Canon boyz save me big $'$ again !

In the past two years I have intensified my photogear coLLecting hobby. In the process I have indeed spent a few bucks of my own on it. However, on a positive side, I could have sunk significantly more of my wife's money into the coLLection if it were not for for the following felicitous features of the Canon's gear lineup. Thus, in a very real way, Canon have saved my wife a fair bit of money. Thank you Canon, I trust our future association will continue to be as prosperous.

(1) Skip the 50 f/1.2: The lens strikes me as an L-packaged version of the 50 f/1.4. The build might have been improved. The optical performance beyond f/2.8 seems to have taken a serious hammer. Yeah, I know, it's 1/2 stop faster...yay, whoopy-doo.

(2) The 17-55 f/2.8 IS not L-packaged: If it was, I would have had to pay much more money for it. Ditto for the 100 f/2.0, 100 f/2.8, 60, 10-22, etc.

(3) Skip the 24-105: The lens is f/4 which is just not good enough to me in that FL.

(4) Skip the 14L: the lens value (bang/$) seems low....especially to those like myself who own all other WA and FE Canon lenses worth having.

(5) The 400 f/5.6 IS has not been introduced. Had it been brought out by Canon, I would have been seriously tempted to get it because that's where I start to need IS, not on the 70-200 mm zooms and such.

(6) The 500 f/4 weight is over 2.5 kg. If it was not, I might have been tempted by it.

(7) The 1 Series camera user interface design does not agree with me, the 30/5D ergonomics I find operationally significantly superior. The net result is that I will not buy a 1 Series body again as long as the existing control scheme is retained.

(8 ) The 200 f/1.8(or 2.0) IS has not been introduced. If it was, and if it had been proven a superior performance lens, I would have probably found it difficult resisting.

Thank you Canon !

But yet you have 3 300 mm lenses

tommykjensen wrote in post #2419722
But yet you have 3 300 mm lenses

Yeah...unfortunately, them Canon boys know how to make good 300mm telephotos.

But why 3? I can understand 300 f/4.0 IS and 300 f/2.8 IS because of weight but why also the 300 f/4.0?

In about 1,000 years time, Charlton Heston is going to stand in the space where your house used to be and will puzzle over a curiously sparkling mound of sand. A camp (but academic) chimp will raise one of many small red hoops from the dust and coo in an awed fashion.

tommykjensen wrote in post #2419748
But why 3? I can understand 300 f/4.0 IS and 300 f/2.8 IS because of weight but why also the 300 f/4.0?

Aperture for aperture, my f/4 non-IS is probably the sharpest of the three. One drawback though is its long MFD. That's the main reason why the f/4 IS version is needed with MFD=1.5m which is totally great.

Pete wrote in post #2419759
In about 1,000 years time, Charlton Heston is going to stand in the space where your house used to be and will puzzle over a curiously sparkling mound of sand. A camp (but academic) chimp will raise one of many small red hoops from the dust and coo in an awed fashion.

That's very funny, dood, that red ring has a strong simian appeal indeed.

Your reasoning is fallacious, at best.

The 500mm is eminently carriable (if that's a word). If you used the behemoth 600mm as an example, or the 1200mm, then your point would be well taken.

As to owning three 300's, that borders on the absurd. Dump that non IS antique, and dump it now.

The new 50L is worth its weight in gold to wedding photographers in low light. The last time you attended a wedding was as a crasher, so that's why you have no need for it.

You regularly eschew the 300 f2.8 in favor of the slooow 300 f4.

Yet out of the other side of your drool you extol the 24-70 over the IS carrying 24-105 which has a more usable focal length.

While extoling the 300 f4, you beg for a reissue of the 200 f1.8, a lens that is still one of the finest today.

As to the 14mm, obviously another lens that, if it were not for internet ranting, would not be so down trodden. It is a lens used by photojournalists worldwide with excellent results. Let's stop pixel peeping and enjoy it for what it is: Canon's widest, fastest prime that's excellent for it's intended use.

Your comments regarding the control layout of the 1 series show you to possess 10 thumbs. It is NOT rocket science to push more than one button at a time. In fact, it becomes second nature. And make sure you're not caught in the rain with those leaky, weepy consumer cams with your expensive lens collection attached.

MD "proud 1 series owner" JAK

PetKal wrote in post #2419709
(1) Skip the 50 f/1.2: The lens strikes me as an L-packaged version of the 50 f/1.4. The build might have been improved. The optical performance beyond f/2.8 seems to have taken a serious hammer. Yeah, I know, it's 1/2 stop faster...yay, whoopy-doo.

Peter, I’m convinced you believe this lens is the optical equivalent of the antichrist. I agree that it’s overpriced, and will (should) appeal to a very narrow segment of users. If nothing else, everyone is starting to realize that the 1.4 is really a very good, and heretofore unappreciated lens.

PetKal wrote in post #2419709
(2) The 17-55 f/2.8 IS not L-packaged: If it was, I would have had to pay much more money for it. Ditto for the 100 f/2.0, 100 f/2.8, 60, 10-22, etc

EF-S lenses belong on keychains. I shoot full frame

PetKal wrote in post #2419709
(3) Skip the 24-105: The lens is f/4 which is just not good enough to me in that FL.

If you’re a DOF freak, then your assessment is okay. I have both the 24-105 and 24-70 f/2.8L, and the latter has been relegated to a backup role. The larger aperture is not a reasonable tradeoff for a 50% increase in FL.

PetKal wrote in post #2419709
(4) Skip the 14L: the lens value (bang/$) seems low....especially to those like myself who own all other WA and FE Canon lenses worth having.

I own this lens, but don’t have enough experience with it to argue. There’s a lot of technique involved in getting good results shooting with an ultra-wide lens, especially when using full frame. I bought it for work (interior shots of real estate), but find myself using the 16-35L most of the time.

PetKal wrote in post #2419709
(5) The 400 f/5.6 IS has not been introduced. Had it been brought out by Canon, I would have been seriously tempted to get it because that's where I start to need IS, not on the 70-200 mm zooms and such.

I find IS useful at considrably shorter focal lengths. The 400 f/5.6L IS is my dream lens, nonetheless. I've owned two different copies of the non-IS version, and still use it for a much of my train photography.

PetKal wrote in post #2419709
(6) The 500 f/4 weight is over 2.5 kg. If it was not, I might have been tempted by it.

I owned one for a while, and never felt it was worth the money, not to mention the effort required in lugging it around. I also was not completely impressed by the image quality, although that could be attributable to operator error. I never liked the lens enough to really work with it. It now lives in Australia.

PetKal wrote in post #2419709
(7) The 1 Series camera user interface design does not agree with me, the 30/5D ergonomics I find operationally significantly superior. The net result is that I will not buy a 1 Series body again as long as the existing control scheme is retained.

I guess it all depends on what you're used to. I much prefer it, but that's pretty much all I shoot with, too.

PetKal wrote in post #2419709
(8 ) The 200 f/1.8(or 2.0) IS has not been introduced. If it was, and if it had been proven a superior performance lens, I would have probably found it difficult resisting.

I think everyone would love one of these, but if it ever is reintroduced, it will be very expensive. I find it fascinating that more people rave about the IQ of this lens, and not its light-gathering capabilities.

Great, two POTN heavyweights bearing on little old me.
Doods, I find your thinking surprisingly youthful given that your combined age probably exceeds the Canadian highway speed limit (in km).

I understand why Carpslinger and his teenage ilk find tremendous appeal in "big white lenses" (read 70-200 f/4)....they seem to think that sort of photo gear endowement helps them on the dating scene. But you two are not only well past any sort of dating, both as a concept and practice, your enfeebled joints and muscles are hardly up to the rigours of toting 1 Series camera bodies with heavy lenses on them. So then, what is it that propels you in that direction ?

I simply can not escape the impression that you men are perhaps hoping to look like big kahuna photographers, the proverbial big boys, them heavy hitters from the Sports Illustrated, National Geographic or Playboy magazine.

As for me, I am just happy to be a humble coLLector who has been trying to spend my wife's money cost effectively the best way I know how.

To each their own.

PetKal wrote in post #2420110
... your enfeebled joints and muscles are hardly up to the rigours of toting 1 Series camera bodies with heavy lenses on them. So then, what is it that propels you in that direction ?

I simply can not escape the impression that you men are perhaps hoping to look like big kahuna photographers, the proverbial big boys, them heavy hitters from the Sports Illustrated, National Geographic or Playboy magazine.

I think there is another possible reason Talking of which, seems your wife is being 'positively reinforced' sufficiently well for her to regularly look at the ceiling and think of England while you slip a few large bills from her purse

Hoping to look like Big Kahuna Photographers?

Are you kidding me. I look every bit like a big Kahuna Photographer. What else do you think gets me access to events?

As to dating, whether in actuality or concept, I date all the time. I date my lover. We go for hikes at least twice a week, take in a movie once or twice a month, and have dinner out at least once per week.

Yeah, yeah, my lover/date is my wife of 26 years, but who's counting.

And to be mentioned in the same breath as Belmondo, to be called a POTN heavyweight, I'm both honored and humbled.

Now, send me one of those 300 f4's of yours, preferably the one with the IS. I'm soon to get a boat load of B&H gift cards for Xmas and my birfday, my 50th birfday in January.

I'll use yours for a while before deciding on whether to get the 2.8 or the F4 and the 16-35, now that I sold my 17-40 for its dreaded slowness.

me

MDJAK wrote in post #2420748
Hoping to look like Big Kahuna Photographers?

Are you kidding me. I look every bit like a big Kahuna Photographer. What else do you think gets me access to events?

my birfday, my 50th birfday in January.

now that I sold my 17-40 for its dreaded slowness.

me

Afraid to ask.....what "events" ? Perhaps that avantgarde BusterGyro Experimental S&M Theatre ?

You gonna be 50 in January ? Huh, I thought you were long past that key milestone in the accelerated aging process.

The 17-40 may be relatively slow aperture-wise, but everything else is very nice about the lens...including its price.