IS mk II or if you want to save money get the non IS 70-200 apparently the IS mk1 is not as good as either of the other 2
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 have the 17-55mm, and it's an excellent lens. But, f/2.8 indoors with ambient home lighting usually means ISO 3200 or even higher. While ISO 3200 is fine on my 5DII, I prefer not to go that high on my 7D.I just got my 85mm 1.4 back from sigma the shop sent it back twice until it came back and they were happy with it. they said all sigma do is plud the lens in and do a software calibration within the lens AF . It is pretty good now i still need to do my own AF microadjust but it definately wont be anywhere near as front focusing as it was before. knowing this that IF you get a copy with focus issues its not a big deal to get it sent in and recalibrated. I highly recommend the 85 f1.4 from sigma.
Definitely get a 430EX II if you don't have an external flash - you can bounce that off the ceiling for nice lighting.
As for lenses, I'd consider a fast prime. The new 24/28 primes aren't fast, I'd absolutely take the 17-55mm over either of those. The 24mm f/1.4L II would be ideal, but it's expensive. You might consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, but since the 60D lacks AF Microadjustment, I'd recommend buying the Sigma (or any fast prime) from somewhere you can easily return it, and test the AF performance right when you get the lens.
i think you missed the point
1) crop the aps-h image to aps-c same way nikon does and since its processing a smaller image boost frame rate accordingly, (the vignetting isnt that bad anyway as i said before i've seen worse out of tamron ef lenses)
2) make it mirrorless problem solved
takes EF and EF-S lens
light weight and compact
- that would put the cat amongst the pidgeons
nope of course not but the 16-35 vs the 17-40 have many more differences other than 1mm wide and 5mm long i dont like the 24-70 i'd rather use the 16-35 on a 1.3 crop and a 70-200 on FF gives me effectively 20mm to 200mm all at f2.8 the gap in the middle use feet zooming.The 24-70/2.8 is the 2.8 version of the 24-105 f/4.0.
Just the same as the 24-105 is the f/4 version of the 24-70/2.8.
I know that might seem a bit strange, but there is only 1 f-stop difference.
um and 35mm of focal range which happens to cover the important 85 to 100mm
Are you going to say that the 5mm difference between the 16-35 and 17-40 is also important?
No one says to keep the full resolution of a APS-H sensor when an EF-S lens is used. I mean when you will use a EF-s lens on a... say... 20MP APS-H sensor you will have 12-13MP effective resolution ( the camera will crop the 1.3 sensor to 1.6).
1. EF-S lenses do NOT cover the image circle of APS-H (Crop 1.3x) - and even if you get a format-filling image at some focal lengths, vignetting will be really bad and IQ will be terrible towards the edges/corners.
2. Especially the rear element of the EF-S 10-22 may very well be hit by the larger mirror in an APS-H camera - as long as we assume it will be a DSLR and not a mirrorless APS-H camera body.
3. Unfortunately Canonhas was dead wrong to introduce the EF-S mount for its APS-C lenses (Crop 1.6x). Nikon has done it 100% right and implemented the only sensible solution: only ONE lens mount for any and all lenses - FX and DX. And NO rear elements sticking into the body so they may be hit by a larger FF camera mirror. And especially the D4 and D800 offer perfect cropping solutions by automacially masking off parts of the viewfinder if a crop lens (DX) is mounted. Although I like my Crop camera (7D) and my 3 good EF-S lenses (10-22, 17-55, 60 Macro) I can cleraly tell how inferior Canon's EF-S concept is.
4. Actually, Canon is not even taking advantage of the theoretical EF-S advantage. Only ONE EF-S lens (10-22) has a rear element sticking into the mirror box to be closer to the sensor. ALL other existing EF-S lenses could have implemented with an EF mount without any changes to their optical design. And even the EF-S 10-22 could have ben quite easily designed to also work with an EF mount ... Nikon had no problem designing their AF-S 10-24 DX to fit into their regular F-mount.
5. I have no doubt whatsoever, that there will be a 7D successor with APS-C sensor (crop 1.6x). It will be better than the current 7D. It will most likely only be announced some time after Nikon launches their new DX pro-body (D400 or whatever they may call it).
I think its physically possible to do and then why not consider making it mirrorless! no problems with mirrors hitting lenses anymore.
Sorry but no, EF-S lenses are designed for APS-C sensors and can not be used for larger sensors. EF-S lenses extend further into the body therefore the larger mirror on an APS-H or FF would hit the back of the lens. EF-S lenses also produce a smaller image circle designed to cover an APS-C sensor only.
Perhaps its not clear in what I wrote. Let me elaborate.
In-camera crop on an APS-H sensor to use an APS-C lens isn't too far of a stretch isn't it ? The mirror of the 1.3crop isn't that big compared really and with some tweaks, it may fit an EF-S lens.
There was a story / article of a guy who did something of the sort with his 1D and mounted an EF-S lens, albeit with some minor modifications to his lens only. The height difference between an APS-C and APS-H is less than 5mm.
So, it might be possible to tweak the mirror in an APS-H camera to have sufficient clearance for an EF-S lens' rear protrusion.
Thus an APS-H camera with an APS-C crop mode by allowing it to accept EF-S lenses. Especially if the AF module was designed for APS-C in the first place. Possible ??