I ordered my little stopper from the 2filters website and all went well.
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.
I ordered mine form The Imaging World in NY yesterday, and got my lens today. (Canceled my amazon pre-order)
Just got one after initially rejecting it (as a kit) in favor of the 17-40 F4L. While I find the 17-40 very good for landscape photography, I was surprised at the very good IQ from this versatile lens. Now, I'm torn apart if I'll bring both lens or just stick to the 24-105 for our family's Krabi trip this May. My wife warned me of bringing more than 2 lens. I'm thinking of just bringing a 50mm and the 24-105mm. If it were you, what would you bring?
Sad, but my GAS has made me purchase so much equipment (cameras, headphones, computer stuff, etc.) I just broke down and purchased this:
f/2.8 is not that thin DOF as you go to UWA. A 50 mm FL at 6 feet away f/2.8 gives DOF 0.78 ft (very thin, and difficult to manage), whereas a 24mm FL gives 3.4 feet, which is more than enough. At 15 feet away for a group, 24mm lens gives a whopping 36 feet of DOF. The razor thin concern doesn't apply at ultra wide.
An extreme example here: 24mm f/1.4 at 15 feet still has a DOF of 11 feet (but Canon's 24 1.4L is very soft in the corners at 1.4, different issue).
16mm f/2.8 at 6 feet away still has a very easy to manage DOF of 11 feet. Even as close as 3 feet, gives about 2 feet DOF.
So, f/2.8 really can help indoor photography for ultrawides without causing DOF problems.
I'm using 7D, pairing with 16-35 II... as my regular walk around lens
wonder shall I go for the 16-35 IS? worth?
also I haven't got my wide for APS-C , which should I go for?
I) New, 10-18 STM
II) Old, 10-22 USM
Guess I have to ask why? I feel like there are so many better options for a standard zoom lens on a APS-C. Why not the 17-55? Or something like a 24-70 or 24-105 if you want an EF lens.
If you're willing to spend that kind of cash on a lens then I wouldn't be lured in by the low price of the 10-18, unless it proves to be markedly sharper, which seems unlikely. So unless you want STM for video I'd stick with the tried and true 10-22.
You are 100% dead on. You could just as easily have replaced my three bullet point idea with:
- Do something unnecessary.
- Do something unnecessary.
- Lee solves the problem with epically large hardware.
The first two ideas I offered were just make the nasty magic wand / deus ex machina solution of 'a company solving it' less big than it might have to be. For instance, I haven't done the trig, but the first two bullet points might keep filters down to 6" wide, but not doing those two things might require 8" filters.