yashart Senior Member 460 posts Joined Jun 2006 Location: Philadelphia, PA More info | Jun 22, 2012 16:04 | #2 That lens makes little sense to me... YHT STUDIOS
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Chet showed up to keep the place interesting More info | Jun 22, 2012 16:11 | #3 Interesting.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Gel Goldmember 1,145 posts Likes: 47 Joined Sep 2009 Location: Brighton , East Sussex More info | Jun 22, 2012 16:37 | #4 The 42mm F1.0 image is a parody one. The rumour pages have one at the top as standard. Chris Giles Photography
LOG IN TO REPLY |
axl_kollar Senior Member 436 posts Likes: 4 Joined Jan 2012 Location: Slovakia More info | It would be a nice lens to have if it ever came true and if I could ever afford it new to Canon
LOG IN TO REPLY |
treck_dialect Senior Member 689 posts Joined Jul 2010 Location: QC Philippines More info | Jun 23, 2012 02:58 | #6 |
Jahled Goldmember 1,498 posts Likes: 5 Joined Jun 2008 Location: North London More info | I love their immediate disclaimer: James
LOG IN TO REPLY |
axl_kollar Senior Member 436 posts Likes: 4 Joined Jan 2012 Location: Slovakia More info | Jun 23, 2012 05:29 | #8 treck_dialect wrote in post #14619739 what an odd focal length. 43mm is diagonal of FF sensor so 42mm would make perfect normal length... new to Canon
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DesertPictures Member 163 posts Joined Nov 2011 Location: Mesa, AZ More info | Jul 07, 2012 17:17 | #9 axl_kollar wrote in post #14619932 43mm is diagonal of FF sensor so 42mm would make perfect normal length... Bingo! I'd love to have one. Wish it were true. Prime Lens Guy
LOG IN TO REPLY |
axl_kollar Senior Member 436 posts Likes: 4 Joined Jan 2012 Location: Slovakia More info | Jul 08, 2012 03:34 | #10 In that case you'll have to go with 40/2.8 for now new to Canon
LOG IN TO REPLY |
keithcooper Member 81 posts Likes: 13 Joined Feb 2007 Location: Leicester, UK More info | Sorry, I'd hoped it would be more obvious bye for now
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DesertPictures Member 163 posts Joined Nov 2011 Location: Mesa, AZ More info | Jul 11, 2012 10:39 | #12 I did. It's a nice "little" lens. But a 42/1.0 would be on another (red ring) planet! (smile) Prime Lens Guy
LOG IN TO REPLY |
KenjiS "Holy crap its long!" More info | Jul 13, 2012 02:52 | #13 It might make SOME sense... Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
LOG IN TO REPLY |
andrikos Goldmember 1,905 posts Likes: 9 Joined Sep 2008 Location: Stuttgart, Germany More info | Jul 13, 2012 07:03 | #14 A 42mm aperture doesn't sound that unreasonable. Think new Canon lenses are overpriced? Lots (and lots) of data will set you free!
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 1618 guests, 141 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||