jake_cole

<p>Nice review; Thanks! A lot of people mention the use of the 17mm T/S with the x1.4 extender to give it even more flexibility. Maybe you can do a part 3 wheer you compare the 17mm w/x1.4 and the 24mm T/S.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00b3di"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=7313285">jose perez jr</a>, Nov 23, 2012; 04:57 p.m. <br />My interest in a second body is because I normally used by 70-200mm or 120-300mm on my 7d and would like to a second body with a short lens when photographying.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Since you're keeping the 7D for telephoto and action... I think there is little doubt that the 5DII would be an excellent second camera for you. </p>

 

<p>This initially looked like useless information posted to the wrong place, but after reading the most recent 50mm f/1.4 vs. f/1.2 L thread I'm not so sure. Only that 'preview-forum' in the past would have been expected to generate such a thread. Maybe there is more than film and the mirror that is being replaced in photography.</p>

<p>@Ian... can't argue with those pictures.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2328952">Husain Akhtar</a> , Nov 08, 2012; 09:31 a.m. ..... Would I get better results with ....</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I believe some changes in lighting and getting rid of the horrid background would be the first steps to better results. You might want to ask for photo critiques to get some good suggestions. ... but hey the camera and lens are fine.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To me, the most interesting company right now is probably Sony,...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To me Fuji is the most interesting company right now, but Sony is the doing the most to shake up the industry.</p>

<p>Still, I like/love Canon. There camera interface has just always worked for me, and I've been very happy with any Canon lens I've actually bought. Right now I've bought a few too many and need to find field time for the recent purchases. I bought too many at once and then took a break from photography, so I lean on my old standby lenses, but starting to investigate the new lenses. </p>

<p>I remember when Canon was leading in sensor and in-camera processing technology, years ahead of their competition. I think they might be in that position again one day soon, as technology like everything else moves in cycles. Although not likely with the same large lead as they did in the past, I think there is a very high probability they will lead again in the technology. I think they still lead today in the overall system.</p>

<p>I think the prices of the recent 24mm, 28mm, and now the 35mm IS lenses have been the first that really surprised me. I'm also surprised by the price of the 5D3, but it a way I'm happy I don't feel the need to upgrade at this point. The price of the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, was a surprise at first, but I'm starting to think that this might be justified, but it appears to work best on a new body, and I've not bought a zoom in more than a decade. If I was to buy a Canon zoom, I would probably buy this one <em>(Technically I just bought a Fuji zoom, but they have not released it yet).</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sigma announced a 35mm f/1.4</p>

</blockquote>

<p>... and it sounds like it is maybe their best prime yet. Luckily I'm not that fond of the 35mm focal length yet, as I get older I'm finding more love for the 50mm.</p>

<p>As for the Canon; first Henry> ".... Street Price ...." have we forgot about MAP already or is this lens and some others not controlled by the new MAP policy?</p>

<p>I think, as others have mentioned many times, the inclusion of IS in all these short focal length lenses is driven by the increase in the use of dSLRs hand-held for video. The second reason, which I beleive is no small matter, is Canon needs ways to try to charge more for their products given increased competition, and the state of the economy in Japan and the rest of the world. The lenses sure seem like a bargain to me when I look at the cost of some tripod accessories such as L-Brackets, clamps, and plates of the arca swiss design. We should compain more about the price of accessories than the lenses which do the heavy lifting.<br>

<br /> I'm interested in seeing the quality of this lens; if the lensrental assessment of the AF improvements in the recent lenses when coupled with the newer bodies is accurate, or mostly accurate, it makes sense that canon is revamping their entire line and discontinuing the older models as well so they can raise the AF accuracy of the EOS system across the board. This has to be quite costly, and at least until the economy improves and the US$ vs. Yen situation improves I'm guessing there is not going to be much love for the prices of these new lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Interesting review/first-impressions. I was interested in this camera to replace my s90 for some tasks, but decided to move into a Fuji system which I think I'll be able to use much more. I'll still have the s90 since it's not really worth selling. I also picked up the 40mm pancake for the dSLR, and started carrying just the 50mm f/1.4 on the dSLR when I needed a smaller load. If a future m series model gets an EVF I'll probably get interested again, but for different reasons.</p>

Seems like almost every retailer has always toed the line with Canon pricing, they may have official MAP now, but they have had defacto

MAP forever. They may be doing this for legal reasons, and because they now have their own store.

<p>You should probably say something about how you intend to use the lens, otherwise there is no real reason to recommend one over the other besides technical specifications, compatibility, and price.</p>

<p>You say that like it's a bad thing; :)<br>

They never expected to sell a large number of X-Pro1 cameras; they expect to sell a lot more X-E1 cameras as it is aimed ad a larger audience (see Fuji interviews). Volume means a lot when were talking the relatively small number of units being produced for something like the X-Pro1. In fact they expect to sell a lot of the X-E1 kits, but no matter most people that buy them will buy a Fuji lens or 2. They are building a new system in a very smart way. These guys/girls are very smart.</p>

<p>... as others have said, no hybird finder saves a lot of money, the EVF is better, but outsourced they may have got it at a good deal. Lower-cost LCD panel, manufacturing and supply chain improvements. </p>

<p>The X-Pro1 is on sale not if you buy it with a lens (e.g. 35mm f/1.8) you save $300 so the package is quite reasonable.</p>

<p>Fuji is on a major roll... hope they hit the jackpot.</p>

<p>While I'm not likely to buy one, and I can see an argument in the price without an internal viewfinder, some of the comments are getting crazy. Maybe too much tunnel vision?</p>

<p>I would also argue for me personally since it is a first revision of an electronic and software based product in a new product area for the manufacturer that there is high risk in purchasing this item. Since I generally don't even care for the manufacturer, I would personally be very cautious.</p>

<p>All that said... this camera breaks new ground, and it is ground I want to see Canon cultivate. Even if nothing more that a harbinger, it shows that digital photography is at a great time in its evolution. I hope I get the chance to really experience this camera, or one similar, very soon.</p>

 

<p><strong>Delivery:</strong> You're right, looks like it will be out in 2012... <strong>Thanks for the correction!</strong><br>

I'm back to looking at this baby. I wonder what Photokina will have from other manufactures, I just can't imagine this camera not being the star of the show.... I'm always happy to be surprised though. </p>

<p>Love this. I really like the interface and the flexibility they have put into the single lens interms of focus distance. <br>

From the layout and what I've read I believe the interface would be better for me than the other cameras of this size or class. I put big importance on interface and this looks like a solid winner in this regard.<br>

For myself I would have preferred a faster 50mm lens, but they probably made the right choice in general with the 35mm f/2.<br>

Only sources I've seen though say this camera is still a year out from delivery, if that is the case they really should have kept it under wraps as the world will be different in a year's time.</p>

 

<p>Nice review Thanks! I've been eying many of the Voightlander lenses and a body for a long time. However just a couple weeks a go I got the 40mm f/2.8 because I just got too frustrated with small P&S cameras outdoors as I start doing some general photography again. OK it looks a little funny mounted on a huge dSLR, but I got over it quickly. I'll see if it means I take my SLR out with me more often. I could have just mounted a 50mm, but right now I thought a little wider standard would be better for my interests. After I use it for a while, I'll probably do some comparisons with the 32 f/2 and 50mm lenses to see if I put it in my specialty bag or use it rather than 50mm. If it was faster it certainly would have been nice, but it's such a great deal now I think they made the right choice.</p>

<p>Great choices, but since once the sun starts down you're likely to often be in very low light conditions I couldn't see not carrying a very fast lens 35 f/2, 28 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4. If you've been there before though I'm sure you know what will work for you.</p>

 

<p>@Jake Cole:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The OP is using a cropped-sensor so the 100-400mm does give enough reach for wildlife</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike Hitchen</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What does the crop sensor have to do with reach...?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Equivalent angles of view at standard print sizes compared to standard 35mm which is the platform that the general commment 'you need at least 500mm for wildlife' is based. Not arguing the truth of that statement, but responding on the relative merits of whether the 100-400mm lens has enough reach on the OP's cropped sensor to generally be considered suitable for a wide range of wildlife images given some general industry suggestions.<br>

Hadi Khademi</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only issue I personally have with cropping the images is the fact that its not the original composition...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While that is true, from your given position though with a longer lens you would also have a different composition. If you like your original composition then there is no need to crop. If you wished the shot was tighter and the subject was larger in the frame, then cropping a well exposed picture to 80% would often be very acceptable depending on the desired final image print size. However, the lenses being discussed are not the top grade so of course avoid cropping when you can. You may never NEED to crop, only if you wanted to make the 400mm lens have the same view as the 500mm lens, and who knows if you would ever want to do that, or would need to do that very often.</p>

 

<p>The OP is using a cropped-sensor so the 100-400mm does give enough reach for wildlife, of course more is better <em>(especially when you have both with zoom)</em>.<br>

Still the 100-400 is only a 4x zoom, and the 50-500 is 10x, that there is plenty of reason to believe on the current lenses cropping the 400 to 500mm view might produce a better image. We don't have to defy physics they are completely different lenses.<br>

<strong>Now on the new lens</strong>... all bets are off until they deliver it; the recent Sigma lenses with their new 'glass' seem to be performing great. As was said earlier... <strong>WAIT and make an informed choice.</strong></p>

<p>Robert Cudlipp, there is no IS version of the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8, although alot of people wish there was. Maybe Sigma should add IS to their version.<br>

That new Sigma 85mm f/1.4 looks like it could be a very nice lens. I really want the Canon 85mm f/1.2 for low light, and background blur, but I think the Sigma at f/1.4 should be able to do a lot better on the price and it uses nice 77mm filters. <br>

Looks like it's a good time to sit tight on new lens purchases if you can and see how the Sigma lenses are going to perform (based on recent history they should be A+), and also what new lenses Canon is going to release... seems like their once top-tier lens selection needs some updating.</p>

<p>I don't know if they were too worried about the Sigma lens, BUT if they were sleeping I'm sure they woke up when Nikon released their lens. I've sure they have already dissassembled a few of them.<br>

The Nikon lens is a break through for them, which let's face it they probably needed. I'm not up on the latest lens adapters, but if there is any lens that is going to drive adaptor sales for Nikon to Canon this one will be it.<br>

So ya... I think they must be working on something, and I think they finally might be ready to release an updated 50mm soon too.</p>

<p>Like most people I've found the 50mm f/1.8 to be a very nice lens, but as mentioned above, if you're wanting to use manual focus, forget it. It is also quite prone to getting dust inside, the report of using it in the desert is quite surprising. Of course you need quite a bit of dust to make it an issue, still I was upset having taken pains to keep it clean. I did eventually get the f/1.4 but never used it enough to give any real opinion on it except it is nice, feels much better, it is not without reprted issues by some though. I'm thinking about getting the new Sigma f/1.4 EX DG HSM (love all those designators), the important thing is it's good and have the equivalent of ring-usm focus motor (HSM). It's huge, but if you already have other 77mm lens this mean you can use your filters without step-up rings. You have to have at least 1 f/1.8 or brighter lens in the bag.</p>

<p>Minimum focus distance on the 70-200mm zoom is 140cm which is a little high compared to Canon, max magnification is listed as 1:8. Closer focusing would be nice, but if the price it right I might be ready to try a Sigma lens, been eyeing the 50mm f/1.4 but still remember the old days of Sigma and Canon EOS, and I do like the Canon lenses, only have a couple Tamron macros all others are OEM. Seems like when they do make a nice lens the price is no longer good value.</p>

<p>I have to say a real macro lens is lots of fun. I'm starting to get a small collection now, my original was a Tamron 90mm that I used with film. I recently added a couple more and as I get up to speed with my dgital SLR I know they will definetly be well used. I'm sure I'm also going to be adding a couple more.</p>

<p><em>>the 24 T/S MkI is almost not worth getting for use on high resolution ff cameras</em><br>

<strong>This statement surprised me.</strong> Does anyone else feel the same or opposite about the <em>24 T/S MkI ?</em></p>

<p>Maximum acceptable amount of green in a winter picture? The OQ is quite scarry....</p>