I'm still gonna buy one....
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'm still gonna buy one....
There has been 3 used 100-400mm lenses at my local specialist photography dealer in the last few months, which either indicates times are hard and people are ditching their least used lenses or a lot of people are expecting something soon and want to get the maximum return on a old lens.
I agree with you that comparisons are the only exact proof, but I don't believe Canon could allow itself to only use "mere ISO values in a marketing brouchure" and then not deliver in such high-end pro bodies, they would be the laughing stock then...I hope we will get blown away
I think the 1Dmk4 (ISO102400) proves that Canon indeed can put in high ISO numbers in the camera just to make them show in the brochure, not caring about how it actually performs. Thus, I will remain skeptical until real RAW samples and tests appear.
Neuro! since you seem to have unlimited knowledge and tests at your disposal (I mean this in a positive manner:), I wondered if you have seen the EG-S on the 24-105mm F4.0L, MP-E65 F2.8 (which gets darker as you zoom in), and the 17mm TS F4.0L? Is it getting darker, but still manageable, or will it spoil the game?
So am wondering why many believe that IS on a lens reduces picture quality??
Any focusing screen that will give me a brighter, yet still same functionality, with 1,2 and 1,4 primes? I read once that the VF stays at 2,8 brightness no matter what lens you use.
Yes, I know, but what exactly will happen? Gotta go full manual on the focus?
Any idea if the 70-200 2.8 IS II will activate all five points on the 1D X? Or will all five only work with the 300 or 400 2.8 IS II attached?
i'm about to buy some B+W UV MRC filters for 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f2,8.
I know that it's highly recommended to get "slims" for lenses up to 20mm due to much vignetting visible on FF bodies and even APSC, but the filter price is much higher (~80$) and i only have 7D and 40D right now.
My question is: will the regular filters be good enough or should i get the "Slim" versions for these zooms?
Also: if attached to FF body should they be upgraded to "slims" or will they suffice?
Hoya UV Super HMC seems better to me, blocks less light, has more coatings (12>3) costs the same, only the ring is thicker (5mm>3mm). Or am i missing something?
Do we, in that case, only need 'glass filters' for protecting our lens since dslr sensors are not sensitive to UV light? If so, why is the most common filter a UV? What would be the best filter for simply protecting the lens?
Does anyone here have experience using the type-s focusing screen with the MP-E 65mm f2.8 Macrophoto lens? I ask because although the lens is nominally an f2.8, the actual f-stop becomes much smaller as you increase the magnification. Is this a good combination, or does the viewfinder become unusably dark as one moves to higher magnifications? Thanks for any input.
But, considering how small the DOF is with my crop camera and the fast lenses I have, I have no need for the even smaller DOF a FF sensor would provide me. I don't really see FF as having an advantage in this regard.