 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / November 2005Canon 24-105 now shipping again...
If you're interested in snapping up one fo these, you'd better act fast, because they have been back-ordered for quite some time. -Here's hoping they are now shipping only modified lenses (since some early ones had a problem that Canon was fixing for free...). I just ordered mine from B&H this morning. Here's the link to the B&H page for the lens: http://tinyurl.com/bvn3y -Mark Out of stock allready. "Mark" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message news:K6vgf.5151$dv.3542@fed1read02... > If you're interested in snapping up one fo these, you'd better act fast, > because they have been back-ordered for quite some time. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -Mark > Out of stock allready. Oops. Anybody wanna buy a nearly new 24-70 2.8 L? I have it..."In Stock!" :) >> If you're interested in snapping up one fo these, you'd better act >> fast, because they have been back-ordered for quite some time. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> -Mark >Anybody wanna buy a nearly new 24-70 2.8 L? >I have it..."In Stock!" >:) Maybe you can give it to a worthy recipient for Christmas? I'll send ya my address. > >Anybody wanna buy a nearly new 24-70 2.8 L? >>I have it..."In Stock!" >>:) > > Maybe you can give it to a worthy recipient for Christmas? > I'll send ya my address. It would cost less for Mark to ship one to me...in fact, I could just drive over to his place and pick it up... Heheheh, my daughter could use one, since we already have two...  SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Anybody wanna buy a nearly new 24-70 2.8 L? >> I have it..."In Stock!" >> :) > > Maybe you can give it to a worthy recipient for Christmas? > I'll send ya my address. I'd be happy to give it to you free of charge. Shipping & Handling is $1000. >>> Anybody wanna buy a nearly new 24-70 2.8 L? >>> I have it..."In Stock!" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Shipping & Handling is $1000. For that deal, I'll drive down! SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>> Anybody wanna buy a nearly new 24-70 2.8 L? >>>> I have it..."In Stock!" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > For that deal, I'll drive down! In that case, there is a $950 pick-up fee. :) (Seriously, that's not a bad deal for basically a brand new lens in perfect condition with warranty...only three months old) >>>>> Anybody wanna buy a nearly new 24-70 2.8 L? >>>>> I have it..."In Stock!" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > (Seriously, that's not a bad deal for basically a brand new lens in > perfect condition with warranty...only three months old) That's a very good deal. You might want to put it up over on the rec.photo.marketplace groups, and see if you get any nibbles. I'd be tempted if we didn't already have a couple, and have the prospect of getting the 24-105, like you. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Maybe you can give it to a worthy recipient for Christmas? > I'll send ya my address. >I'd be happy to give it to you free of charge. >Shipping & Handling is $1000. Cool. I got a sister in CA. She can pick it up for me. I was gonna offer you my new 17-40L in trade (as if), but I've been using that lens more and more lately, especially in tight situations indoors. I find myself using the incredible 28-135 IS USM less and less these days. After reading the posts in the other thread, the lens I'm currently Jonesin' for is the 85mm f/1.2L. Man, that's one sharp lens! I'll bet it would be awesome for doing stitched panoramas. >> Maybe you can give it to a worthy recipient for Christmas? >> I'll send ya my address. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Man, that's one sharp lens! I'll bet it would be awesome for doing > stitched panoramas. I don't need your 17-40 because I have the 16-35 2.8, which I am very happy with. As for the 28-135 (which I sold a while back)...this new 24-105 IS is about the same size, but what a difference in build quality, IS effectiveness, sharness (wow!), and of course...constant f4...which is plenty fast for me in this mm range most of the time. > After reading the posts in the other thread, the lens I'm currently > Jonesin' for is the 85mm f/1.2L. > Man, that's one sharp lens! I'll bet it would be awesome for doing > stitched panoramas. Is the f/1.2 sharper than the f/1.4 at the apertures you're likely to use for panoramas? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >Is the f/1.2 sharper than the f/1.4 at the apertures you're likely to >use for panoramas? That's a good question. Canon doesn't offer a 85mm f/1.4 lens so the comparison would be made with the 85mm f/1.8 "non-L" lens. I'm sure the "L" version is much sharper, not to mention much heavier and more expensive. Of course, there are other benefits to having a f/1.2 lens. That isn't an aperture I'd use often, but I'll bet it provides a big bright image in the viewfinder. Anyway, it's now official. I want the Canon 85mm f/1.2L lens! And I always get what I want. Well, sometimes. OK, not much. >>Is the f/1.2 sharper than the f/1.4 at the apertures you're likely to >>use for panoramas? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the "L" version is much sharper, not to mention much heavier and more > expensive. My mistake ... I assumed Canon had an 85 f/1.4 like everyone else. Photodo appears to have repaired thir links. As you can see, wide open, the f/1.2 is not particularly sharp. Quite crappy, actually for the $$$. http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/CaEF85_12LUSM-108.shtml At f/8, no suprise, it is quite sharp. > Of course, there are other benefits to having a f/1.2 lens. That isn't > an aperture I'd use often, but I'll bet it provides a big bright image > in the viewfinder. From f/1.8 to f/1.4 is less than a stop. From 1.4 to 1.2 about 1/3 a stop... not that much difference. But, if Canon don't have an f/1.4 then I would be tempted by the f/1.2 too. I still haven't bought the 85 f/1.4 Maxxum that's been on my short list for oh so long. > Anyway, it's now official. I want the Canon 85mm f/1.2L lens! > And I always get what I want. Well, sometimes. OK, not much. How's the old credit card situation? Maxed out? Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >How's the old credit card situation? Which one? >Maxed out? Well duh .... otherwise, I'd already have the 85mm f/1.2L on my 1DsMKII. The message <AVlif.134$a95.150889@wagner.videotron.net> from Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> contains these words: > >>Is the f/1.2 sharper than the f/1.4 at the apertures you're likely to > >>use for panoramas? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > the "L" version is much sharper, not to mention much heavier and more > > expensive. > My mistake ... I assumed Canon had an 85 f/1.4 like everyone else. > Photodo appears to have repaired thir links. As you can see, wide open, > the f/1.2 is not particularly sharp. Quite crappy, actually for the $$$. > http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/CaEF85_12LUSM-108.shtml > At f/8, no suprise, it is quite sharp. > > Of course, there are other benefits to having a f/1.2 lens. That isn't > > an aperture I'd use often, but I'll bet it provides a big bright image > > in the viewfinder. > From f/1.8 to f/1.4 is less than a stop. From 1.4 to 1.2 about 1/3 a > stop... not that much difference. To nitpick. f1.2 is just over a stop larger than f1.8 but because of extra light absorption exposure difference is calculated as one stop. If like the movie industry, T stops were used, then exposure would be a more precise calculation. The glamorous f1.2 lenses are usually outperformed optically by their humbler f1.8 brothers. Deryck deryck lant wrote: > The message <AVlif.134$a95.150889@wagner.videotron.net> > from Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> contains these words: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Deryck From first-hand experience, the f/1.4 is probably the best optically for Pentax, superior to their f/1.2 ... and from what I've gathered from others experience, the same holds true for Nikon and Canon. > >Is the f/1.2 sharper than the f/1.4 at the apertures you're likely to > >use for panoramas? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the "L" version is much sharper, not to mention much heavier and more > expensive. Well, you could compare to the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 ... and then you might compare the 100 mm f/2 to the Nikon 105mm f/2* DC... ;-) *) 105mm/f2.5 and f/1.8 are good lens too, esp with a d200 SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ SNIP > Anyway, it's now official. I want the Canon 85mm f/1.2L lens! If stitched panos are a major consideration (and I completely understand the Wow experience they trigger), you should (have) at least consider(ed) the TS-E 90mm. I can understand that the shift and tilt controls seem a bit daunting for someone without prior training in using view-cameras, but this lens (and its 45mm cousin) will allow to make superior stitched panos. Coupled with extention rings, it (they) also do a great macro job with the added benefit of being able to control the plane of focus. Besides, its a better lens (image quality) than the 85mm f/1.2 . http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=156&m odelid=7329 Bart >Canon doesn't offer a 85mm f/1.4 lens > so the comparison would be made with > the 85mm f/1.8 "non-L" lens. Here's a comparison below. I have the 85 1.8 and I prefer it to the 85 1.2 because it has much faster AF, is smaller, lighter, and cost much less and I bet the 1.2 is not that much sharper. A comparison between the Nikon 1.4 can be found at http://www.wlcastleman.com also. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm Cody, http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.