There is no such thing as a "macro" if its below 1:1 Shame on Zeiss.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Edit: Let me also add, I'm not saying Canon's cameras are terrible. In fact, they're quite capable of getting good results. It's just that Canon no longer seems to care about having the best image quality (at least sub $6k) and being on the cutting edge in terms of features and sensor, and to me it's disappointing, regardless of sales figures, that other companies can offer overall better sensors AND better cameras, at a cheaper price.
That's because they are VDSLR lenses and therefore made so you can pull the aperture as well as the focus.
I doubt they had walking around in mind. In a studio with lights and stopped down a bit those two lens are too sharp
When you add all those things together, IMO most folks would be better off with a DSLR, using live view for those rare occasions when an EVF provides an advantage. And IMO most of the folks who are really better off with mirrorless (the folks who only use short lenses) would do just as well with a fixed-lens point-and-shoot.
All lenses after f/11 are killed by diffraction, it's not really a factor at all but below that range, the 16-35mm f4 is better at every aperture.
Just thinking out loud, but what do people think of the likelihood that Canon will condense the current 50L and 50 f/1.4 into one L option with a f/1.4 aperture?