Thanks for sharing ChristopherMarkPerez, great stuff!
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.
The EF-S mount is purposely different, because Canon wants to be incompatible. Moreover, the lenses Sigma "DC" fit in the full frame cameras, even if they theoretically may not be compatible.Can you tell me why? If u can mount FF lens on a crop body?A Canon EF-S lens will not mount on a Canon FF body.Nope. You can mount EF-S lens on FF as well. But I wouldn't recommend it.Uh. I'm almost sure that an ef 24 has the same FOV as an ef-s 24. The added "S" just means that it's only mountable to crop bodies.25mm x 1.6x = 40mmNo. It's EF-S so it's 24mm on APS-C. If you put EF 24mm on APS-C, then you will get equivalent around 38mm.
25mm x 1.6x = 40mm
No. It's EF-S so it's 24mm on APS-C. If you put EF 24mm on APS-C, then you will get equivalent around 38mm.
Uh. I'm almost sure that an ef 24 has the same FOV as an ef-s 24. The added "S" just means that it's only mountable to crop bodies.
Of all the lenses that NEEDED improving is the 24-70 f2.8 L. I can't stand it when I am doing EVERYTHING right... i.e. standing still, bracing my camera tightly, working in good indoor/ outdoor lighting, using a cross point, not shifting the focus... literally taking a picture after being certain there is enough detail to get a good focus lock.. and I am standing directly in front of a person, who somehow manages to become like......3 ft back focused! Why... That should not happen with Professional equipment!!!!!!!!!! Why would Canon not fix that HUGE problem in the MkII version of this lens... a new lens that costs SIGNIFICANTLY MORE money than the cruddy lens that I have put up with for the last 10 years!! This problem has peed-off so many photographers that Google.com is filled with many pages of people all over the world complaining about the focus problems! Oh wait... I know what the flaw is... There is none.... This lens was designed this way intentionally, because they know that if we are angry about the cruddy performance of such a lens, we would have to buy a new one, thinking that Canon would have corrected all the problems that the last version was known for! Oh no! That stuff will be fixed in the MkIII version... costing a whole lot more than the MkII... Follow the money! Canon is known for releasing products with MAJOR flaws.....and for denying problems ever existed.......even after stacks of evidence show otherwise! Jerks!
You mentioned nothing in your original post about needing to shoot low light, so it seems the 200/2 is not necessary for that reason.
You would save so much money by going with the 70-200/f2.8, especially since you don't need that extra stop. With the money you save over the 200/2, you can pick up a few books on composition in photography, and also on composition in painting (where there is much overlap). Basically, a book that will teach you about rules of composition, about using contrasting elements, about using negative space, about using symmetry, etc etc. You don't need to "kill" your background with f2 when you know how to properly compose a photograph. I used to have the same lust after that lens, luckily I never bought it thanks to the wise words spoken by a professional portrait photographer.
I've got a few buddies who either have the 85/1.2, 135/2, or 200/2, and I just think "what are you doing???" They claim those lenses are great for background separation. You know what else is? ANY lens and a knowledge of composition. I saved so much money, and weight, by going with the 70-200 f4, which is also my most expensive lens. You can tell it eats at my friends' hearts that I am taking better photos with gear that is not high end. But as they always say, a great photographer can take a better photo with an iPhone than a shitty photographer with the best SLR.
I urge you, because I used to be in the same position of lust for that amazing-bokeh lens as you, to reconsider. You have the potential to save so much money, which will increase what you can spend on other things. Not having spent thousands upon thousands (or even tens of thousands) on gear has allowed me to travel much more (which in itself is a lot of fun, whether it be traveling locally, nationally, or even internationally), practice photography more, and just enjoy life more.
Think about it this way. You'd be paying thousands more in order to take pictures where less and less stuff is in focus. Yes, I know that it is a fantastically sharp lens , but let's not kid ourselves about to the real reason most people lust after the lens. Super thin DOF/background separation.
^ I agree... The 300 II has some incredible bokeh!Nice examples! The bokeh on the lizard shot is insane!