Which 200L have you got? The 2.8 or the 2.0?
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.
If it was $199 in the US, I don't see how anyone could resist. Even if the 22mm lens is the only lens you buy, you just can't do any better for $199 (I'm even talking about the Panasonic GF2 body for $99 plus a lens).Yes, I'm sure there would be many takers at $199. However, to put this in context, £199 is $336
I'd still like to see them best Nikon's 12-24.14-24?
Unlike many Google translations, this one is a bit more readable...
I note the comment that the 16-35 mk2 was good for APS-H ;-)
The multiple aspheric lens surfaces allow them to ease some of the compromise between reducing distortion and field flatness. The two front lens elements make quite a significant contribution to this and will likely be seen again in new ultra wide zoom designs.
I still want a TS-E14 though ;-)
All Sigma lenses have focusing problems! I had two of the a 24-700 and 70-200 last versions - I sent them to be calibrated with my body and then everything was ok.
This is FALSE. I have two Sigma lenses that have had no focusing problems. (I don't consider improving AF accuracy with in-camera AFMA to be part of a "problem.")
But the 50 Art that I received did have erratic, unreliable AF that could not be helped with AFMA.
So, if online chatter can lead to Sigma fixing the problem, we aren't helping by using sweeping, ranting statements such as "All Sigma lenses have focusing problems!"
I stated this before and say this again: I did not and do not have AF problems with my 50Art. And I agree with YuengLinger. It is wrong to make statements like "All Sigma lenses have focusing problems!" - it is not true. Sigma did a great job with the Art series.
But it's annoying to buy a fairly expensive AF lens which you're expected to fiddle around with on a docking station and even then seems best used, in the case of many copies at any rate, in MF mode.
Why do you think AFMA exists on Canon cameras? To address the same problem that the docking station is for.
The problem isn't QC it is engineering tolerances and the fact that neither camera nor lens are all made the same. There is copy variation between each camera and lens. This means that whilst AFMA might be +5 for a given lens on your camera, that same lens might be -5 on my camera and that same lens might be +0 on someone else's camera.
Like we've said soo many times before, it's NOT about afma ... Sigh, it's the inconsistency ! Please print this message and tape it on your fridge.
AFMA is there because there is inconsistency. Canon recognizes that there is inconsistency in camera/lens manufacture and thus introduced that feature to allow people to tune their own camera. If every lens was the same, AFMA wouldn't be needed.
It's difficult for me to imagine a reason I'd ever buy a gopro.