Get the MP-E 65mm. Or the TS-E 17mm. Wait...you don't want to shoot macro or architecture? Well then...what do you want to shoot?
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.
OK, and now for my next dumb assumption ... at f/11 the focus needs to be less accurate than at f/2.8 due to the greater depth of field (front & back) of the former over the latter.
...because what I can't understand is if the 6D can AF down to -3EV, then it should also be able to AF with an f/11 lens (in bright daylight, that is).
<p>The new 100-400 does indeed exist and is being actively tested, however Canon is in no rush to announce the lens. We’re told that the current 100-400 still sells at an amazing clip and outpaces the 70-300L by a 4 to 1 margin.</p>
This is an astounding number if true.
Good Lord, people. If you want lower prices and/or better lenses, quit buying these lenses to simply keep up with the Joneses. And, quit listening to fanbois.
The focus shift can only be a problem if you focus too close. I have used two copies of he 50L, and I have never noticed any focus shift problems.
I've used my 1D X with a 600/4 II and 2xIII to track birds in flight, sometimes handheld. It does fine. However, when shooting small birds in thickets (branches in front of and behind subject), where the bare 600 II locks onto the bird easily, with the 2x it hunts a bit - in that situation, it behaves a lot like the bare 100-400L.
Did you use spot single point or regular single point focus for this test?
okay... is the same for the 7D?
Sorry jdramirez, that doesn't really make sense to me.
AFMA is used to correct for manufacturing tolerances. Tolerance means that nothing can be made to an exact value but it can be made for sure within certain boundaries. Canon knows these boundaries for their lenses and cameras. I believe when they allow AFMA to be set from -20 to +20 it should be enough to correct worst case scenario. I don't know that for sure but it would be logical from my point of view.
E.g: The maximum amount a camera can be "off" would be +/-10 and the maximum amount a lens can be "off" would be +/-10 so a correction of +/-20 would be sufficient.
In this case the lens is probably off -9 and the body -9 (so they are both around their extremes) but you can correct it by using +18. Due to the known tolerances your next body will not be off more than -10 so correction should always be possible.
For F's sake, can you dummies stop replying to this guy!?? What is wrong with some of you people??? He is making a fool of the CR forum, and you idiots actually post a reply...? Nice going! No wonder there's some folks posting stuff like this here every now and then, cause there sure are are enough suckers with nothing better to do than to write the oh so valued opinion on matters Canon... Jeeeeez!!
All this to fluorite or not.....
The nikon 800 f5.6 (latest tele from nikon)
''The AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR is a marvel of NIKKOR optical design. The lens is comprised of 20 elements split into 13 lens groups. The front and second elements are fluorite (a lightweight mono-crystal optical material), which provides superior optical characteristics and reduced weight for balanced handling.''
Looks like nikon is also going to fluorite from now on
Sales drive revenue. Revenue drives profit. Profit is a major driver of share price and shareholder value. Share price and shareholder value determine whether a public company thrives, survives, or fails.
Betamax was better quality than VHS. VHS sold better. Betamax failed and was abandoned.
On a more DSLR related note, Olympus came out with 4/3 format. It was going to be a worldwide standard. Many things about thier cameras were ahead of what the Canon and Nikon crop bodies offered at the time. They had beter user interface, beter weatherproofing, arguably better sensor performance, and faster autofocusing..... and where is it now? ( 4/3... not micro 4/3 ). Sales sucked, product not stocked by retail stores, death spiral, gone.
I don't think you're paying attention.
Look at the sales figures for MILC cameras (Mirrorless Interchangable Lens Cameras).
And if that market was a dead end that was dying then why would Canon have released the EOS-M?