« on: May 05, 2013, 06:51:45 PM »
Mine focuses about as sharply using the outer points as the center point wide open on a 5DIII. How much back-focusing are you talking about?
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'll definitely have to think more about this. First step, maybe I should see if I can get by with the 24-70 II indoors. I do have a 430 EX flash I sometimes use with a "black foamie thing" (as recommended here: http://neilvn.com/tangents/about/black-foamie-thing/), but frankly I don't like the extra bulk of flash.
The other question is whether I can live with a max aperture of 2.8 between 24-70mm from a depth of field perspective. In Justin's review of the Sigma 35/1.4 on this site, he says "The fast aperture and shallow depth of field will capture special moments with amazing clarity while isolating distracting backgrounds." I wouldn't have that ability with the 24-70.
That said, maybe the solution is to go with the 35 & 85 right now, since those are the focal lengths I think I'll use most, and get the 135 later. The 50 & 100 might not make as much sense if I plan to get the 135 eventually.
Dylan, after getting the 24-70 MKII do you feel you have been using the 16-35 less and less for landscapes and wide shots? Or, the 16-35 still gets used quite often? I am asking because I have the 16-35 II, and wondering if I will end up using the 24-70 MKII more for landscapes than the 16-35 II and may end up giving up the wider focal length for better resolution.
Good for Canon to upgrade the lens, but as for everyone else, I wonder about the price.
Nikon is charging a ridiculous amount of money for their 80-400G (though prices are going down quickly). However, they could do it because the new lens is much better than the old 80-400.
Canon 100-400 is quite good. Can they do a so-much-better lens optically? I don't know, and if they do the price will be exorbitant. Certainly it will feature better IS, and I think they're going to smoothen the bokeh too - the biggest problem of the current version. So while I'm sure it will be a better lens overall, the margin could be slight to justify the difference in price. I think the MK1 will look like a much more attractive package to the most.
Talking about alternatives... never heard of Sigma 50-500? I'm holding on for my purchase of an expensive telezoom until Sigma and Tamron announce something in this range. In the meanwhile I enjoy the cheapolicius Tamron 70-300.
I still love mine and wouldn't sell it. Even if I got a 24-70II I would likely keep it as a secondary versatile lens. Looking at your lenses there would be a gap in your setup if you sold it for a 35.
Many shooters have this same decision, until they shoot with 24-70 II
From having used them, I would say that using an extender with the 70-200 mk1 + 2.0x II wasn't very good. However, mk2 + 2.0x III 3 is phenomenal. I would highly recommend it, even over a 100-400.
Other similar experiences? =)
Not a bad idea ... but wasn't there a deal recently mentioned in CR for around $396?Well that gives me some comfort that I did not sink my money into the current version, coz on many occasions I thought of getting the EOS-M but just kept putting it off as it wasn't a priority for me ... maybe the newer version(s) might lure me into buying one
Although if it drops below 400 with the prime kits lens, I'd get it to replace the P&S...
No, because while I do have a 70-300L and the 70-200 f/2.8 ii that your previous question referred to, I do not have the Kenko, only the Canon 1.4X iii, and that does not work with the 70-300L (though some say it does if you first push the lens out to 300 - but that is not something I am willing to even try).
I have read extensive reviews about the Kenko Pro 300 DGX 1.4X and they are all very positive. I got the Canon because it is weather sealed whereas the Kenko is not.
Well that gives me some comfort that I did not sink my money into the current version, coz on many occasions I thought of getting the EOS-M but just kept putting it off as it wasn't a priority for me ... maybe the newer version(s) might lure me into buying one
I used to like this lens more. Then I began to appreciate prime lenses. All of a sudden this zoom becomes mediocre. It's performance is average but it's versatile. I am debating whether to sell it to fund a sigma 35. But I'm afraid I'll regret selling a general zoom. Plus it's not worth as much as when I bought it. For those of you who own this zoom, do you still use it very much? I realize it's unfair to compare a zoom with a prime but I promise myself not to add a lens without selling one. What a dilemma...
I have the 24-70mm II and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. Both are great, but have to disagree that the 24-70 II is sharper at 35mm than the Sigma at 35mm. If you compare the IQ from both at f/2.8, the Sigma has an edge in center and mid frame sharpness. This comparison can be seen at the the-digital-picture.com:
And the Sigma is two full stops faster; makes a big difference in the bokeh department.
sorry, i was given a used Nikon D80 (pretty old) but still usable, I recently rented teh Sigma 35mm to go with and it was fantastic. Although, I'm currently saving up for Canon 6D and then my friend informed just yesterday about this deal. I know its a great deal but thats the dilemma I'm in now, keep saving up for the 6D or hop on this deal now.
It's true. I have 6D and I sometimes wish I had the AF capabilities of mk iii. But the 6D is half price of its brother so I'm happy. I got mine for less than $1600 after rebate.