Why has the video & link disappeared?To fix the typo probably (it served its purpose )
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 will believe it when I see it ...+1 on both. We read about the 100-400 replacement for years. And indeed it would be better if it was released before the summer. But it is a mythical lens (and it will be released before ... some summer anyway, we just don't know which summer)
Still, what is the attraction of releasing it at Photokina? A lot of tech releases have moved away from the show schedule. I would think that June would be the optimal date to release a 7D2+100-400, and sell it to every single summer-holiday-safari goer in the world.
From the article: Tech Specs: Canon EOS 1D Mark II 1/400sec f/2.8 ISO 1250 @16mmI realise f2.8 means faster shutter speeds, was just wondering where you need it in real-world situations with such a wide angle. Astrophotography makes sense but ... sports? What sport gets shot at 16mm, chess? ;-) Just curious, does one normally go wider than 24mm for events/weddings of photojournalism? Maybe travel photography? (artisan in small dark workshop)
Lots of dramatic sports shots are taken with Wide and UW lenses. The first three olympic shots at telegraph here are ultrawide http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/picturegalleries/9461272/London-2012-Olympics-Photographers-tricks.html?frame=2302709
More on that http://magicvalley.com/blogs/between-the-frames/wide-angle-sports-shooting/article_d875ca72-43ed-11e2-8493-0019bb2963f4.html
Google will get you tons of examples wide shots. And a huge proportion of winning journalism shots are captured at wide - ultrawide.
I am not sure if it was already posted here but found this interesting url with some mtf observation:Very interesting article, thanks.
16-35 f4 IS?.. this lens IMO is useless.. WTF!!!16-35 f4 IS is not stupid! I would like a 2.8 version but that does not mean that the specific lens is not
and who uses IS on wide angle lens?.. where's the 14-24 2.8?... we need something good, not stupid!
+1, plus it has to be coma freeThinking mainly aboit landscape on tripod I don't need much aperture or even IS. Just wondering, under which use cases would you need f2.8 wide angles? Events/weddings?
For night sky, f/2.8 is nice to have.
I must say I just love, love the level of knowledge and the eagerness to share.
I'm a little confused about Lee filters though and was wondering if somebody could just educate me please?
1. The vignetting mentioned in earlier posts at longer focal lengths, is it software removable or is it the actual adaptors that enter the frame?
2. Would a current filter system work with a 12-24 or 14-24 or would a new system need to be developed, based on the dimensions of the front element?
3. Can a filter system be 'adapted up'? Say you purchase a 77mm system and your next lens has a 82mm thread, would a step up 82mm adaptor make the 77mm usable?
4. Kinda similar to question 3. So I can buy a 16-35ii now for a good price and I'll then invest in a Lee system. But if Lee had to create an unique system for the 12/14-24, does that mean having to buy a whole new filter system again?
You didn't really search, did you?My 50mm f/1.8 has IQ equal to the 70-200II at f/8. So what? How about at f/5.6 or f/4? That's different totally.
You still lose some edges and most importantly, you can't see your composition while you compose. It doesn't work for me but if it works for you, good for you. I won't buy a fish eye anytime soon.
I meant at f/2.8. And I certainly can see my composition while I compose. It's in the viewfinder.
Great work! These four images and the accompanying explanation completely rationalize the statement "no one asked for the 16-35 f/4 IS".
Look at the number of people within this forum itself who have countered your statement. That is a testament to how many did ask for it.
Show me. I saw lots of people looking for a 14-24/2.8. I didn't see anyone looking for a 16-35 or a 10-18.
A 14mm prime and a 16-35 are very different tools. Even the difference between 14 and 16 is marked, I can't see how a 16-35 would replace that.+1 especially since the zoom is an f/4 lens making it less suitable for landscape astrophotography.
82mm filter thread for an f/4 lens?That's the reason it looks fake to me..
The barrel looks less fat than the 24-70II, the depth of the zoom/focus are different but the real clincher that this is real is the forward facing lens surround which doesn't look like the 24-70II to me... 77mm ? I hope not, I'm invested in 82mm now