# f2 2x zooms



## wickidwombat (Jan 24, 2012)

the rumour of the 55-110 f2 got me thinking about other ranges this tech would be awesome

I know since I love the 16-35 f2.8 on the APS-H giving an effective 20-48 its REALLY awesome for weddings because it is so sharp and has great colour

a 20-40mm f2L for use on full frame would be nirvana in that range. currently there isnt any other lens body combo that can get that I find 24mm on full frame a little tight sometimes for weddings and 20mm really opens things up, i could happily live with losing the 8mm on the long end for a stop faster apperture

what do you guys think? there is sooo much potential for awesome lenses that would just nail certain focal lengths in the f2 2x zoom category... 100-200 f2 anyone


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 25, 2012)

I would get one!!!


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 25, 2012)

Two bodies - one with 16-35 and the other with the 24-70.

Should always have two bodies for a wedding...


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 25, 2012)

yeah I usually have the 16-35 on a 1D3 i dont like the 24-70 so i dont have one 
the other body I usually have 85mm on the 5D2 or 70-200


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 25, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> yeah I usually have the 16-35 on a 1D3 i dont like the 24-70 so i dont have one
> the other body I usually have 85mm on the 5D2 or 70-200



On the 1D4 I have the 24-105 then swapping for the 85 f/1.8 if needed. I dont have low light issues as I use two of camera flash most of the time. Different - but it works for me. Fun time in the church when the couple come down the isle with me holding umbrella in one hand and shooting 1 handed


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > yeah I usually have the 16-35 on a 1D3 i dont like the 24-70 so i dont have one
> ...



Yeah I like my 24-105 but quite often f4 just doesnt cut it

but you can get decent bokeh from it


----------



## vuilang (Jan 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > yeah I usually have the 16-35 on a 1D3 i dont like the 24-70 so i dont have one
> ...



It is kind-of misleading to show the lens's bokeh when shooting at a close-up n have long-disctance background. most other lense such as consumer level can achieve similar bokeh result... NO i'm not saying 24-105 is not good. just its mediocre bokeh.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 25, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



If f/4 doesn't cut it I have a 2.8 on the other body, or, as I said, I use the 85 f/1.8

I never need f/4 because of low light because I have flash to hand


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2012)

vuilang said:


> NO i'm not saying 24-105 is not good. just its mediocre bokeh.



I disagree - the shot from wickidwombat suggests the bokeh is decent (not great, but decent). I don't think you're really talking about bokeh, but instead referring to the _quantity_ of OOF blur (bokeh is the quality of that blur, not how much of it there is).

You can certianly get a decent amount of OOF blur with f/4, if you have a close subject. Another example:




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM @ 105mm, 1/160 s, f/4, ISO 100


----------



## lol (Jan 25, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> 100-200 f2 anyone


Sounds good  Currently I use the 135mm f/2 mostly for astrophotography, and have been wanting something longer without losing speed. Prices start going astronomical at that point... But I'd think I'd like a 250-500mm f/2. Stick one on the Sigma! Never mind I wont be able to lift it, and would have to sell my house to pay for one if it were ever to exist.


----------



## funkboy (Jan 25, 2012)

Great shot, Neuro. The 24-105L's bokeh is indeed nice. I believe I was at about f/5 here:


----------



## ferdi (Jan 25, 2012)

I know a 24-70L f/2 would be very heavy (and expensive), so I would settle for a 35-70L f/2 if it existed.


----------



## PaperTiger (Jan 25, 2012)

It'd make for a very big and heavy lens. 

The only manufacturer really able to do this is Olympus making their F2 zooms just because it's much easier to build a fast lens for FourThirds. A full-frame F2 zoom just isn't going to happen.

http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/35-100_20/


----------



## bvukich (Jan 25, 2012)

PaperTiger said:


> It'd make for a very big and heavy lens.
> 
> The only manufacturer really able to do this is Olympus making their F2 zooms just because it's much easier to build a fast lens for FourThirds. A full-frame F2 zoom just isn't going to happen.
> 
> http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/35-100_20/



Even that m4/3 lens is 150g HEAVIER than the EF 70-200/2.8L IS II.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 25, 2012)

yes but that lens is nearly a 3x zoom by keeping the zoom ration down to only 2 you would require slightly less complicated optics and surely the size would be reduced somewhat. I'm not a lens designer so only making some guesses here.

also with the 4/3rds f2 i think you will have more like f2.8 or more Dof performance compared to fullframe due to the significantly smaller sensor it'd be interesting to see direct comparisons of say a 5dmk2 with70-200 f2.8 vs this 4/3 35-100 f2


----------



## Tijn (Jan 27, 2012)

Wasn't there a rumour because of a17-55 f/2 patent somewhere in 2010, as well?

Of course we haven't seen it arrive, but this wouldn't be the first >2x zoom they're looking at for f/2.


----------



## ferdi (Jan 27, 2012)

Tijn said:


> Wasn't there a rumour because of a17-55 f/2 patent somewhere in 2010, as well?



That's right: Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2 IS Patent.
I checked ip.com but unfortunately it doesn't provide any more info on the patent.


----------



## funkboy (Jan 27, 2012)

Egami is usually the place to look for patents. Here's a link to the f/1.8 and f/2.0 17-55 patents..

Plenty of other tasty stuff in their archives, notably this one for several fast wide primes & zooms, and this 16-35 f/2-2.8.


----------

