From: Skip M on 25 Aug 2005 21:28
"Linda Nieuwenstein" <buzzball(a)REMOVETHIS-allstream.net> wrote in message
> "towarzysz Vader" news:dejtln$gmg$2(a)atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
>> Blahblahblah... check the new EF 24-105 f/4. :-)
> I don't have to check, you do. Those lenses are PROFESSIONAL level lenses
> made for Canon's PROFESSIONAL level bodies. Of course they are not EF-S.
> The Op is asking about consumer level dSLRs and all of those support EF-S
> (not the older 10D though) now and in the future...unless, as unlikely as
> it is, Canon decides to place the professional level sensor into a
> consumer level dSLR for $1000. NOT.
> Take care,
My, this is fun, I think I'll wait to kill file you to see how deep you dig
From: Linda Nieuwenstein on 26 Aug 2005 09:10
"Bruce Graham" wrote...
> Phil does not say the new 70-300 is an L lens. (the 70-300 announcement
> is just on the same page as the 24-105L announcement).
> It may be better than the old 75-300 (which is *certainly* not up to L
> standards) as the press release infers that it has some UD glass and I
> don't believe the old one does. I have the old 100-300 which is similar
> optically - mine is not great - has quite low contrast and definition at
> the 300mm end. Most owners report the same.
Right you are, Bruce, my mistake. Where it was a combined article (covering
both new lenses) just under the first image I read his statement as 70-300
rather than 70-200 (existing, not new lens). I see now he really is talking
about the existing 70-200 not the new 70-300. I also see down the bottom of
the article he states the new 70-300 will be of interest to intermediate
level photographers using the 20D. Hmm maybe that means that lens will be
affordable since it is not professional level! Since the two lenses are not
the same class it might be better if there were two articles or at least a
statement at the top stating Canon has released 1 pro level and 1 consumer
level. As soon as I saw Professional level I went into scan mode only
thinking the price would be too high for not-for-profit photography.
I have the older 75-300 lens [not IS], and like you with your 100-300 don't
find it great optically. Even using a tripod the images are still not
impressive. After reading quite a few user mildly warm reviews/comments
about their 75-300 IS (newer than mine) lens I figured it was not worth
upgrading to. Hopefully this new 70-300 IS will indeed be priced with the
consumer in mind, and will be a large improvement over similar older
From: Linda Nieuwenstein on 26 Aug 2005 09:13
"Skip M" wrote >>
> Well, gee, since I just quoted his release, above, maybe you should go
> back and read it, yourself. The 70-300 is meant for serious amateurs, and
> it says so, right there, in the first paragraph below the image of the
Yip, I see that now. Phil referred to the 70-200 at the top of article
covering both new lenses, so I read that to be the new 70-300. As soon as I
saw Professional and 'L' I went into nothing more than scan mode figuring
the price would be way too high for not-for-profit photography which I'm
From: Linda Nieuwenstein on 26 Aug 2005 09:15
"Skip M" wrote >>
> You need to calm down, and read about that of which you write.
And you need to stop repeating yourself. Hidden motives or do you just like
replying to me?
From: Linda Nieuwenstein on 26 Aug 2005 09:20
"Zed Pobre" wrote>
> The MTF charts on it are impressive, though. If that holds up in
> real-world sharpness and contrast, I'll probably spend more time
> waffling on whether I want to pick up the 70-300 or the 80-400 as a
> replacement for my current 75-300.
I have the 75-300 (not IS0) and find it not great, though it was in the
budget area. I hope the new 70-300IS is consumer priced, and as good as you
indicated the specs indicate it will be. Good price and quality? hmmm 50mm
1.8 came to mind. A repeat would be nice!