To all those pontificators who said it's a hoax...

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by peter_white|2, Aug 15, 2005.

  1. A European Canon website briefly had an announcement up about the 5D,
    1D Mark II N, 430 EX and a 24-105mm f:4L IS lens.

    Somebody made a screen shot before it was pulled down.

    http://www.p5freak.de/images/cps.gif
     
  2. And now the whole canon site is down!
     
  3. Sign me up for the 5D and 24-105L. I can just hear the credit card heating up as we speak.
     
  4. Provided that the shot is legit, and I'll admit it looks like it is, I'm actually more interested in the lens. That looks like it would be the more-or-less perfect affordable walk-around lens for film/full-frame bodies. Actually, that damn well better be real or I'm gonna be pissed.
     
  5. so what about the 1D Mark II N?
     
  6. Does that mean that 2nd hand EOS 3 prices will drop even more? :)
     
  7. The lens will likely be $1000 USD. Not a very good sign if that is what we are calling affordable these days.
     
  8. Lots of folks pay more than that for the 24-70 f:2.8 *without* IS.
     
  9. I believe this whole thing is a fake and not even worth mentioning...
     
  10. If anything of this is true, 1000$ would be my guess also for the new lens, it would surely be positioned between the 17-40 and the 24-70 2.8 pricewise.
     
  11. How good do you think that lens will be wide open?
     
  12. Ok, Canon's site got hacked into. Do we need to discuss more myths? 1D MkII N with 26 megapixels? By the way, the new 24-105 is a killer lens - apparently it's not just IS it's also waterproof! :)
     
  13. why must my hopes always be raised, only to be dashed once again? Damn you Internet!
     
  14. I got the 24-105mm f:4L IS, but it backfocusses and the 430EX underexposes.
    ;)
    --
     
  15. Mine shows "error 99" on the 5D, but not the 20D. So my question is should I get the Tamron or the Sigma?
     
  16. Mine shows "error 99" on the 5D, but not the 20D. So my question is should I get the Tamron or the Sigma?

    The Tonika. But you need to hack the rear element off first to make it fit. Then remove the insect from under the LCD display, making sure you have hacked the firmware first to reveal the hidden feature - "a camera"
     
  17. The only question I have is whether the 5D has a b/w mode, otherwise it's not a real camera.
     
  18. You could use it as a better viewfinder and take the real B/W shots with a 350D ;)
     
  19. is there any chance that 24-105mm would be innter focusing/front element wouldn't extend? as I find that to be more sexy :)
     
  20. inner too
     
  21. The lens will likely be $1000 USD. Not a very good sign if that is what we are calling affordable these days.
    No one in the industry has ever made a zoom lens with that high a zoom ratio (4.375 : 1) that wasn't a piece of crap. Also f/4 is nothing to write home about, ESPECIALLY with that high a zoom ratio because it probably means you'd have to stop down to AT LEAST f/5.6, if not f/8, to get decent performance.
    The IS might help with the stabilization problems at the long exposures such f-stops would require, but it can't help with DOF. Also, a max aperture of f/4 guarantees a dark VF.
    Granted, $1000 would be a very attractive price for a GOOD lens, but I can't imagine this lens would be worth anywhere near it.
     
  22. Maybe they could use fluorite! What about fluorite? It's the same as two SUD elements! Won't someone PLEASE think of the fluorite?!
     
  23. dk.

    dk.

    Personally I would love to get the 24-105mm F4L IS lens if it is for real and is real L quality too. Let's hope it's real and they don't price it sky high. The "IS" would be nice in a lens of that range that is L quality as I was not happy with the 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS lens that I had for a short time. Keep your fingers crossed. :eek:)

    DK.
     
  24. An L quality 24-105 - Wow! A pink creature with a snout and wings just flew over my house. I could be mistaken of course.
     
  25. Canon do claim L quality for a 28-300, complete with IS and USM.
     
  26. weird how every article has text explanations except the new gear...
     
  27. Some of these Internet rumors are like trick-or-treat and April Fool's rolled into one. Still, it's fun to speculate (and take pot-shots)!

    I really hope the new lens shown on this hypothetical web site is/will be real (a) because I'd like to rub it in the noses of all those pooh-poohers who said it's a boring focal length / Canon'll never make it / nobody'll buy it / ya-da ya-da ya-da, and (b) I really want one!

    I'd prefer it to be a smaller zoom range (like 28-85 or 35-105) though, and do hope it has a fixed length barrel with internal zoom and focusing. I can make these wishes because it's still speculative.

    If it turns out to be real, I'll certainly look forward to the first authoritative reviews with great interest. Hopefully it will come in a lot closer to the size and weight of the 17-40 or 16-35 than to the 24-70.
     
  28. Hmmmm. . . yes. . .a few interesting points.

    First: $1000 is *reasonable but high* for this type of lens (ie, $400 more than the 70-200/4L, $300 more than a 17-40/4L due to the IS unit). . .but honestly the last five or so lenses Canon has released have not met my definition of reasonable. I would not be surprised if this lens is closer to $1500.

    Note that if it is $1000. . . I will be pleasantly surprised, and the lens will be on my xmas list 2006. If it is cheaper. . .I may jump sooner.

    Second: 4.3X zoom. Rut Row. I think I need convincing that this lens is 70-200/4L quality and not 28-350/L quality.

    I can tolerate a F4 lens if it is priced at a F4 price (and not at a F2.8 price)
     
  29. So when's the 7d coming out? ;)
     
  30. So someone could fake a pdf but not a screenshot? This proves diddly.
     
  31. ky2

    ky2

    The Romanian Canon Portal claims that the 24-105 will actually list for 522.50 new romanian leis (roughly $174.95) and will henceforth replace the 18-55 DRebel kit lens. The 430EX will be free for the first 50,000 people, and will come with a 3 years supply of Viagra.
     
  32. No one in the industry has ever made a zoom lens with that high a zoom ratio (4.375 : 1) that wasn't a piece of crap.
    <P>Ok,you are either an idiot or have such high standards that you couldn't possibly use anything less than canon's f2.8 zooms (but for wide zooms you must insist on nikon because,well,canon wides are obviously .....crap)
    <BR>By the way,canon get's outstanding performance from the 28-300 L.
    <P>
    Also f/4 is nothing to write home about, (blah blah...) <P>
    <BR>Try arguing that with the proud owners of a 70-200/4L or 17-40/4L
    <P>The IS might help with the stabilization problems at the long exposures such f-stops would require, but it can't help with DOF. <BR>Yep,too true
    <P>Also, a max aperture of f/4 guarantees a dark VF.
    <BR>Honestly (not trying to argue here) why on earth do some people go on about that? ? .I have never ever noticed any issues with viewfinder darkness.My eyes are normal i know.Is it just some people that can't cope with dim viewfinders? Am i missing something else?
     
  33. ky2

    ky2

    Ron, I have high hopes for that lens. But lets first see it announced, shipped, and tested :)
     

Share This Page

1111