songtsen Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Are the 24-105L and 28-135 the only options if one doesn't include the superzooms (Tamron 28-300 VC and the very expensive 28-300L)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillbound Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 <p>yes</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
songtsen Posted January 31, 2009 Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 <p>Seems a bit odd that there are at least twice as many choices on 1.6x crop...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillbound Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 <p>it's not odd - the average "pro" shooter uses a lens that is 2.8 or faster (primes for the faster) and while I may like to see a 24-70 2.8 (I'd really like to see a 20 - 70 or 24 - 85 2.8) with IS I DO NOT want to pay the extra 400 - 500 dollars that canon has tacked on to the other L zooms with IS<br> The 2.8 and faster glass at the range simly doesnt <em>NEED</em> the IS - it justs wants it...lol<br> JC</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
songtsen Posted January 31, 2009 Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 <p><i>"The 2.8 and faster glass at the range simly doesnt NEED the IS - it justs wants it...lol"</i></p> <p>It would appear that 1.6x crop does have some advantages (17-55/2.8 IS). :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zml Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 <p><em>Seems a bit odd that there are at least twice as many choices on 1.6x crop...</em><br> Until very recently, FF digital cameras were few and used mainly by the folks who knew that image stabilization (even on superteles) falls into the "nice to have" category. Yeah, it would be nice to have a few more stabilzed lenses for FF but think about the whining that "non-IS 24-70 L was $1100 and the IS version is $1700..." In-body IS? Well, after looking through the VF of one such SLR I must say no, thanx!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillbound Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 <p>check another for in body sucking - especially when you realize that sony charges 1700 for their non IS 24-70 and 1900 for their non is 70-200. not really the savings that the in body people would have you believe</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whwhitejr Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 <p>Wouldn't it be great for Canon to build a 28-135 f2.8L. I think they would sell like hotcakes and would seal the deal for canon as a system. Wishing, Bill</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 <p>28-135 f/2.8L would be too big. I would rather have a 24-80 f/2.8L IS. Still be quite large though.</p> <p>I don't think I'm moving to full frame until I see IS in a normal range f/2.8 zoom. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS has me spoiled and is too good to leave behind without something to move to.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregf Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 <p>Wouldn't it be great for Canon to build a 28-135 f2.8L. I think they would sell like hotcakes and would seal the deal for canon as a system. Wishing, Bill</p> <p>Well, you would have significant added weight over the 24-70 (for the extra length and the IS). I think it would be bulky has all hell and cost probably $1000 more than the existing 24-70. I rather take two lenses (24-70 and 70-200) over a very heavy 28-135. The nice thing about the two lens setup, you don't have to walk around with the 70-200 hanging off you neck, just pull it out when you need it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 <p>"In-body IS? Well, after looking through the VF of one such SLR I must say no, thanx!"<br> Ahem, this must be the same sucking unstabilised viewfinder present when using a Canon lens that lacks stabilisation.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now