not as deeply colored the next night in a different location about 40 miles away.
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 doubt I would get this shot with the mk III (single shot Handheld with D800 and 14 - 24 at 22mm cropped to 5 x 4 processed in Silver efex pro2)
Thats not bokeh artifacts rather a fence or mesh behind the bird ...
Photographer Emil Lundstrom by imaginize.net, on Flickr
So are you shooting w/ the Nikon 14-24 on your Canon? If so, what adapter are you using?
Well, you're lucky. The 17-40s I tested just never cleaned up satisfactorily until diffraction set in...
I tested the Tokina on my 5D Mark III & was not impressed. I briefly tested a Nikon 16-35 on my 5DIII & it seemed to perform respectably, but not as well as the Nikon 14-24. That being said, it may be worthwhile to revisit the 16-35 & really assess its edge-to-edge performance b/c the 77mm filter thread makes it extremely convenient for landscapes... ND filters, polarizers, grads, etc... all of which you *especially* need when shooting with the limited DR of Canon sensors.
One thing that bothers me about the 16-35 is the VR which, of course, wouldn't be engaged on a Canon body. I just feel like image stabilization adds more elements which translates to more chances of decentering/misalignment, etc. Perhaps I'm being paranoid?
1-Sigma improved a lot their 70-200 adding stabilization, but the introduction price was quite high...tamron ha to add ultrasonic motor and improve the construction, so u can expect a low price; 1200$ at least after a while and the quality wont be like the 70-200 II
2-Maybe the stabilization wont be effective in macro, but you can use it as a medium tele, so the stabilization will be useful
..Nikon increases preservation of shadow detail more than highlights, Canon increases preservation of highlights more than shadows. Again, which is 'better' depends on the photographer. Me personally, when a scene captures my eye and makes me reach for my camera it is specifically the interaction of light and shadow that made it appealing. I am not concerned with nor desire to process out all the shadows, that would completely ruin the imagery of the scene/subject. If I am concerned about anything it is highlights being blown out when wanting to maintain shadows being shadows.. I mean I want the shadows to be just that, shadows. If I could not make out what was in the shadows at the moment of capture, I have no concern with seeing it in the image.
No comparison in lenses. Canon offers a greater selection in their 'pro' lenses than Nikon. Canon offers users the ability to get into pro glass without having to buy the ONLY and most expensive lenses they make like Nikon does. For example (and there are many) the venerable 70-200mm lens you will likely find in any pro's bag, and one most everyone else wants at some point, Canon provides four options from ~$600 to ~$2400, all exceptional optic quality - Nikon has ONE and fork over ~$2400 for it or do not even think about a 70-200m..That is only one example, but a good one. You still have the option of choosing and using 70-200mm class lenses they've made over the past 30+ years tho. So there's a price point for everyone if you don't mind using some older, possibly manual gear. Not that different after all.