Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions 
Thread started 27 Oct 2009 (Tuesday) 14:13
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Any chance of an EFS version of 70-200/2.8 IS?

 
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Nov 02, 2009 00:20 |  #16

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #8928373 (external link)
By 50mm, do you mean a true FF 50mm or 50mm on a crop?

I assume you mean 50mm FF, therefore something like the 24-70 or 24-105 would suit you then.

24-105 = 38-168mm Nice range, no f/2.8, but it's still nice.
24-70 = 38-112mm sort of lose that long end there, but it's a f/2.8

Going crop is all about compromise. :p

I meant equivalent. 70-200 was a good range on film, not my fave on 1.6x crop.

Really, I am just being a whiner because I already own the Tokina 50-135mm (so 80-215 equivalent). That is what I want Canon to make with USM and IS, but then I would just whine that it cost $1000+.... :)


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Stealthy ­ Ninja
Cream of the Crop
14,387 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Mythical Tasmania (the one with lots of tall buildings in the semi-tropics, A.K.A. Hong Kong)
     
Nov 02, 2009 01:39 |  #17
bannedPermanent ban

LOL. I love "whine", it goes well with "chicken".

There is no such thing as the perfect lens. Primes are sharp, but they don't move. Zooms never quite reach enough (or go wide enough). It's a struggle I tells ya.

Well I guess you gotta do all you can do, if that's even possible... ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krepta
I swear I'm Ken Rockwell!
Avatar
8,482 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Nov 02, 2009 02:37 |  #18

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #8938741 (external link)
LOL. I love "whine", it goes well with "chicken".

There is no such thing as the perfect lens. Primes are sharp, but they don't move. Zooms never quite reach enough (or go wide enough). It's a struggle I tells ya.

Well I guess you gotta do all you can do, if that's even possible... ;)

Very simple solution:

1. Get rich, or marry someone who is rich (and loves to spoil you).
2. Buy all the lenses (for Canon EF mount) in existence from all the manufacturers, Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. (Of course, by this I mean buy one copy of all the varieties, don't buy every single unit... gotta leave some for the rest of the world, you know.)
3. Find something to complain and whine about in spite of having all the choices available to you.
4. Since you are rich (or have a rich spouse), switch to Nikon and repeat steps 2 & 3. Then, do the same with Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, and so on.
5. Finally, just give up on photography because you will never be fully satisfied with any of your gear.
6. Rejoice in at least being rich, or having a rich spouse, and hire a personal professional photographer to do all the dirty work for you.

7. Alternatively, you could also step-up to medium-format and waste even more money.

:lol:


Alex | flickr (external link) | Gear & Feedback | Food! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stealthy ­ Ninja
Cream of the Crop
14,387 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Mythical Tasmania (the one with lots of tall buildings in the semi-tropics, A.K.A. Hong Kong)
     
Nov 02, 2009 03:37 |  #19
bannedPermanent ban

Mmmm if I were that rich, I'd just pay people to stand still all the time. 3D "photography"... or is that live sculptures... :lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krepta
I swear I'm Ken Rockwell!
Avatar
8,482 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Nov 02, 2009 16:20 |  #20

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #8938976 (external link)
Mmmm if I were that rich, I'd just pay people to stand still all the time. 3D "photography"... or is that live sculptures... :lol:

No more need for touch screens. Now you can touch live directly! Hmm... :shock::rolleyes::lol:


Alex | flickr (external link) | Gear & Feedback | Food! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shooter ­ mcgavin
Senior Member
Avatar
526 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
     
Nov 02, 2009 17:22 |  #21

Or just buy a Tokina 50-135 f/2.8. I know the AF isn't usm, and it doesn't have IS, but those two things I think are sacrifices worth taking when you gain great build quality, incredible sharpness (probably better than Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 in some cases) and a comparably tiny price. IMO, quick focus isn't really so important for portraits anyway. There are plenty of pro portrait photographers getting along just fine with the 85 f/1.2's slow focus anyway.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stealthy ­ Ninja
Cream of the Crop
14,387 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Mythical Tasmania (the one with lots of tall buildings in the semi-tropics, A.K.A. Hong Kong)
     
Nov 02, 2009 17:42 |  #22
bannedPermanent ban

krepta wrote in post #8942437 (external link)
No more need for touch screens. Now you can touch live directly! Hmm... :shock::rolleyes::lol:

Only problem is I'm not too sure where the direct print button is located.

:lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krepta
I swear I'm Ken Rockwell!
Avatar
8,482 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Nov 02, 2009 20:16 |  #23

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #8942872 (external link)
Only problem is I'm not too sure where the direct print button is located.

:lol:

In this Live mode, the direct print button is replaced with the belly button. :)


Alex | flickr (external link) | Gear & Feedback | Food! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stealthy ­ Ninja
Cream of the Crop
14,387 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Mythical Tasmania (the one with lots of tall buildings in the semi-tropics, A.K.A. Hong Kong)
     
Nov 02, 2009 22:01 |  #24
bannedPermanent ban

krepta wrote in post #8943762 (external link)
In this Live mode, the direct print button is replaced with the belly button. :)

Where do the prints come out? :shock:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Village_Idiot
GREATEST POTN MEMBER EVER
Avatar
3,695 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Durt Burg, WV
     
Nov 06, 2009 10:57 |  #25

Is that a ninja pony?


My village called. I was told that they missed me.

Speedotron users, untie!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
footballdude2k3
Senior Member
Avatar
602 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: North Liberty, Iowa
     
Nov 06, 2009 12:18 |  #26

with the current ones working, why do you need an efs version? unless you are talking about an equivalent, this is a completely moot point

edit: sorry just saw your post about it being for an equiv. oh and i dont think its that heavy, i think you would get used to it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
juanpafer
Goldmember
Avatar
1,833 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 49
Joined May 2009
Location: Fort Myers, FL
     
Nov 06, 2009 12:52 |  #27

I don't think the OP is out of his mind asking for an EF-S 50-135is USM. I have the Tokina and it is an outstanding lens. IQ is at least comparable with any of the 70-200 variants, excellent (for me) range, color, contrast, built... AF is fast even though it is not USM... BUT if Canon comes out with IS and USM on a lens with similar range, build and IQ it would be perfect.
Most of the people that shoot crop realize the compromise in the sensor, the crop factor etc, but value other things like price, size and weight. Canon has successfully marketed $700-1100 EFS lenses, so... who would buy this lens? The same people who bought the 10-22 and the 17-55.


Juan

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Nov 06, 2009 13:02 |  #28

juanpafer wrote in post #8967505 (external link)
I don't think the OP is out of his mind asking for an EF-S 50-135is USM. I have the Tokina and it is an outstanding lens. IQ is at least comparable with any of the 70-200 variants, excellent (for me) range, color, contrast, built... AF is fast even though it is not USM... BUT if Canon comes out with IS and USM on a lens with similar range, build and IQ it would be perfect.
Most of the people that shoot crop realize the compromise in the sensor, the crop factor etc, but value other things like price, size and weight. Canon has successfully marketed $700-1100 EFS lenses, so... who would buy this lens? The same people who bought the 10-22 and the 17-55.

Well put and nice comparison with the 10-22 and 17-55. There are lots of people with those lenses that could be shooting with Sigma, tokina and Tamron equivalents, so one could argue that Canon didn't need those either.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nathan
So boring
Avatar
7,735 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 297
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
     
Nov 06, 2009 14:12 |  #29

Honestly... and maybe it's just me... but I don't notice much of a difference in size and weight between the 17-55 and the 70-200. They both make the camera a little more bulky and heavy...


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 35 L | 50L | 85L II | 135L | 580 EX II x2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krepta
I swear I'm Ken Rockwell!
Avatar
8,482 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Nov 06, 2009 15:48 |  #30

Nathan wrote in post #8968033 (external link)
Honestly... and maybe it's just me... but I don't notice much of a difference in size and weight between the 17-55 and the 70-200. They both make the camera a little more bulky and heavy...

I own and use both, and I feel differently. The 17-55 weights like a feather compared to the 70-200 2.8 IS. Okay, maybe not a feather, but it is much lighter. At 645g for the 17-55 compared to 1470g for the 70-200, that is more than double the weight. Yes, the 70-200 is not really that heavy and is handholdable, but at the end of a long shooting day, the difference between the two lenses is significant. But that's good; using the 70-200 all day long is a pretty decent workout for me. :)


Alex | flickr (external link) | Gear & Feedback | Food! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,171 views & 0 likes for this thread
Any chance of an EFS version of 70-200/2.8 IS?
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Josecondor
465 guests, 349 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.