« on: Today at 05:51:05 AM »
Wow....so many negative comments from one post wonders!
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.
As nice some of these pics look, they do not tell us a lot about the actual quality of the sensor or the IQ of its RAW output. And that is the only thing that matters (for me anyway).
As someone wrote they look like any other image from canon APS-C.
Image quality and sensor in the 7D MK2 is nothing Canon can be proud of.
Goodbye guest...another one post wonder Nikon troll....
I switched to Nikon for Landscape work and i doens´t look as if Canon will get my money again.
If your looking for a great high MP camera don´t wait... it is here already.
It´s called D810.
I have a Canon 5D Mark III and I'm wondering besides the "full frame" sensor, just why would anyone spend more money on the 5dm3 and not buy the 7dm2? the 7DM2 seems like a great camera in every way...Welcome to the forum. Yes, 7D Mark ii does everything equal or better than 5D Mark III, with the exception of the full frame sensor at high ISO.
If they solved their bokeh problems, perhaps the lens would have more appeal, but I think that bokeh is a problem inherent in the DO design?
The 400 didn't have a bokeh problem. The 70-300 DO was the lens with the sometimes weird bokeh. The internet seems to have lumped both lenses together as if they were one and the same. Spec highlights on the 400 could have a bit of a bullseye effect but that was about it. The OOF areas aren't as nice as the 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 in my opinion, but they aren't really problematic either.
I think the 400 f4 DO II would be pretty amazing if it were about 2/3rd or 1/2 the cost of a 300 2.8 IS II but that's really unlikely.
That depends on your definitions of "problem" and "bokeh".
I think the 400 MkI does have bokeh problems, I used one for a day and got it to do stuff like this, I am sorry but for >$6,000 I want much better than that. Now I will admit that I personally shot over water like this regularly, so for me it was an unsurmountable issue, and I can well understand others happy and extensive use that never induces such low quality, but for me the 300 f2.8 IS MkI and 1.4TC was a much better, and cheaper, buy and in my opinion DO sucks, yes the 400 DO sucks less than the 70-300 DO (which really sucks) but they both suck.
I'm sure these are wonder optics that live up to their billing, regardless of how overblown some of the verbiage is in the marketing slicks.
But for my money, I think I would pour my $ into a medium format system for portraits before I considered the Otus lenses. I could do a lot more with, say, a Pentax 645Z and a couple of lenses, than by adding the Otus lenses to my lineup.
Just my take on them.
Doesn't mean I won't lust after this 85mm...
How much better is this lens compared to the Canon EF 85mm F1.2L II? Is it worth over twice as much? I don't know and I am not trying to be cynical. I would just like to hear what people say. Thanks.
Don't you just hate the moronic marketing blurb that goes with lenses these days? What a load of B/S!
Why can't they just say...hey! it's got amazing optitics, you REALLY need to try this puppy. It aint a real f1.4...but most f1.4 lenses aren't either. It's big and heavy and it's manual focus which makes it crap for sport and nature. But use it for available light portraiture and it's amazing. Don't use it in the studio under monoblocs...why use an f1.4 lens at f11? Seriously...get out there on the street with this and be amazed. Or go shoot some walls and boast on a forum how great it is. Or pop it on a shelf and admire the Carl Zeiss craftsmanship.
honestly? Nature? Studio? gimme break. Low light portraiture is what this lens is built for, nothing else. In that genre it will excel.
What exactly is it that makes you an expert for the use of this lens?