I dont see it on my at-office monitor. I'll take a look on the PA-271 when I get home.
If the area is greatly 'pushed' from of lower exposure values / long exposure, you might be seeing an echo of your camera's sensor. Organized noise.
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.
So basically this is a 200-560mm f/4-5.6 lens? Now, due to the IS, if it is a highly portable (hand-holdable) lens ... great for sport and stalking game. If not, still, what's the point?Well, a 400mm f/4 lens will cost you $6000+ from Canon. A 500 or 600mm lens from Canon will cost you $10k (though, they will be f/4, not f/5.6). A 200mm lens is another $750, and a 300mm f/4 is another $1000. So, in pure focal length you are getting a 50% discount. And of course you'd have to change between all of those. A 100-400 would presumably be an alternative, but, its an older design and you need to add a teleconverter to get to 560.
I swear only by Kata bags, love 'em and their yellow padding. Got a bunch of different sizes and purposes. Just check their website.
What if it is called 2D or 4D instead?
I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.
After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with a 5Dmk3 the 16-35mkII wasn't good enough anymore: the off-center unsharpness is just too visible. I bought the 17-40 which is a lot sharper (but obviously lacks the F/2..
I really like the 16/17 to 35/40mm focal range, so I'm really hoping they are going to release a sharp 16-35mm F2.8. The 14-24mm F2.8 sounds as a nice addition to the 24-70mm, but for the type of photography I'm doing I'd rather use a 16-35 + 70-200mm combo.
Just my 2 cents.
You're the first person I've ever heard say the 17-40 is sharper than the 16-35 MkII. I'm going to go further and say you outright had a defective copy of the 16-35 because every tester says the 16-35 is sharper and my own experiences have reflected that.