Cannon reps at the Local Camera store

I stopped by the local mcamera store and the cannon reps were there ...I held the 24-70 L OHHH how hard to put down ..... they had the new 70-200 f4 is ... I think the 24-70 L is coming soon ... thne the 70-200 f2.6 is ... but I am half way to the 24-70 ...I can taste it .... lol

greg20d wrote in post #2217777
I stopped by the local mcamera store and the cannon reps were there ...I held the 24-70 L OHHH how hard to put down ..... they had the new 70-200 f4 is ... I think the 24-70 L is coming soon ... thne the 70-200 f2.6 is ... but I am half way to the 24-70 ...I can taste it .... lol

I so WANT an L lens
I so DONT NEED/GET and L lens

I'm understanding less of this thread after that post.

infinite012 wrote in post #2218013
I'm understanding less of this thread after that post.

What I said was that I so want an L lens but I dont need or get an L lens

BradT0517 wrote in post #2217993
I so WANT an L lens
I so DONT NEED/GET and L lens

?????????????

Mark

he wants one, but doesn't need it, or will he get one.

L lenses are nice.

I'm still trying to digest the 70-200 f/2.6 and I was sure the 24-70L has been available for some time. Then came the second post and totally confused things.

Someone who's good with math and physics can prove that the f/2.8 and f/2.6 difference is neglible

chancellor wrote in post #2218342
Someone who's good with math and physics can prove that the f/2.8 and f/2.6 difference is neglible

Someone who's good with math and physics can also prove that the f/2.8 and f/2.6 are two different things. Also, someone who knows of Canon lenses can also prove that a 70-200 f/2.6 doesn't exist in the line-up. And it's late at night, seems like the op's 1/2 asleep when he typed all that.

I think his fingers slipped and hit the 2.6 when he really meant 2.8.

And someone who says, in the same breath, that they want something, don't need something, and won't get something is kidding themselves.

I get it and all, but how much difference is there between 2.6 and 2.8? Is that about 1/8th of a stop?

Woolburr wrote in post #2218220
I'm still trying to digest the 70-200 f/2.6 and I was sure the 24-70L has been available for some time. Then came the second post and totally confused things.

was supposed to be 2.8 ...i am the typo king ....lol

harryb49 wrote in post #2219342
I think his fingers slipped and hit the 2.6 when he really meant 2.8.

And someone who says, in the same breath, that they want something, don't need something, and won't get something is kidding themselves.

I meant I wont get it as someone wont get it for me

greg20d wrote in post #2219847
was supposed to be 2.8 ...i am the typo king ....lol

Never a doubt that it was an accidental typo....but still more fun to bust you a bit. Besides, we never know what tales those Canon reps might be telling. And then there are the Cannon reps....they are just looking to blow something up.

The Canon rep was in my local store yesterday. He only had two printers. I asked him how long he had been working for Canon. He checked his watch. So far 5 hours. Sigh I thought he might have a shift lens or something for me to play with but they wouldn't let his have any of the nice toys yet I guess. His did offer to make be a 4x6 of myself. Was a nice enough young guy.