Its a vegan lens. Slightly more money but worth it.
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.
In my experience the 24-105 is plenty sharp. I rented the 24-70 2.8 L II and found it only a touch sharper than my lens.Have to agree with Neuro.It is a decent lens, but not really an "excellent" one. It could use way more sharpness across the frame, especially in the corners. I wouldn't use the 24-105L for landscapes.
The current prices of the Canon and its real excellence will be a hard act to follow.
My copy needs a CLA buts is still a go-to lens for 80% of my shooting. What I really need is another for backup.
Sharpness is probably one of the things that Sigma is going to bring to the table.. And lots of it.
Ben Egbert and I discussed doing a DIY filterholder utilizing the 17's front cap in April 2011. I am not handy so I had to wait until Ben actually did the work and produced a tutorial. (See below). Total cost for parts = $80 or so. You will not ba able to buy the Lee version (if real) for 4x this number. In the meantime, a bunch of folks popped on the internet with the same or similiar idea. Except for some vignetting in areas of the frame that appear when the shift is too strong, works like a charm.
Followed his work on another forum and he later said (I think?) that the thing fell of due to the glue not sticking hard enough. He also mentioned that he would not make another one since the front-cap with the standard-holder was better alternative. Smaller and less vinjeting.
If I'm not all wrong.
Having looked at the WonderPana 145 Essentials Kit I am interested in getting one for the polarizer. Could somebody who owns one post a picture of it mounted on the 17TS-E please? Whilst I can understand how it works on the 14mm and the Nikon 14-24 I don't see how it fits the 17TS-E without mounting on the focus ring. It would be a great help if I could see one before ordering, thanks.
Well, there is either 1) something wrong with the lens, 2) something wrong with the body, or 3) something wrong with the particular combination of body + lens. Or you are just being punished by camera fairies for some offense you have caused them.
What is the significance of calling it a larger EF mount? Does that imply electronic compatibility...as-in you can mount one of these lenses to an EOS body with an adapter and maintain full functionality?
It would be neat to see that, but I agree with most of the sentiment in this thread. Going to be crazy expensive.