I love it. Really enjoyed watching 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.
My new favorite travel kit is the Tamron 24-70VC and the Canon EF 70-300L. You could get these two and still have at least $1300. If you could find used copies of the 17-40L and the 135L for your remaining balance (doable) you would have most situations covered quite well. The 135L responds very well to a 1.4x teleconverter and provides a near 200mm f/2.8 prime.
It's difficult to takes announcements serious on April 1st.
Though the specs look very good.
It's even harder to take it seriously when the last line of the article is "Happy fool's day"
EF 24-70 f2.8 II vs Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC
The first is that the Canon has considerably better image quality than my second Tamron 24-70 VC - even at f/8 on the right side of the image (Tamron contacted me to replace the first copy of this lens as it had big image quality issues).
Canon 50mm f1.4 vs Sigma 50mm f1.4
the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens has proven very inconsistent for me in the focus accuracy department.
I have thrown out as many as 70% or more images from a single shoot of over 100 non-action, wide aperture shots because they were very OOF (Out of Focus).
Thus, unless you are primarily using manual focus or shooting at narrow apertures (f/4), I suggest buying the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens instead.
Canon EF 85mm f1.2 vs Sigma 85mm f1.4
When I get an accurately-focused image, I really like the image quality from the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens - it is really nice. But accurate focusing is this lens' definite weakness - getting accurate focus has been an issue.
As of Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens review time, I have purchased (retail) three and returned two of these lenses. The first lens was consistently front focusing. The second lens was focusing so inconsistently that I wished for the first one back. The third lens is focusing very inconsistently, but does seem to average to the correct focus distance. I cut my losses and kept this copy of the lens.
The big problem, as I already indicated, is that the lens does not focus accurately, consistently. Accurate focusing is especially important when shooting with the shallow DOF this lens is capable of. My experience with AI Servo focusing was even worse with a very low keeper rate for even moderately fast moving subjects.
The Canon has a slight advantage in the extreme corner comparison. The Sigma has a slight advantage in the center of the frame at f/1.4, but the Canon has modestly better contrast overall. The Canon again has the modest advantage in the mid-lower right example.
Canon EF 35mm f1.4 vs Sigma 35mm f1.4
You are probably buying an ultra-wide aperture lens to use it's ultra-widest aperture setting. But, stop the Canon and Zeiss down to f/2.8 and most of the differences disappear. The Canon and Zeiss are similarly sharp at f/2.8 and both are even modestly sharper than the Sigma in the full frame peripheral area of the image circle (image corners).
Autofocusing is quick, though my perception is that the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L Lens focuses slightly faster when using both side-by-side.
A somewhat consistent and quite noticeable front focus problem on both of my 5D Mark III bodies required AFMA to correct.
........................The EF 00-400 f/4L IS 1.4x is becoming a running joke with folks at Canon, I don’t think any one really knows why it hasn’t been officially announced yet.
Whoop-dee-doo. Now where's my 135mm F/1.8L IS?
The MkII is a wonderful lens, I doubt you'll regret it. If anything, you'll be selling the f/4 version. Personally, I can see the utility of having the 70-200 II, and the 70-300L for travel. The latter made the 70-200/4 IS less interesting, to me.
.Background? What background???
I don't think anything about the background is meant to look realistic.
More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.
Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'. Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?
Personally, it would be much more useful for me if Canon came up with 16-35 f/2.8 MkIII with sharpness in line with 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 II, as well as a real good 35 mm end..
+1....now you're talking!