New Digi Lens 16-35mm (in 35 format) &...


Status
Not open for further replies.

Photominia

New Member
Jul 27, 2004
242
0
0
Nikon World Wide
Wah, very depressed! ....Why canon must always make nikon user drew over...??!!

Two Canon EF-S lenses and a flash
Canon has today announced two new digital SLR lenses and a flash with digital features. The EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4 - F5.6 IS USM lens (US$600) provides an equivelant field of view of 27 - 136 mm (5x zoom), the EF-S 10 - 22 mm F3.5 - F4.5 USM lens (US$800) provides and equivelant field of view of 16 - 35 mm. Currently these new lenses can only be used on the Canon EOS 20D and EOS 300D digital SLR's (the only camera's to support EF-S lenses). Additionally Canon has also announced the Speedlite 580EX flash (US$480) with digital specific features such as zoom linked to sensor size and control of camera white balance.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0408/04081907canon_efs_flash.asp

Think will switch to canonian!
 

mpenza

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
12,937
0
0
Singapore
www.instagram.com
What's up? Nikon was first to introduce the DX lenses (12-24, 10.5mm fish eye, etc) and i-TTL flash like SB800DX and SB600DX.
 

Photominia said:
Wah, very depressed! ....Why canon must always make nikon user drew over...??!!

Two Canon EF-S lenses and a flash
Canon has today announced two new digital SLR lenses and a flash with digital features. The EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4 - F5.6 IS USM lens (US$600) provides an equivelant field of view of 27 - 136 mm (5x zoom), the EF-S 10 - 22 mm F3.5 - F4.5 USM lens (US$800) provides and equivelant field of view of 16 - 35 mm. Currently these new lenses can only be used on the Canon EOS 20D and EOS 300D digital SLR's (the only camera's to support EF-S lenses). Additionally Canon has also announced the Speedlite 580EX flash (US$480) with digital specific features such as zoom linked to sensor size and control of camera white balance.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0408/04081907canon_efs_flash.asp

Think will switch to canonian!
Childish isn't it? But anyway, it all depends on one needs. If one wants to sell all his Nikon lens and investment to switch camp, who's to stop him?
 

Photominia

New Member
Jul 27, 2004
242
0
0
Nikon World Wide
Yaloh , me still very young :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

snap....snap ! nikon old old.....!
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Huh? Canon's the one that's copying Nikon this time round, with it's 'DX' series of EF-S lenses that's only usable on the 20D and 300D, at least Nikon's DX series is usable across all DSLRs.

EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4 - F5.6 IS <- You sure you need IS on such short range? And also f/4-5.6? Nikon's 17-55 is f/2.8, if not, 18-70 is f/3.5-4.5. You're going to pay a lot of cash for IS system.



EF-S 10 - 22 mm F3.5 - F4.5 <- Well 10 x 1.6 = 16mm, Nikon's 12-24DX is f/4 constant.

I don't see any lure, apart from the 20D's 8MP, 5fps, it still has nothing to boast about over the D100.

Pardon me if this was supposed to be a flame thread, but I'm not starting one, just stating facts.
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,438
0
36
espn said:
EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4 - F5.6 IS <- You sure you need IS on such short range?
Isn't it the same as saying that a 28-135 IS and a 24-120VR do not warrant their image stabilization?
 

NorthernLights

Senior Member
Dec 17, 2002
2,447
3
38
47
Singapore
www.flickr.com
Photominia said:
Wah, very depressed! ....Why canon must always make nikon user drew over...??!!

Two Canon EF-S lenses and a flash
Canon has today announced two new digital SLR lenses and a flash with digital features. The EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4 - F5.6 IS USM lens (US$600) provides an equivelant field of view of 27 - 136 mm (5x zoom), the EF-S 10 - 22 mm F3.5 - F4.5 USM lens (US$800) provides and equivelant field of view of 16 - 35 mm. Currently these new lenses can only be used on the Canon EOS 20D and EOS 300D digital SLR's (the only camera's to support EF-S lenses). Additionally Canon has also announced the Speedlite 580EX flash (US$480) with digital specific features such as zoom linked to sensor size and control of camera white balance.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0408/04081907canon_efs_flash.asp

Think will switch to canonian!
Mr Photominia will be moving to and fro Nikon, Canon, back to Nikon or Fuji...maybe an occasional Olympus, or Minolta when he gets depressed over the lack of IS in the sensors on the 20D and he decides on the Minolta 7D...

Come on Mr Photo..the most expensive part of this Clubsnap trap is changing systems. We all did before and it's all the same.

Shoot with whatever equipment you have and enjoy making good photos.

As so many have said before "Repeat ad nauseam"..

The manufacturers are there to tell you that your cam is old...mine is newer and can shoot 0.2 fps faster than the other guy's...buy now...
 

junyang

New Member
Jan 24, 2003
398
0
0
Visit site
espn said:
Huh? Canon's the one that's copying Nikon this time round, with it's 'DX' series of EF-S lenses that's only usable on the 20D and 300D, at least Nikon's DX series is usable across all DSLRs.

EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4 - F5.6 IS <- You sure you need IS on such short range? And also f/4-5.6? Nikon's 17-55 is f/2.8, if not, 18-70 is f/3.5-4.5. You're going to pay a lot of cash for IS system.



EF-S 10 - 22 mm F3.5 - F4.5 <- Well 10 x 1.6 = 16mm, Nikon's 12-24DX is f/4 constant.

I don't see any lure, apart from the 20D's 8MP, 5fps, it still has nothing to boast about over the D100.

Pardon me if this was supposed to be a flame thread, but I'm not starting one, just stating facts.
17-85 = (27.2 - 136) which is probably about the same as the 24-120VR. Err. Alright then. So the VR is useless too, according to you! Btw, the 24-120 is also has a max aperture of 5.6 ;)

How do you explain this then? So IS on the 17-85 is probably useless, while VR on the 24-120 is probably useful! :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

Facts? What facts do i see on your post, except the fact that DX lenses can be used across the broad while EF-S can only be used on the 300D and 20D. All the other so called facts, are, in fact, biased comments. Ask anyone around here.
 

NorthernLights

Senior Member
Dec 17, 2002
2,447
3
38
47
Singapore
www.flickr.com
Frankly, I enjoyed every moment during my recent Phuket trip shooting with just the Canon Powershot A60 and using the manual functions.

Try challenging yourself to take near impossible shots and stretch the capabilities of your camera to the max.

Equipment amassing is one of the greatest follies of the Clubsnap forums. It is a disease and clouds the real issues of photography and it's enjoyment. Makes one spend too much $ and in contrast, too little time on improving one self and the result is after amassing everything, one still produces poor pictures and one gets disillusioned.

Hey, Nikon, Canon, Oly, Fuji whatever will go on improving but they never promised you that what they produce will take over the photographer's job of taking framing that picture, getting right exposure by metering correctly, framing the scene, manipulating existing conditions, studying where the light is coming from, pre-focussing and anticipation and making the best out of an interesting subject that catches the photographer's eyes.
 

ipaquser

New Member
Feb 22, 2004
44
0
0
NorthernLights said:
Frankly, I enjoyed every moment during my recent Phuket trip shooting with just the Canon Powershot A60 and using the manual functions.

Try challenging yourself to take near impossible shots and stretch the capabilities of your camera to the max.

Equipment amassing is one of the greatest follies of the Clubsnap forums. It is a disease and clouds the real issues of photography and it's enjoyment. Makes one spend too much $ and in contrast, too little time on improving one self and the result is after amassing everything, one still produces poor pictures and one gets disillusioned.

Hey, Nikon, Canon, Oly, Fuji whatever will go on improving but they never promised you that what they produce will take over the photographer's job of taking framing that picture, getting right exposure by metering correctly, framing the scene, manipulating existing conditions, studying where the light is coming from, pre-focussing and anticipation and making the best out of an interesting subject that catches the photographer's eyes.
Yup, totally agree with you. Some people are just to obsessed with equipment, even about whether DX came first or EF-S came first! And also contradict themselves when they say the 17-85's IS is useless.. and he'll probably think that the 24-120's VR is good. Well, to some people, Nikon is their life!

I hope those people would concentrate more on their photography skills, because, as i've observed, its something he/she is lacking, badly, from the recent pictures.
 

Belle&Sebastain

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2002
3,796
1
0
here
www.9frames.com
NorthernLights said:
Equipment amassing is one of the greatest follies of the Clubsnap forums. It is a disease and clouds the real issues of photography and it's enjoyment. Makes one spend too much $ and in contrast, too little time on improving one self and the result is after amassing everything, one still produces poor pictures and one gets disillusioned.
quote of the day! :thumbsup:
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
junyang said:
17-85 = (27.2 - 136) which is probably about the same as the 24-120VR. Err. Alright then. So the VR is useless too, according to you! Btw, the 24-120 is also has a max aperture of 5.6 ;)

How do you explain this then? So IS on the 17-85 is probably useless, while VR on the 24-120 is probably useful! :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

Facts? What facts do i see on your post, except the fact that DX lenses can be used across the broad while EF-S can only be used on the 300D and 20D. All the other so called facts, are, in fact, biased comments. Ask anyone around here.
17-85 is still 17-85, the FOV comes in after the FLM. So how can a 17-85 become a 27.2-136?

The 24-120VR is still at the tele-side. Biased comments? Heck, even if the AF-S 24-85 came with VR, I'd still be arguing the same things, is it needed on the focal length? You decide. I didn't say the EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4 - F5.6 IS is useless with IS, I only asked if it was NEEDED. Read carefully, don't start with me.

And again I was comparing the EF-S 17-85 IS with the AF-S 24-85, why drag in a the 28-135 IS and/or 24-120VR? I don't see the link.

Just like some argued if the 24-120VR needed VR, it's really up to your preference, and as again I was merely asking. Is there such a need to be so worked up?
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,438
0
36
espn said:
17-85 is still 17-85, the FOV comes in after the FLM. So how can a 17-85 become a 27.2-136?
The FLM will similarly amplifiy the effects of camera shake. Note that when u have a smaller sensor any smearing of the image will result in a proportionally greater and more visible result.

You once owned a CP5700 didn't you? Could you shoot at its 50mm(200+mm in 35mm fov equivalent) setting at 1/50s or less?

You should be able to if your premise that FLM doesn't affect handheld speed is true.
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,438
0
36
Or for a more conventional example, most people with a compact digicam at its 35mm(7.xmm) setting should be able to shoot at 1/6s and get relatively good shots of static objects.....if your assumption holds true.:)
 

quekky

Senior Member
Sep 13, 2003
1,399
0
36
www.irphotography.com
it's 2mm wider, how many degree of angle is that? (after FLM)


i think for the current system that we have (be it canon or nikon), we should be happy with what we already have decided on, and not change system just because u can get 2mm more. for those who are still choosing system, u should consider other factors and not just these few new lenses
 

ipaquser

New Member
Feb 22, 2004
44
0
0
espn said:
17-85 is still 17-85, the FOV comes in after the FLM. So how can a 17-85 become a 27.2-136?

The 24-120VR is still at the tele-side. Biased comments? Heck, even if the AF-S 24-85 came with VR, I'd still be arguing the same things, is it needed on the focal length? You decide. I didn't say the EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4 - F5.6 IS is useless with IS, I only asked if it was NEEDED. Read carefully, don't start with me.

And again I was comparing the EF-S 17-85 IS with the AF-S 24-85, why drag in a the 28-135 IS and/or 24-120VR? I don't see the link.

Just like some argued if the 24-120VR needed VR, it's really up to your preference, and as again I was merely asking. Is there such a need to be so worked up?
Your argument is flawed. The 17-85 ( 27.2 - 136) is designed to work with the APS sized sensors, so after taking into account the FLM, its 27.2mm to 136mm. I will never take it as 17-85, because, it won't even fit on Film SLRs without the EF-S mount.

And why are you comparing a 17-85 with a AF-S 24-85? The 17-85 as i said is essentially 27.2 - 136, and when mounted on a camera with its mount, WILL ALWAYS be 27.2 - 136mm. Tell me, are you able to use the 18-70DX lens on a film slr? and get the true 18mm? :)

However, the 24-120VR is designed to work with FULL FRAME SENSORS aka Film SLRs, so, in this case, aren't they off the same focal length? And the 17-85 with longer reach!

By the way, i am a Nikon user too ( D70 and D2H ), so if you think im taking issue with Nikon, im not. Its your arguments. :)
 

BurgaFlippinMan

New Member
Jun 20, 2004
636
0
0
Photominia said:
Yaloh , me still very young :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

snap....snap ! nikon old old.....!
huh? you mean nikon for old ppl onli ah? i still 16 here....still nikon..:D
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Zerstorer said:
Or for a more conventional example, most people with a compact digicam at its 35mm(7.xmm) setting should be able to shoot at 1/6s and get relatively good shots of static objects.....if your assumption holds true.:)
Well, if the FLM is to be considered into the shake factor, then I would gladly stand corrected, it has been my belief that even if it's a 17-35 f/2.8, at 1/17 when at 17mm, should still sustain no handshake (using 1/F rule). And not 25.5mm. Perhaps I'm wrong then.


ipaquser said:
Your argument is flawed. The 17-85 ( 27.2 - 136) is designed to work with the APS sized sensors, so after taking into account the FLM, its 27.2mm to 136mm. I will never take it as 17-85, because, it won't even fit on Film SLRs without the EF-S mount.
I say again, a lens is 17-85mm, no matter HOW the FLM is, you will never gain EXTRA distance. If you tell me the FOV is 27.2-136mm and like what Zerstorer says, the FLM does kick in the 1/F rule, then I would gladly accept the fact. (1/F = 1/F and/or 1/FOV in this case)



ipaquser said:
And why are you comparing a 17-85 with a AF-S 24-85? The 17-85 as i said is essentially 27.2 - 136, and when mounted on a camera with its mount, WILL ALWAYS be 27.2 - 136mm. Tell me, are you able to use the 18-70DX lens on a film slr? and get the true 18mm?
Oops typo, my previous message should read "comparing the 17-85 with 18-70", the 24-85 is a typo. Check it out. I was merely using the 24-85 as my stand on the need for VR on such a range. The FOV is 27.2-136, but not the zoom.



ipaquser said:
However, the 24-120VR is designed to work with FULL FRAME SENSORS aka Film SLRs, so, in this case, aren't they off the same focal length? And the 17-85 with longer reach!
I think you're mistaken, 24-120VR is 24-120VR, on the digital body you need to factor in the FLM, similar to DX lenses, you'll need to factor in the FLM before using the len. 12-24 yields 18-36 (AF 18-35D?), 17-55 yields 25.5-82.5 (AF-S 28-70?). This has been the way. Isn't it? 10.5DX yields a 180 degrees image, the angle of view should be 15.75. If not then the 10.5 should yield more then 180 degrees.



ipaquser said:
By the way, i am a Nikon user too ( D70 and D2H ), so if you think im taking issue with Nikon, im not. Its your arguments.
Nope, am not taking into account whether or not you are a Canon user, Nikon user and/or anything else. Just typing my thoughts and wasting my bandwidth in office.
 

xdivider

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2002
1,484
0
36
Visit site
junyang said:
17-85 = (27.2 - 136) which is probably about the same as the 24-120VR. Err. Alright then. So the VR is useless too, according to you! Btw, the 24-120 is also has a max aperture of 5.6 ;)

How do you explain this then? So IS on the 17-85 is probably useless, while VR on the 24-120 is probably useful! :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
Eeh since u brought it in, going by logic, a FF 24-120 becomes a 36-180mm if u factor in flm. So if u go by rule of 1/adjusted fl, its a difference of 1/180 to 1/136. I would argue that i definitely need VR more than IS in this case...... The original 28-135mm would be a better comparison here as the adjusted tele is ~210mm.

Besides, has anyone reviewed the aperture ranges of the new lens yet? That would be more interesting to the prospective buyers as the new guy starts from f4 rather than f3.5 of the original 28-135. It would be rather boring to use a lens that is limited to 5.6 from aproximately the 35mm point and up. But if it stays ard F4 for most of the range that would be nice
 

ipaquser

New Member
Feb 22, 2004
44
0
0
xdivider said:
Eeh since u brought it in, going by logic, a FF 24-120 becomes a 36-180mm if u factor in flm. So if u go by rule of 1/adjusted fl, its a difference of 1/180 to 1/136. I would argue that i definitely need VR more than IS in this case...... The original 28-135mm would be a better comparison here as the adjusted tele is ~210mm.

Besides, has anyone reviewed the aperture ranges of the new lens yet? That would be more interesting to the prospective buyers as the new guy starts from f4 rather than f3.5 of the original 28-135. It would be rather boring to use a lens that is limited to 5.6 from aproximately the 35mm point and up. But if it stays ard F4 for most of the range that would be nice
Yes, but the problem is, in canon's case, that lens can ONLY be mounted on a DSLR. But the 24-120 can ALSO be mounted on a FILM SLR where VR is active too, not ONLY on a dslr.

I do know the FLM. But you have to know you're comparing a APS sensor ONLY lens and a lens which can be used on full frame and DX sized sensors.

Do you get it?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.