You can choose. It is up to you.
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.
Yup, it implies that current coatings are better than something that came out in 2005. Canon's 24-70 f/4 IS has a t-stop = 4. The 24-70 II has a t-stop of 3 while the version I has a t-stop of 3.4.
I've been reading a little more about the 20 2.8. The venerable K Rockwell seems to think that Canon intentionally adjusted its design to maximize corner focus/clarity for field curvature when shooting in three dimensions (as opposed to test charts). He even gives it an acronym but I haven't read it anywhere else. He's constantly contradicting himself but I don't find he makes stuff up for no good reason. If the Canon 20mm was good in the field for landscapes, cityscapes etc, I'd be seriously interested in it. I just don't hear much from people who actually use it so I appreciate your input. I really liked my Minolta 20mm. Then I might be more amicable to a mid-range zoom like the 24-70. 14mm scares me but 20 I can frame up in my mind.
My advice: Consider if you really need this "all in one" package, the alternative is for example to buy a longer 70-300L and a prime that is faster than f2.8 or maybe the 100L macro which is also f2.8 but gives you more shooting options.
An f/4 zoom lens is not one you'd expect to have optimal light transmission anyway.Isn't the point of lens design to have optimal light transmission? And if the f-stop is four and the t-stop half a stop worse, doesn't that say something about Canon's glass elements and coatings? The Canon 24-105 is a good lens but it should not have been branded with the red ring.
Well, if the box the worth $500 to you, then get it for 1149. It isn't to me. And good luck selling a Canon 24-105 that you would buy for 1149 for anything close to that amount.
Or in other words, anyone that paid anything close to the MSRP when it was originally released has been screwed over and that this lens was never worth the investment when it was first released.
Says a lot for Canon "L" quality, doesn't it?
Many of the cheap Canon 24-105L's are because vendors are taking it out of a kit and selling it and the camera separately. This is not a Canon approved activity but they seem to look the other way.
If you go to a proper web site for a store like B&H, then you can compare the price of the Canon and Sigma:
$1149 vs $899.
$1149 vs $899.
People are comparing Sigma's MSRP with Canon's street price. That seems hardly fair. A proper comparison should be between equivalent prices, so either both MSRPs or both street. If the Sigma lens is able to sustain good sales at or close to its MSRP then that's not a bad thing.
CPS is aimed for Professionals, and i'm sure if they were to find out that you were not a professional, you could lose your status. Being both a professional and a CPS member, i find threads like these kind of sad, but, for those who take advantage and bend the rules for your own gain, karma always comes back around...
What is sad are posts like these as they appear to be judgmental and pompous. What, may I ask are the criteria for being a "professional?" Where is the line drawn? Primary source of income? Your main job? How many gigs you've done? How often someone has paid for an image of yours? The level of ambiguity to this determination is huge to an extent to which I don't believe you have given any thought.
I don't quite understand how anyone is taking advantage or bending the rules. I'm quite certain that if Canon/CPS was overly concerned about making their memberships exclusive only to high level pros, they would do so. I tend to believe based on the way things are set up that they are really only concerned about whether you have spent enough money on their stuff.
I have a career which pays me very well which allows me to have the luxury of owning a lot of gear without having to do photography as a job. I do paid gigs for fun here and there and have plenty of gear which doesn't all necessarily get used on those jobs. Does that make me not a professional? Am I not qualified to get my equipment worked on?
Canon sells products and provides a way for you to get them serviced which also costs money. Who is anyone to tell another photog they shouldn't be allowed to have membership if they are willing to pay the money for both?
I'm pretty sure there is a higher likelihood of running into some bad karma when you are being wrongfully judgmental of others and/or being full of yourself.
Without trying to be offensive, I often find myself mystified by customers who develop an almost religious faith in brands. "If The Company did it, it must be right." Why? Why recognize mistakes and press for improvements?
With that, my final end all question has to be,
Is it better to go with the 70D ($949 at BH) with a couple of quality lenses, or do I jump straight into Full Frame with the 6D ($1500 at BH) with maybe the ability to buy a fast prime like the 50mm 1.4?
Perfectly obvious Canon dropped the ball with the 6D, giving it weaker AF than the 60D. Canon makes mistakes and should be called on them, just as they should be praised for the many cameras they get so wonderfully right.
Note that I don't call the AF issue a mistake simply because I have to pay more for a FF with good AF. Putting the weak system in the entry level FF was a blunder because Canon needs dSLR customers committed to its entire eos/ef system. Ticking off current customers looking to upgrade to FF was bad business, as was turning off prospective customers comparing Canon's offerings to those of other companies. If Canon had simply equaled the xxD line's AF in an entry level FF, they'd have had more customers coming in and more customers with ef-s lenses looking to buy new lenses for their FF. But Canon was shortsighted, stingy, and over protective of the 5DIII, which was simply out of range for a great many enthusiasts.
We have members of the press in the USA who reflexively cover for their favorite politicians no matter how outlandish the lies or harmful the policies. But you know what? Those journalists get paid for their sophistry.