Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Canon lenses coming it seems
#1
EF 24mm f/2.8 STM

EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM

 

The first one sounds rather odd. 

The 2nd one feels like a new gen kit lens.

The 3rd - well, honestly, I was always baffled why Canon didn't take advantage of DO in the mirrorless scope. They would have (had) a competitive edge here for sure.
#2
DO elements are expensive to produce, and at least in the 70-300mm DO IS USM lens, does not always produce the nicest of background renderings (the large 400mm f4 seems not to be as affected)... 

 

Canon only has started its mirrorless lineup (only a 22mm f2, 11-22mm, 18-55mm, 55-200mm till now), so who knows if they will bring a higher end tele with DO element. And the wait is first on what the M3 will be like (will it have an EVF for instance?).

 

Different patents of DO designs have surfaced of the last 2 years or so, including a 180mm DO macro.

 

About the 24mm f2.8 STM, the rumor does make sense in that it claims that this lens will be a pancake design. This will make it nice for both FF and APS-C (38mm FF equivalent on APS-C, making it a nice street lens). I'd rather like this lens.

Edit: Actually, the rumour appears to be about a 24mm EF-S lens now. That is a bit odd, I guess, as a 22mm EF-S lens would be a bit nicer in "standard" FOV terms, like the EF-M 22mm f2 STM.

#3
I thought the 70-300 DO was heavier than the non-DO?  I could be way off here - don't follow Canon lenses closely - so please correct me if I'm wrong.

#4
Just looked it up, the standard 70-300 version is 630g, and the DO is 720g. At 143x77 and 100x82mm respectively, the DO is shorter and wider.

 

I'm not sure there is a problem making smaller zoom lenses at longer focal lengths. Look at the Tamron 18-270 (PZD version) for example, that's stated as being 88mm long.

 

I think quality is a trade off for smaller lenses in a given class regardless.

<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.
#5
I'd see an advantage for shorter lenses in ultra-long lenses, like a 600+mm focal length.

 

Making telephoto that could be a carry-on to an airplane would make it more useful.

 

I don't see much advantage for taking 40mm off of 140mm lens, though.

#6
Quote:Just looked it up, the standard 70-300 version is 630g, and the DO is 720g. At 143x77 and 100x82mm respectively, the DO is shorter and wider.

 

I'm not sure there is a problem making smaller zoom lenses at longer focal lengths. Look at the Tamron 18-270 (PZD version) for example, that's stated as being 88mm long.

 

I think quality is a trade off for smaller lenses in a given class regardless.
The Tamron 18-270mm is not 88mm long at 270mm, is it? How long is it at 70mm?
#7
Don't know, don't care. To me, lens size is only a factor when it is in a camera bag. In active use, it could be a long as it likes.

<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.
#8
Canon EF 24-105mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM:

[Image: canon-ef-24-105mm-f-3.5-5.6-is-stm-lens.jpg]

 

Canon EF 400mm f4 DO IS USM II:

[Image: canon-ef-400mm-f-4-do-is-ii-usm.jpg]

Canon EF-S 24mm f2.8 STM:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/09/the-n...m-pancake/

 

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)