Nostatic, Canon Instant Lens Rebates have begun

[Samsungian]

Nostatic, Canon Instant Lens Rebates have begun


If I recall, you are considering 85mm 1.2L II. Its $130 off now thru Jan 15th 2010.


SLR Camera Lenses

No deals for me on the two lenses I'm considering. So, no hurries to buy anything either.

[nostatic]

Thx. The 85/1.2 is the only one on that list I'm interested in and I think I'd prefer the 50/1.2. Frankly the 70-200/4IS is to good I have a tough time rationalizing another lens in that FOV range (though f1.2 is attractive...wish it had IS). The 300/4IS is probably my next purchase, and I'm also interested in the 100/2.8IS macro.

I think everyone is waiting for the 24-70/2.8 IS, but I wish the 35/1.4 had IS. One advantage with Pentax...don't have to worry about whether or not they make a particular lens with IS.

[Samsungian]

If I were to choose between 85mm 1.2L II and 50mm 1.2L I'd pick the 85mm from what I've read/seen on the net.

Yes Pentax has advantage with shake reduction bodies. However I prefer being able to see the image stabilze in viewfinder, and it cuts down on my need to review images on the display. Kinda like shooting film. Shoot and then later check out the images.

I have the 300mm f4 IS and its ok. I'm always a fan of Canon's built in hoods that screw in place when deployed. I wish I had bought the 2.8 instead when it was a very good price, but the f4 is a handy size so it will do until I splurge or dollar regains strength against the yen. Its up almost $1,000 since Dec 2008. I toy with the idea of getting 400mm 5.6L but I'll likely instead get the 17mm tiltshift next. 24mm TS reviews are better than 17mm TS. Sharp into corners and sharp wide open. But I prefer ultrawide. Maybe I'll own both at somepoint, but the 17mm is next.

Yeah 24-70mm "IS" is a popular rumour. I've read of it for 3 years and last December decided to buy 24-70 anyways. Mine is a great optic but has a notorious past. Many QC problems early on. Canon to me seems hunkered down now, loosing clear sales leads they've had since mid 90's over Nikon. I expected new full frame lenses or updated design lenses from them when 1DMarkIV announced 3 days ago.

Another lens that's stellar is the 24mm 1.4L II. I shot with one a few months ago and I was stunned how nice it is. I used the canon reps 5DII with it and used live view. Pretty sweet combo. Anytime Canon releases a lens as Version II its worth extra shopping consideration. That 35mm 1.4 has long been a rumored Ver. II candidate. I guess if its something you've got to have, you buy it. On Dec15th 2008 35mm 1.4L was $1,139. Sometimes on Fredmiranda I see people sell according to what they paid so you can get very good deals. I haven't done this, as I bought all my new eos glass before the January 2009 price hikes, but its what I've noticed there. Alot of people need more coin for their used eos glass than I paid new for mine last year.

[nostatic]

I've read the mixed reviews on the 50/1.2 but there are a couple of things involved in the decision. First is weight - the 85 is a tank and the way I use/carry the camera that makes a difference. Second is that I find the 70-200/4 IS to be *so* good the only thing the 85 gets me is a razor thin DOF and a little better bokeh. For my uses, the IS makes up for most of the 1.2 vs 4.0 difference (knowing I don't need to freeze fast action.

I would like a 24-70, but without IS I can't see a huge difference between it and the 24-105. Yes, a little less distortion and more isolation, but the IS, for what/how I shoot, is a big deal. I've already found that with the 135/2. I shot it back to back with the 70-200 and in some of my typical low light situations the IS saved the shot.

I'm seriously thinking of the new 100/2.8 IS macro, as I miss my old Nikkor 105/2.8 micro.

[roentarre]

Canon 85L is a little over rated. It is a very heavy lens where its bokeh rendering is not improved simply because of wider aperture. Instead, the bokeh are at best neutral and specular highlights are headache with this lens.

Mark II version improves its contrast at wider aperture. However, the images are simply flat from the lens. This lens is good when you tell viewers that the images are taken by 85L

[Samsungian]

Sounds like the 50mm is next for you. But without IS maybe its not a good fit in the kit either?

I've tried with Eos gear to not copy focal lengths I already own. At this point I'm pretty much done buying more new glass, except for pricey ones. If they offered a 24-70 IS I'd consider it. If they upgraded 35mm 1.4L to a version II I'd consider it. I'm pretty much down to really wanting 17mm TS that sits a launch price and wishing I had bought 300mm 2.8L IS when it was $1,000 less 10 months ago. Part of the reason I didn't buy the 300mm 2.8 IS was the great price on 300mm f4 IS I bought back then instead and I already own 300mm 2.8 in tamron adaptall 2 mount and have a pair genuine adaptall 2 to eos mount adapters. So in a real way I already have a 300mm 2.8 covered but without autofocus and without IS and auto metering. Image quality wise the Tammy 2.8 tops the f4 IS. But the f4 IS is handy size, and has IS, autofocuses, and still autofocuses nicely with my 1.4x II TC. Part of my disapointment with 300mm f4 IS is I wish I bought the 2.8 instead. 300mm f4 IS is a nice lens though, maybe you should consider it too since you don't have anything covering that focal length.

Its nice to feel I've completed the canon kit to fit my needs and budget. Sure, I'd like to buy more, but I don't really need more. Maybe you just need to shoot more and enjoy the two nice IS zooms you've already got. I'd ditch the 50mm 1.4 if you still have it. It also gets mixed reviews. Everyone I'd read raves about their 135mm f2. I'd keep that one, but for my kit I passed on it. The 70-200 2.8 IS for me is by far the best zoom in this range I've ever owned. Though your f4 is supposed to better it from what I've read except at f2.8. I went back and forth when picking one or the other.

oh yeah, I may pick up the 580 II flash. Its an instant $50 off right now. I don't use flash, but it might be handy to have.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=486706&is=USA

[nostatic]

Funny, after reading a few threads on flash at a Canon board I'm considering a 580 as well. I traditionally have hated flash, but as I find myself in more "proper" shooting situations where I can use it (ie I'm either shooting interiors or the subjects are part of a planned shoot) I can see the utility. And with Canon it seems the flash works fine.

I didn't really consider the 70-200/2.8 because it is too big/heavy for walkaround. The f4 version is incredibly sharp and highly portable for what it is.

Still not sure on 50/1.2. The 24-105 actually is a pretty decent lens, and I can shoot that wide open to good effect. Still no substitute for when you want narrow DOF.

[kunik]

L glass primes are a dangerous proposition because there are so many and they are so expensive. I have used the 35, 85 and 135 and they were all quite good although I found the 85 difficult to use. I just LOVE the 135 though.