135mm 2.5 on Nex 6 Example photo That includes purple fringe spectral highlights.
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 wish canon makes a decent 20mm lens (Zeiss cost too much money).
I don't know how I missed this response. Neuro explains perfectly the practical things and why you need Tilt-shift for landscape. Although I would add that the f1.4 would be beneficial for landscapes with Milky Way in the absence of star-tracking tripod mount.
If you buy a 17-40L as a standard zoom for a crop camera now that plenty of EF-s and other crop options are available, well, you're doing it wrong. It's an ultrawide zoom for full-frame.
+1 - and that's the point of comparing it to the 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens or even the 17-55/2.8 IS. Compared to the 17-40L on APS-C, the former delivers not-too-different IQ and the latter delivering better IQ (and an extra stop of light, a broader range, and IS). Yet, many people recommend getting the 17-40L 'in case you go FF maybe someday,' which I think is pretty foolish unless 'someday' is next month.
Ah yes those people who have a cheap entry level Rebel camera with a 17-40L stuck on the end! Yup I agree, unless your "other cameras a FF" and currently out of action you have no excuse! Too cheap to buy a FF camera but has enough to show off with an L lens! (A cheap one at that!) you're foolin no one son!
I've read that it is better to get good glass on a cheaper camera than the cheap glass on an expensive camera. So now the person who takes that advice is being made fun of?
I get your jokes... and they are funny... but sometimes taking the "wrong" lens with you can help you to produce some really unique images.
I expect a L refresh sometime later. I just cannot see a 135mm f2.8 L IS being a big seller unless it was a macro. Most looking at the 135L are in it the the bokeh.
The current 100/2.8L IS Macro has amazingly good bokeh. I'm guessing that a 135/2.8 IS (L or non-L) would be just as good, if not better.
The 24 f1.4 is an appalling choice for a 24 mm dedicated landscape lens. The TS-E24 MkII is probably the best current 24mm 135 format lens available, and it is uniquely orientated towards landscape work. How many landscapes are you going to shoot between f1.4 and f3.5?
An appalling choice?
Maybe we should all switch to Nikons high MP camera, then things like vignetting and distortion wouldn't even exist.
Anybody that sees another 135 format as a "better" choice is so divorced from my understanding I am glad Neuro has taken this one. By your logic we should all be shooting 8"X10" and drum scanning.
Your troll's job is done. You can go away now and Neuro can take this one.
He can debate how appalling the 24mm f/1.4 II is for you.
The 24 f1.4 MkII is a superb lens, but it has zero functional advantage over the 24-70 f2,8 IS as a landscape shooting lens, zero, none, nada. For somebody wanting a dedicated 24mm LANDSCAPE lens suggesting the f1.4 is pretty terrible advice, even worse considering Canon actually make probably the best 24 mm LANDSCAPE orientated lens in the world, the 24 TS-E MkII.
P.S. I am no troll, and I don't suffer fools or their "advice" easily.
I'm taking all of this in with a skeptical eye. Consider:I do not think that it is a L lens refresh. I think that it is a mid range refresh. Canons mid range lens were dinosaurs before the IS refreshes started. Back in the old FD days there was three 135mm lens it is very likely that they are dropping the soft focus and replacing it with a normal 135mm. The certain versions of the FD 85mm, 100mm, 135mm shared much of the same design. They were a lens family. It is likely they are just returning to that.
- Bundling the 135 in with the 85 and 100 makes little sense. The 85 F/1.8 and 100 F/2 are 'paired' lenses and the 135 (disregarding the soft-focus version) is an L lens paired with the lesser discussed 200 F/2.8L. I say 'paired' in that they seem to share some aspects of the housing and general design, and they were released on or about the same time (the first pair was '91/'92 and the second pair both came out in '96). I would hazard a guess that Canon would design these lenses simultaneously to maximize subcomponent efficiencies, limit subcomponent inventory, all that. They still seem to be doing that with recent non-L IS refreshes: the 24 and 28 are highly similar in size/shape and I would guess the much-discussed 50 F/(unknown) non-L IS they are working on will have some size/footprint similarities as the 35 F/2 non-L IS.
- Only one prime L lens under 200mm has IS, and that's the 100L macro. Surely if an L lens 'IS refresh' program was to get underway, despite IS' greater value at longer FL, the money would be in the high-seller FL, which are the 24, 35, 50, etc. -- just like with the non-L IS refresh campaign has done.
- It seems curious that the (admittedly ancient) non-L primes have been getting the big upgrades (those new lenses are a lot more than just IS upgrades) treatment and the L lenses have not. The last time an L prime in a common focal length was updated was some six years ago. One might wonder if they have the upgrades planned, but will only release them after they ensure they are good enough to work on the high-MP full-frame rigs that we all expect are coming.
Personally, I see the 135mm length as a separate animal from the 85 and 100, and being such a sacred cow to so many users, Canon will probably take quite some time to offer a replacement for the 135L.
All really good things to think about. Lots to consider and just want to be strategic in what is purchased next.
I had considered the 17-40 f/4 but was unsure if it would be smarter to have the tiny extra reach and extra stop of the 16-35L (have been lusting after the 5D kit with the 17-40 but hard to justify with the recent 70D purchase). I think for me the big thing is spending the money where I get the most value and the least possibility for gear devaluing/not recouping loss if I grow beyond it. Just wanting to future proof as much as possible, especially at this stage on a more narrow budget. Don't want to put a lot into cropped frame lenses and then not be able to have them transition to a FF should I upgrade sooner than 2 years.
It does sound like renting is a smart move and I'll be contacting one the local shops here to try a few things before I jump in head first.
Anyone else see anything that I'm missing? Given the majority of paid work I'm getting does require a UWA lens it sounds like that might be the smartest option to pick first...