Dolna. I wish! In any case i have too many CF cards currently.
I think I will make a test soon and report.
I think I will make a test soon and report.
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.
Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.
I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF. We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience. Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section. With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points. If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.
Could someone enlighten me? To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible. To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television. Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.
I didn't know there is video feature on 5D
Ok... let's say my pocketbook started suggesting some chapter options... like the 300mm f4 is... a little over a grand... 420mm at
And I save nearly nine grand....
The IQ of the 100-400L is a bit better than the 300/4 + 1.4x, and gives the convenience of a zoom and not having to muck about with a TC. I'd recommend picking up a used 100-400 – that way, when you eventually give into temptation (you know you will, right??), you won't lose much when you sell the 100-400L because you're not using it anymore.
i bet 800mm f5.6..... new 100-400mm will come in 2016.
I know the feeling, but unless you will be getting a commercial/financial return from the investment, it does not make sense.
I have both, and use the 24mm 1.4 when I can - because 1.4 is much better than 2.8You're correct, and in my case, I never had clients who appreciated that type of shot, so I never went for it. I've seen some amazing bridal shots and portraits with 12 and 14mm lenses, so it's definitely possible if used correctly and I'm sure you've taken some great ones
It is true that shooting people at 16mm is a challenge. But, if you keep them dead center, generally most of the distortion is avoided. If you do it right, you can actually make some quite impressive photos where you essentially isolate a mostly-undistorted subject via distorton (instead of say bokeh).
Generally I use the 16-35 for parts of events where 24 won't be wide enough, or for the ultimate in environmental portraiture. Is having 16-23mm absolutely 100% necessary? Probably not, but then again those unique shots is what can make your work stand out.
One very cool thing you can do with shift lenses is shift to the side and then frame a person on the opposite side to the shift, doing this you can put a person on the extreme edge of a 17mm shot with no distortion.
Except when you are forced to 12800+ ISO on the f/4 IS to compensate for less light entering the camera due to a maximum aperture of f/4 at a dim event, in which case the IQ of the 16-35 f/2.8L II at f/2.8-ISO 6400 will be far superior. f/4 lets in half the light of f/2.8, meaning you will be forced into motion-blur inducing shutter speeds or very high isos in dim light with moving subjects. IS can't help motion blur. I did see you qualify with your statements with "unless you need f/2.8," but the rest of your post seems to ignore these important issues.
Indeed. The extra stop of the f/2.8 lens is certainly needed in some cases. Looking over my EXIF, for me that need is very, very rare.