2 New Canon Lenses

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:32 pm

Canon announces 2 new lenses...

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

EF 85mm f/1.2L Mk II

Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 215 Location: Corona, CA

I would really like the second lens. I don't own any L-glass right now and I would like to see what Canon can do with a prime of this quality.

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:35 pm

The first looks good, but the price doesn't look so good. I saw reports of $1150 USAian dollars - pfeh. I'd pay $600 or $700 tops.

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

Don't worry about the second lens. Get the 85 f/1.8. Believe me, it's the single best non L-lens made by Canon, it goes for $350, and there are pros who to this day heatedly debate about which is better -- the 85 f/1.8 versus the 85 f/1.2L (version 1).

The first one would be great if its price drops considerably. Unless this thing is made from polished diamonds, I have no clue why it's that expensive (except insofar as Canon won't designate any of the EF-S lenses as 'L').

Joined: 15 Apr 2006 Posts: 14 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Second lens looks like it will be selling for around $2300.00. Seems a little pricey. The 1st version of this lens is about $700.00 cheaper.

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:44 pm

drpablo74 wrote:

Don't worry about the second lens. Get the 85 f/1.8. Believe me, it's the single best non L-lens made by Canon, it goes for $350, and there are pros who to this day heatedly debate about which is better -- the 85 f/1.8 versus the 85 f/1.2L (version 1).

I am planning to someday buy the Nikon version of the 85/1.8 ;-)

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:21 am

But at F/1.2 you would need relatively no light...and imagine the shallow DOF you could achieve...

That would be a sweet piece of glass to have just to play with. I have seen an old nikon 50mm they called the Nocturne or something like that which was f/1.2...

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:16 am

KurtSchneid wrote:

But at F/1.2 you would need relatively no light...and imagine the shallow DOF you could achieve...

That would be a sweet piece of glass to have just to play with. I have seen an old nikon 50mm they called the Nocturne or something like that which was f/1.2...

I have an f/1.2 nikkor lens, it is the 50mm manual focus one. Beautifully made. It's better than the noct. I got it not so much for shallow DOF as for ease of focusing, which is of course done TTL with aperture wide open. The viewfinder is very bright with that thing, it really makes the other lenses seem dark, even the f/2.8 ones.

:) keithwms

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

The difference in the DOF between an f/1.2 and an f/1.8 lens is fairly trivial at the 85mm focal length. Even at f/1.8 I have to stop down (at least with close portraits) to get the entire face in the plane of focus. The 85 and 135mm L-primes, however, are generally regarded as the apotheosis of what makes the L-lenses so great -- the sharpness, color, and background blur are stunning with those two lenses.

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:01 am

Both look like great lenses price is high my question is about EF-S17-55mm f/2.8 IS since it's designed for the 1.6 cropped sensors are you getting a true 17-55mm meaning no magnification.

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:07 am

Intermedio wrote:

my question is about EF-S17-55mm f/2.8 IS since it's designed for the 1.6 cropped sensors are you getting a true 17-55mm meaning no magnification.

No. Focal lengths for SLR lenses are always specified in their 35mm equivalent.

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 1:04 pm

Eldorage wrote:

Intermedio wrote:

my question is about EF-S17-55mm f/2.8 IS since it's designed for the 1.6 cropped sensors are you getting a true 17-55mm meaning no magnification.

No. Focal lengths for SLR lenses are always specified in their 35mm equivalent.

also 17-55mm is 17-55mm in focal lenght whether film or Digital Camera with a Crop factor no magnification, don't get confuse

okay let say the film or full frame camera have a 100% of Field of View of 17mm with a crop of 1.6x in Digital your field of View will be about 60% of that 17mm and the focal leght or magnification will remain the same which is "17mm"

they say its design for Digital with a crop Factor so I assuming its the same with the Nikon DX lens

EF-S or DX lens that are design for Digital Camera with a crop Factor needed a smaller lens (in diameter) just enough to cover the sensor while with the full frame or film camera they need to built a bigger (in diameter) lens to cover the film or the full frame sensor.
I'm not sure about the Canon Mount but with the Nikon the reason they won't advice you to use a DX lens in a Film Camera is Vignetting, cause the lens diameter is so small that you almost exceeding the lens coverage.

Hope this help and not brought you more confusion =)

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 1:44 pm

adorski wrote:

Eldorage wrote:

Intermedio wrote:

my question is about EF-S17-55mm f/2.8 IS since it's designed for the 1.6 cropped sensors are you getting a true 17-55mm meaning no magnification.

No. Focal lengths for SLR lenses are always specified in their 35mm equivalent.

also 17-55mm is 17-55mm in focal lenght whether film or Digital Camera with a Crop factor no magnification, don't get confuse

okay let say the film or full frame camera have a 100% of Field of View of 17mm with a crop of 1.6x in Digital your field of View will be about 60% of that 17mm and the focal leght or magnification will remain the same which is "17mm"

they say its design for Digital with a crop Factor so I assuming its the same with the Nikon DX lens

EF-S or DX lens that are design for Digital Camera with a crop Factor needed a smaller lens (in diameter) just enough to cover the sensor while with the full frame or film camera they need to built a bigger (in diameter) lens to cover the film or the full frame sensor.
I'm not sure about the Canon Mount but with the Nikon the reason they won't advice you to use a DX lens in a Film Camera is Vignetting, cause the lens diameter is so small that you almost exceeding the lens coverage.

Hope this help and not brought you more confusion =)

O.K. I think I understand for example the Tokina 12-24mm if I have it set on 12mm I'm getting 12mm but only gettimg 60% field of view because of the 1.6 crop factor. And if I were to put it on a 35mm camera I would be getting 18-36mm or do I have that backwards. Gosh I feel dumb sometimes.

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 2:25 pm

Intermedio wrote:

O.K. I think I understand for example the Tokina 12-24mm if I have it set on 12mm I'm getting 12mm but only gettimg 60% field of view because of the 1.6 crop factor. And if I were to put it on a 35mm camera I would be getting 18-36mm or do I have that backwards. Gosh I feel dumb sometimes.

Not quite... The focal length of the lens (here 17-55 mm) is a physical property of the lens - it doesn't change. The reference for 100 % viewing angle is (at least today) the 35 mm format. So that is always 100 % and the APS-C sized sensors always crop out.

So your first sentence is completely right. The second not, as per definition the lens delivers the angle of view which is to be expected for the given focal length on the 35 mm camera.

regards
René

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 2:33 pm

drpablo74 wrote:

The difference in the DOF between an f/1.2 and an f/1.8 lens is fairly trivial at the 85mm focal length. Even at f/1.8 I have to stop down (at least with close portraits) to get the entire face in the plane of focus.

That is true - but nevertheless there is a full f-stop difference, which makes the 1.2 worthwhile. As Keith wrote, focusing and composition is just that bit easier and more comfortable and also the 1 f-stop may save a shot otherwise lost. I have the 2.0/80 and the 1.4 variety from Pentax and I use 95 % of times the 1.4 modell., though it is much bigger and heavier, because it is just a pleasure to work with such a wide aperture. But obviously these very fast lenses are more niche products for addicts or the few who really need them.

regards
René