 suffers from lackluster focusing capabilities. even if it has an optical edge to the canon/nikon equivalents, i'd consider it an alternative in terms of strengths rather than a clearly superior lens in general.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #10799935
For those of us that shoot at varying heights other than standing straight up, this will come in handy, big time.

it's called lying down, crouching, bending your knees, getting on the tips of your toes, and climbing things to get the shot.

twoshadows wrote in post #10798862
50mm f/1.4
400mm f/5.6
100-400 IS

These are just 3 lenses that are in bad need of an upgrade.

So what does Canon do? They "upgrade" what is arguably the best lens they make in the 300 f/2.8 IS along with other super teles.

Canon, if you are listening, you dropped the ball on this one. BIG TIME.

Maybe it doesn't interest you but there are others that find the upgrade helpful.

twoshadows wrote in post #10798862
50mm f/1.4
400mm f/5.6
100-400 IS

Those are the top three lenses that I really was hoping would get new versions of this year.

ed rader wrote in post #10799318
name 'em.

ed rader

I wouldn't say quite a few, but the Sigma 50 1.4 and the Sigma 15 mm FE are both thought by many to be superior to the Canon counterpart.

This is what I was expecting.
updated 24-70
updated 400f5.6
updated 100-400

Todd Lambert wrote in post #10799935
I dig the screen. I want one on all Canon bodies. It's like LiveView or Video. If you don't have a need for it, don't use it. No big deal.

Eeek, keep that goofy stuff off the 1D line please. Don't even mention it. Considering Canon's track record of late they just might try pulling something like this with the upcoming 1Ds.

That thought gives me chills.

This isn't like video or live view. That screen has a great potential to be a real nuisance. You're stuck with what must be, in the very least, a structural weakness that doesn't go away by simply disabling it in the menus.

irishman wrote in post #10800482
I wouldn't say quite a few, but the Sigma 50 1.4 and the Sigma 15 mm FE are both thought by many to be superior to the Canon counterpart.

And thought by just as many to not be. MTF charts are not the be-all-end-all and many times sharpness isn't even the most important.

Dekka wrote in post #10800497
And thought by just as many to not be. MTF charts are not the be-all-end-all and many times sharpness isn't even the most important.

In what regards does the Canon 50mm f1.4 best the Sigma 50mm f1.4?

You're correct in saying that sharpness isn't the end all of a good lens, but you seem to be implying that the only thing Sigma is ever better at (if its better) is sharpness.

ImRaptor wrote in post #10800536
In what regards does the Canon 50mm f1.4 best the Sigma 50mm f1.4?

You're correct in saying that sharpness isn't the end all of a good lens, but you seem to be implying that the only thing Sigma is ever better at (if its better) is sharpness.

The build quality also superior, so it's not just the sharpness.

The Sigma f1.4 has developed a reputation for focussing difficulties (though, to be fair, this problem seems to plague many of the Sigma primes). The Canon counterpart has not. In fact, it's a common go-to lens by dark venue photographers in need of that focal length.

Dekka wrote in post #10800567
The build quality also superior, so it's not just the sharpness.

The Sigma f1.4 has developed a reputation for focussing difficulties. The Canon counterpart has not. In fact, it's a common go-to lens by dark venue photographers in need of that focal length.

The Canon has developed a reputation for AF failure with their 50mm f1.4, but that is a generalization and doesn't apply to every Canon 50mm f1.4. Same as the Sigma AF difficulties does not apply to every copy of their 50mm f1.4.

ImRaptor wrote in post #10800598
The Canon has developed a reputation for AF failure with their 50mm f1.4, but that is a generalization and doesn't apply to every Canon 50mm f1.4. Same as the Sigma AF difficulties does not apply to every copy of their 50mm f1.4.

I don't think the Canon has developed a "reputation" for AF failure. Has it happened? Yes, but it hasn't earned a reputation for it.

The Sigma, and not just the 50/1.4, has developed a reputation for focussing difficulties - similar to the way the Canon 50/1.2L developed its reputation for focussing issues. If I needed a 50mm lens for critical low-light performance photography, I would hesitate to pick up the Sigma. I wouldn't hesitate to pick up the Canon.

So that said, if you have a Sigma f1.4 and it's focussing fine for what you need it to do, there's nothing the Canon f1.4 could offer you.