http://photorumors.com …sm-and-ef-24-f2-8-is-usm/
New Lens Rumors
themadman Cream of the Crop  18,871 posts Likes: 14 Joined Nov 2009 Location: Northern California More info | Feb 06, 2012 13:43 | #1 http://photorumors.com …sm-and-ef-24-f2-8-is-usm/ Will | WilliamLiuPhotography.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tkbslc Cream of the Crop 24,604 posts Likes: 45 Joined Nov 2008 Location: Utah, USA More info | Feb 06, 2012 13:46 | #2 Those look pretty legit. Taylor
LOG IN TO REPLY |
IndecentExposure Goldmember  3,402 posts Joined Jan 2007 Location: Austin, Texas More info | Feb 06, 2012 13:49 | #3 82mm filter threads on the standard walk-around? That's bad juju. - James -
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SMP_Homer Cream of the Crop  More info | Feb 06, 2012 13:54 | #4 tkbslc wrote in post #13835614 Are that many people interested in f2.8 primes? Even with IS? I think there could be interest in non-L primes... but not for 24mm and 28mm... EOS R6’ / 1D X / 1D IV (and the wife has a T4i)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TheArchitect Senior Member  330 posts Joined May 2009 More info | Feb 06, 2012 13:56 | #5 Indecent Exposure wrote in post #13835633 82mm filter threads on the standard walk-around? That's bad juju. Why, because it means it's really big? Just curious...
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tkbslc Cream of the Crop 24,604 posts Likes: 45 Joined Nov 2008 Location: Utah, USA More info | Feb 06, 2012 13:59 | #6 Indecent Exposure wrote in post #13835633 82mm filter threads on the standard walk-around? That's bad juju. Bigger front element is useful for corner performance and vignetting. I don't imagine Canon and Tamron are using 82mm out of choice. The optical formula must demand it. Taylor
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tkbslc Cream of the Crop 24,604 posts Likes: 45 Joined Nov 2008 Location: Utah, USA More info | Feb 06, 2012 14:01 | #7 SMP_Homer wrote in post #13835664 I think there could be interest in non-L primes... but not for 24mm and 28mm... 20mm..? maybe Personally, I really have been wanting a reasonably priced non-L 24mm prime. It would be like a 35mm on my 60D. But f2.8? I have about 10 choices for 24mm f2.8 already, some stabilized. Taylor
LOG IN TO REPLY |
NullMind Senior Member  629 posts Likes: 5 Joined Oct 2005 Location: London, UK & Azores More info | Feb 06, 2012 14:09 | #8 Hummmm, I might be tempted by that new 24-70, will be interesting to see how it performs NullMind
LOG IN TO REPLY |
IndecentExposure Goldmember 3,402 posts Joined Jan 2007 Location: Austin, Texas More info | Feb 06, 2012 14:10 | #9 tkbslc wrote in post #13835701 Bigger front element is useful for corner performance and vignetting. I don't imagine Canon and Tamron are using 82mm out of choice. The optical formula must demand it. That's for sure (large front elements cut down CA as well). But it's going to be a b*tch to rebuy into an exponentially more expensive filter size. - James -
LOG IN TO REPLY |
gocolts Goldmember 1,246 posts Likes: 14 Joined Oct 2010 More info | Feb 06, 2012 14:20 | #10 tkbslc wrote in post #13835723 Personally, I really have been wanting a reasonably priced non-L 24mm prime. It would be like a 35mm on my 60D. But f2.8? I have about 10 choices for 24mm f2.8 already, some stabilized. Maybe it is for some compact FF camera we don't know about. It just seems like an odd choice on the surface. Yea, that's what I'm trying to figure out too. Unless it's going to be priced insanely well, or have IQ that's out of this world (or both) I just don't see it being worth their time, or the consumers.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 06, 2012 14:21 | #11 |
umphotography grabbing their Johnson  More info | Its already very good just the way it is. If it does not have IS I dont see why the need to change Mike
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Staszek Goldmember  3,606 posts Likes: 4 Joined Mar 2010 Location: San Jose, CA More info | Feb 06, 2012 14:28 | #13 Indecent Exposure wrote in post #13835633 82mm filter threads on the standard walk-around? That's bad juju. Why? My 16-35 is a walk-around lens and it has an 82mm filter. Only having good juju here. SOSKIphoto
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SMP_Homer Cream of the Crop More info | Feb 06, 2012 14:28 | #14 umphotography wrote in post #13835850 Its already very good just the way it is. If it does not have IS I dont see why the need to change I pretty much agree... I can't think of anything Canon can do to the 24-70 that would make me upgrade to the new version EOS R6’ / 1D X / 1D IV (and the wife has a T4i)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dsit995 Senior Member  527 posts Joined Mar 2011 Location: Danbury, CT More info | Feb 06, 2012 14:28 | #15 I dont really get it.... I would rather see a 1.8 w/o IS than 2.8 IS. Unless its VERY sharp wide open I dont think I would buy these Canon 5D MkII | T2i | 35L | 24-105 IS L | 70-200L | 100L | 17-40L | 85 1.8 | 50 1.4 | 430EX II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is semonsters 1546 guests, 135 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
