Curious, do all canon non FF DSLRS have the same crop factor and is canon now offering "digital non FF lenses" that only cover the smaller than FF sensors like Pentax is? jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 12:50 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Luminous Landscape: Reichmann tries out a K10D Cory Papenfuss wrote: >>> Yeah... I give Canon 6 months before they introduce in-body >>>anti-shake. I think they'll have to to compete. Given that probably >>>90% of the DSLR buyers never buy another lens other than the kit >>>lens, it's a great selling point. >> >>I think they'll just make all the CKLs (crappy kit lenses) IS from now >>on. They have one ( the 17-85 USM IS) already. Combine that with the >>atrocious 70-300 f4-5.6 IS and you have a full range of >>image-stabilized focal lengths for your "average" digiRebel user. >> > > I was unaware that they had mediocre IS lenses.... I thought they > were all pretty much on the decent-good scale. What you propose makes a > lot more sense, and is more "Canon-esk"... force more lens purchases. > > -Cory > The original IS lens, the 75-300, is a hunk of putrescent crap. Non-L zooms are typically mediocre to poor, the exception being the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 (the f4-5.6 version is craptacular), the 70-300's (good on 1.6x crop bodies, average on film, poor on FF) and the two 'almost L' EF-S zooms, the 10-22 and 17-55 IS. Non-L primes are all over the place, mostly excellent, but there's a few dogs (Same goes for the L line, the 14L in particular is a dog). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
