New Canon Lens Reviews at The Luminous Landscape
Michael Reichmann
months.
These includes the 16~35mm f/2.8L, the 70~200mm f/2.8L IS and the
400mm f/4 DO IS lenses.
All three have now been reviewed at The Luminous Landscape.
Links to these reviews can be found at
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/what's.htm
Michael
Mark Morgan
But the DO was ONLY reviewed using a D30, which tells film users next to
NOTHING.
"Michael Reichmann" <mreic...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:7d39d86d.01122...@posting.google.com...
Dave Carcel
still none in site. Dave
"Michael Reichmann" <mreic...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:7d39d86d.01122...@posting.google.com...
dan
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM = USA$6000/naIMP
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM = USA$1500/naIMP
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM = USA$1900/IMP$1850
May the Light be with you.©
-----
dan
Charles Richmond
>
> All 3 lenses are available from B&H now.
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com
>
> Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM = USA$6000/naIMP
> Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM = USA$1500/naIMP
> Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM = USA$1900/IMP$1850
>
So here is my thought...
I have: 17-35 2.8L, 28-70 2.8L, 85 1.2L, 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS. If I
sell the 100-400 and buy the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and the 400mm f/4.0
DO IS .... hmmm I'll be out about $6800. What do you think folks?
--
***********************************************************************
* Charles Richmond Integrated International Systems Corporation *
* c...@iisc.com c...@acm.org c...@shore.net http://www.iisc.com *
* UNIX Internals, I18N, L10N, X, Realtime Imaging, and Custom S/W *
* 131 Bishop's Forest Drive , Waltham , Ma. USA 02452 *
* (781) 647 2269 FAX (781) 647 3665 Cellular (617) 504 3379 *
***********************************************************************
Bill Tuthill
>
> All 3 lenses are available from B&H now: http://www.bhphotovideo.com
>
> Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM = USA$6000/naIMP
> Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM = USA$1500/naIMP
> Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM = USA$1900/IMP$1850
Thanks for saving us time navigating the B&H site!
According to the luminous-landscape.com review, the 16-35/2.8
is quite a bit better wide open at 17mm than the old 17-35/2.8.
However looking at the Photodo.com MTF graphs, the weaknesses of
the 17-35 were more at 24mm and 35mm wide open, where 40 lp/mm
MTF approached zero. The l-l didn't test above 17mm wide open,
nor did they test distortion, which was quite bad in the 17-35.
Before buying this Canon lens, I would wait to see how the Sigma
15-30/3.5-4.5 tests out. The 30-35 range is probably duplicated
by other lenses you own, and f/2.8 is seldom needed at wide angle.
Nice, only $1850 for the 70-200/2.8L IS -- what a bargain!
I still think the 400/4.0 DO should cost no more than twice the
price of the Minolta 400/4.5, which would be around $3600. It's
probably a mistake not to wait for prices to decline.
Stephen M. Dunn
$I have: 17-35 2.8L, 28-70 2.8L, 85 1.2L, 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS. If I
$sell the 100-400 and buy the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and the 400mm f/4.0
$DO IS .... hmmm I'll be out about $6800. What do you think folks?
Heh. Just in case this is a serious question ...
Well, you'd get a faster medium telephoto zoom and a faster and
probably sharper 400, but have a big hole from 200-400 unless you get
a TC to use with the 70-200. If you're like me, that 200-400 hole
probably won't be a big deal - my longest lens (100-300) get used
sometimes from 100-200 and at 300 but rarely in between - and the
extra speed at 400 would be good. But that's an awful lot of
money to be out.
Canon's expensive lenses always seem to drop in price after a
while. Same for the expensive bodies. Even if a 400/4 would be
a great addition to my lens lineup, I'd seriously consider waiting
for that ridiculous price to drop. Or ... what does a 300/2.8 plus
a 1.4x cost?
--
Stephen M. Dunn <ste...@stevedunn.ca>
>>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/
Charles Richmond
>
> In article <3C2C7D54...@iisc.com> Charles Richmond <c...@iisc.com> writes:
> $I have: 17-35 2.8L, 28-70 2.8L, 85 1.2L, 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS. If I
> $sell the 100-400 and buy the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and the 400mm f/4.0
> $DO IS .... hmmm I'll be out about $6800. What do you think folks?
>
> Heh. Just in case this is a serious question ...
Actually, my first thought was to sell the 17-35L and replace it with
a couple of non-zoom wide angle lenses. Maybe the 14 and ...
But the $$$$ is fairly impressive, so what started out as serious
is looking seriously impossible.
>
> Well, you'd get a faster medium telephoto zoom and a faster and
> probably sharper 400, but have a big hole from 200-400 unless you get
> a TC to use with the 70-200. If you're like me, that 200-400 hole
> probably won't be a big deal - my longest lens (100-300) get used
> sometimes from 100-200 and at 300 but rarely in between - and the
I do use the range from 200-400 so that means I have to think about
a 300 2.8L... The $$ is not looking pretty... *and* trekking the
stuff around is going to be a major problem.
> extra speed at 400 would be good. But that's an awful lot of
> money to be out.
>
> Canon's expensive lenses always seem to drop in price after a
> while. Same for the expensive bodies. Even if a 400/4 would be
> a great addition to my lens lineup, I'd seriously consider waiting
> for that ridiculous price to drop. Or ... what does a 300/2.8 plus
> a 1.4x cost?
Seems like I wait a bit...
Bill Tuthill
>
> I do use the range from 200-400 so that means I have to think about
> a 300 2.8L... The $$ is not looking pretty... *and* trekking the
> stuff around is going to be a major problem.
Guess you have a lot of money to spend. Just get a 2x teleconverter
so your 70-200/2.8 becomes a 140-400/5.6 and your 400/4 becomes a 400/8.
Maybe that's not so good with Canon AF... ;-)
With a 1.4x teleconverter your 70-200/2.8 becomes a 98-280/4 and your
400/4 becomes a 560/5.6. That would autofocus better, but now you're
lacking the 280-400 range. Oh well.
Charles Richmond
>
> Charles Richmond <c...@iisc.com> wrote:
> >
> > I do use the range from 200-400 so that means I have to think about
> > a 300 2.8L... The $$ is not looking pretty... *and* trekking the
> > stuff around is going to be a major problem.
>
> Guess you have a lot of money to spend. Just get a 2x teleconverter
I don't really have that much money this year... I do have a
reasonable expectation of seeing a *big* windfall next year we
shall see.
> so your 70-200/2.8 becomes a 140-400/5.6 and your 400/4 becomes a 400/8.
> Maybe that's not so good with Canon AF... ;-)
>
> With a 1.4x teleconverter your 70-200/2.8 becomes a 98-280/4 and your
> 400/4 becomes a 560/5.6. That would autofocus better, but now you're
> lacking the 280-400 range. Oh well.
Probably what I should do is to get the 1.4x now and get the 500 DO IS
when it comes out next year or the year after.
Anthony Zipple
70-200IS. Each is even better than its very good earlier model.