09-10-2013, 04:29 PM
If they name enough lenses sooner or later one will be right!
Of the list, the ones I'm most interested in would be the 24-70 f/2, but that is very much in the "I'll believe it when I see it" category. Something has to give somewhere, and I find it hard to believe it could be attained in a sane manner. Realistically the 24-105 f/4 OS could be interesting as an alternative to the Canon equivalent. The old Canon is a good lens but I wouldn't say no to a new trick like the macro mode of the 24-70 f/4, but there the focus shift risk scares me.
Otherwise, the 135 f/1.8 is the other maybe lens. Again I have the Canon f/2L, but the colour correction on that is rather horrific by astrophotography standards and I wouldn't say no to an improvement there.
Of the list, the ones I'm most interested in would be the 24-70 f/2, but that is very much in the "I'll believe it when I see it" category. Something has to give somewhere, and I find it hard to believe it could be attained in a sane manner. Realistically the 24-105 f/4 OS could be interesting as an alternative to the Canon equivalent. The old Canon is a good lens but I wouldn't say no to a new trick like the macro mode of the 24-70 f/4, but there the focus shift risk scares me.
Otherwise, the 135 f/1.8 is the other maybe lens. Again I have the Canon f/2L, but the colour correction on that is rather horrific by astrophotography standards and I wouldn't say no to an improvement there.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.