« on: March 13, 2014, 02:29:36 AM »
I have a loaner 200-400 on the way. Can't wait to check it out!
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.
Bringing back my question, I still debate upgrading my 50mm f.14, but now there is a Sigma 1.4 that may surprise...
Sell it and use that money toward 70-200 f2.8 IS II or 135L
I have x2 5D III. Guess what lenses I have on both bodies most of time? 24-70 II + 70-200
I have owned three copies, because I couldn't decide between the 85 L and the 70-200.
I have had one copy that was completely useless, I had it in for repair, they changed TWO AF-moduls and TWO IS-units, they took out the front end, and three glass-elements and re-aligned the glass and when it came back the AF worked perfectly, but the IS was still not starting as quick as the previous copy, and it jumped, and often worked only one direction, and made a very weird, loud noise. It was VERY soft at 200 when I sent it in, and after all the re-alignment of the glass and front end it came back exactly the same. I sold it for cheap and had the buyer try it to see if if he liked it, and he bought, so I got a third copy, which like the two others had the issue of IS not being perfect, sometimes too slow to start, sometimes only one direction stabilized. But the AF and sharpness and overall image quality and build is as good as it gets. Wonderful lens. Just not as good as the 200 L, which is the reason I no longer have it
I had a ef 200mm f2.8 II L and it was a stunning optic, slightly sharper than my 135L. When I got my 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, I compared it to my 200L and found that the zoom had better contrast and colours. Sharpness tthere was littel between them, manybe a slight nod to the prime wide open. But with teleconverters, the zoom was a lot better. The Zoom has the latest IS unit, faster and quieter AF and it focusses closer too. The bokeh of the prime and general flare control was better than the zoom. The prime is a lot lighter and less obtrusive.
I felt that for my needs, the zoom was a better optic.
If you have rechargeable batteries, this charger is a no brainer.
If you have eneloops, how is this ~$60 charger better than the ~$6 charger from Sanyo?
depends on your usage i guess if you would see a difference in performance over time.
i have sets of powerex batteries that i killed over time due to the amount of usage they got. even rechargeables dont last forever. the maha charger i have has multiple charge modes that allow for quick charge, slow charge (better for long term health of the batteries), and a refresh charge that can actually improve the performance of older sluggish batteries. a standard charger may not offer these extra features.
the 60.00 higher end chargers can increase the life and performance of your batteries. they can prevent you from having to spend on additional batteries over time at a clip of 30-40.00 per set. my charger has saved me a ton of money.
but again...it depends on your usage. i use my batteries heavily and have seen the difference of charging modes 1st hand.
If you also want to shoot macro, the 100L makes sense. For around the cost of the 70-200/4L IS, you could get the 85mm f/1.8 and the 135mm f/2L. That's like a portrait 1-2 punch. An f/4 lens on FF is ok if you've got plenty of physical separation between subject and background, or in a studio with strobes and a backdrop (where I use f/9 or so). But for 'candid' portraits, a faster aperture is preferable.