Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pentax 135 (FF) Body and 24-70mm Lens Update
#11
Haha... I'm a Canon user but I guess my approach would be different from yours even if I had shot Nikon. I was/am usually of a view that if one has the money to buy a pricey FF camera (and they tend to be pricey), there's no way around going for matching top of the line glass, unless you risk wasting the potential (though there surely are exceptions). Maybe I'm wrong - I'm not using FF anyway.

P. S. Just today I saw a guy on the same shoot sporting a 5D Mark III with bronze age 24/2.8 and 35/2 lenses (non-IS ones) so maybe this was your spiritual kin from the Canon side. Smile

YMMV.

#12
Midrange full frame bodies are a drop in the ocean compared with top range glass, literally!





A true kinship exists between me and your 5D mkIII guy obviously, he is a very smart man indeed, he's also twigged how to squeeze the very last drop out of his existing glass.
Dave's clichés
#13
I have the 6D and the EF 35mm f2 too. And bronze age 55mm f1.2's and 85mm f1.8. Wink

#14
Well, until recently the situation in the Canon camp was pretty muddled - there were the L lenses and the non-L consumer fare, with good units being few and far between (85/1.8 being a well known exception). When the 100/2.8 macro and 70-300 IS were phased out in favour of the L models, I had a feeling they're going to drop the non-L/non-EFS line completely, leaving maybe the old 50/1.8. Now, of course, with full frame becoming increasingly affordable, they've thankfully made up their mind and started updating that stuff. But Nikon is still far ahead here, maybe in part because they do not have a well-defined "top-of-the-line" designation like L in Canon land.

#15
Quote:I have the 6D and the EF 35mm f2 too. And bronze age 55mm f1.2's and 85mm f1.8. Wink
  Yep, polished bronze is indeed golden!
Dave's clichés
#16
Quote:Well, until recently the situation in the Canon camp was pretty muddled - there were the L lenses and the non-L consumer fare, with good units being few and far between (85/1.8 being a well known exception). When the 100/2.8 macro and 70-300 IS were phased out in favour of the L models, I had a feeling they're going to drop the non-L/non-EFS line completely, leaving maybe the old 50/1.8. Now, of course, with full frame becoming increasingly affordable, they've thankfully made up their mind and started updating that stuff. But Nikon is still far ahead here, maybe in part because they do not have a well-defined "top-of-the-line" designation like L in Canon land.
The Canon 100mm f2.8 L IS USM Macro is not really more expensive than the Nikkor 105mm f2.8 VR Micro, which phased out the 105mm f2.8 non-VR predecessor.  So it is the same difference there, really. The Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM still lives happily in the Cano line-up... It was not phased out.

 

Canon started to freshen up its line-up with the 24mm f2.8 IS USM, 28mm f2.8 IS USM and 35mm f2 IS USM before they even started to freshen up the L lineup... And before Nikon started to bring their f1.8 models. The difference between what Canon did and Nikon is that Canon started with f2.8/2 with image stabilization, and Nikon with f1.8 primes.

 

Nikon had a lot of catching up to do, with bringing AF-S primes, and even a 35mm f1.4 with AF. Not sure why you see the Nikon line up as being far ahead. Yes, their 20mm f1.8 is a better lens than the ageing Canon 20mm f1.8 USM.

 

But, this is a Pentax thread.... Yes, Pentax has a lot of work to do still, to give the upcoming (....) FF model a viable lens lineup. 

#17
Quote:The Canon 100mm f2.8 L IS USM Macro is not really more expensive than the Nikkor 105mm f2.8 VR Micro, which phased out the 105mm f2.8 non-VR predecessor.  So it is the same difference there, really. The Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM still lives happily in the Cano line-up... It was not phased out.
My bad. I was under the impression that when the 70-300L was introduced, the non-L has ceased to be produced and only the old stocks were being sold.

 

Quote:<div>
Canon started to freshen up its line-up with the 24mm f2.8 IS USM, 28mm f2.8 IS USM and 35mm f2 IS USM before they even started to freshen up the L lineup... And before Nikon started to bring their f1.8 models. The difference between what Canon did and Nikon is that Canon started with f2.8/2 with image stabilization, and Nikon with f1.8 primes.

 

Nikon had a lot of catching up to do, with bringing AF-S primes, and even a 35mm f1.4 with AF. Not sure why you see the Nikon line up as being far ahead. Yes, their 20mm f1.8 is a better lens than the ageing Canon 20mm f1.8 USM.

 

But, this is a Pentax thread.... Yes, Pentax has a lot of work to do still, to give the upcoming (....) FF model a viable lens lineup. 
</div>
Nope, you're only partly right: the first Canon L refreshes came long before the IS/non-L trio: the 14/2.8 and 16-35/2.8 were updated in 2007; 24/1.4 in 2008, 70-200/2.8 IS in 2010, the big telephotos in 2011, and the non-L lenses updates before the IS trio (June 2012) were numbered at precisely zero... so the direction at that point seemed clear. But Canon still has nothing like Nikon's new 1.8 units (the 35/2 IS being the only similar thing, and 50/1.8 STM being optically identical to the previous version). BTW, Canon's 20mm is f/2.8, not f/1.8, and pretty crummy at that.  Wink EF 28/1.8, I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole either, so I hope that my opinion about Nikon being ahead in consumer segment may be more clearly explained now. Smile

But if we're to return to the subject of Pentax - I sincerely wish them luck, because I like the underdogs... and some competition can never hurt. We live in exciting times photography-wise.
#18
Quote: 

Nope, you're only partly right: the first Canon L refreshes came long before the IS/non-L trio: the 14/2.8 and 16-35/2.8 were updated in 2007; 24/1.4 in 2008, 70-200/2.8 IS in 2010, the big telephotos in 2011, and the non-L lenses updates before the IS trio (June 2012) were numbered at precisely zero... so the direction at that point seemed clear. But Canon still has nothing like Nikon's new 1.8 units (the 35/2 IS being the only similar thing, and 50/1.8 STM being optically identical to the previous version). BTW, Canon's 20mm is f/2.8, not f/1.8, and pretty crummy at that.  Wink EF 28/1.8, I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole either, so I hope that my opinion about Nikon being ahead in consumer segment may be more clearly explained now. Smile

But if we're to return to the subject of Pentax - I sincerely wish them luck, because I like the underdogs... and some competition can never hurt. We live in exciting times photography-wise.
You are right about the 20mm of course, I indeed seem to have confused the 28mm to a 20mm earlier today  Wink.

 

Nikon's f1.8's have no IS, so it depends on how you look at it. They just made a different choice.

The Canon EF 50mm f1.8 STM does not have to hide from the Nikkor AF-S 50mm f1.8.. Sharpness wise, they are pretty much similar. Both have so-so bokeh, the Canon has the edge CA wise. Even the distortion is a bit stronger for the Nikkor. I can't see an advantage of the Nikkor over the Canon, at the moment. Unless one really needs MF and then the focus by wire from the Canon is not as tactile. 
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)