I'm waiting to see $100 or $150 off the 35mm f/2 IS before I buy it... I can wait until summer if need be
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 also hope Canon wouldn't put IS in a 17-40 lens just to boost the price. For a lens whose primary use is on a tripod, that would be silly
I am worried about the Hybrid IS since someone in this post said that, because of it, his/her photos were soft (and sharp when tuned off). Though, it was only 1 comment going that route.
Nah, that's either a broken lens or people simply don't realize that IS doesn't stop the world around them and the effect diminishes to nearly zero when going near 1:1 mag. And with very fast shutter speeds you should turn IS off because the lens shutter speed is faster than the IS sampling rate resulting in a bit of blur.
The advantage of the hybrid is over other IS systems is that esp. with a 7d/5d3-type af system the lens speeds up the sample rate, so tiny adjustments are adjusted plus it also compensates for forward/back movement next to panning. It's a theoretical advantage esp. when shooting med distance handheld macros, but I wouldn't make a lens choice Canon/Sigma depend on the hybrid is - the downside is that it's noisier and might be more prone to failure since it's more complicated.
And I was wondering what the other lens they were announcing would be. I knew the 18-35 was being redone, but the 800 was a surprise.Seems like that price point for that lens drives the nail in the coffin of any "update the 17-40" efforts. The going rate of an entry wide-zoom seems to be $750-$850, and I doubt they go cheaper.
unfortunately, AF with the speed booster is slower than using the EOS M, according to Roger Cicala. so maybe a fruitless pursuit after all.
Don't know that I care about AF with a lens at f/0.5 - what would it possibly fix on? I'm thinking MF w/liveview. Agreed, not for every lens, but I would really go for a 24mm (eq FF FOV) f/1
I agree with jrista about EVF's been a long way away from being truly good, but I also agree with your point that technology grows quickly, and it certainly will get there, probably sooner than the decade that jrista predicts.One of my co-workers brought in an Olympus E-M5...we played comparison between it and a 7D. The EVF on it is comparable to the 7D, it takes better quality pictures in poor light, about the same in good light, and I really can't tell the difference in AF speed or accuracy. I was amazed that this camera was so good. It's hard to deny the existance of something you are holding in your hands... this wasn't just an EOS-M killer, it was a Rebel killer too, and if it wasn't for the way better user interface on the 7D and Canon Lglass, it would have topped the entire APS-C lineup.
ok... but i am typing this on an ipad with a 264ppi density, the Galaxy X IV phone is 440, 500 isn't too far in the future.... oh no! Wait a minute! Sony has a 1200ppi EVF.... the future may be closer than you expect....
As a rule of thumb, the wider the zoom range the worsae the image quality. The 18-200 has the worst MTF curves of any lens Canon makes and extending the range will probably make it worse. It might come out, but I would not buy one. A pair of cheap lenses like the 18-55 and 70-300 would probably outperform an even wider rage superzoomThe whole idea of a "workhorse" lens is one that covers a very large focal length, both wide and tele, without me having to change lenses.
For my day-to-day photography, I need a focal length from 18mm to >200mm.
While you beat your chest about your 1Dx and your 100-400 push pull, Ansel and I will be pushing and pulling our view cameras and wooden tripods up to Half Dome.