70-300L. Slightly shorter and heavier but fatter, but the key is 100mm more range for a fractional stop. Unless you know you won't go beyond 200mm, the 70-300L will be more versatile.
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.
Let me get this right.
A $1k lens is not as sharp as a $2k lens... and you're spitting mad? Have you never thought that (usually) you pay for what you get? Quite often, you pay a lot more.
I think people are always upset when their expectations aren't met. Samyang has released several lenses that are optically very good, and at a bargain price. This lens appears to be neither.
Before we go all crazy on hating the lens, lets all remember that that was one lens tested. Rokinon is known for not always having the most constant quality of product. This lens might have just been a bad copy, when they start trying out more of them and find the same thing, then we can get a little upset but before then, we should just wait and see.
How many people have an 'M'? I mean there isn't even a section in the gallery for it.
Just seems like they are making a new lens for a camera that has flopped hard.
Did anyone else raise an eyebrow at the "IS" in that lens name?Imagine being able to drag shutter for water shots (maybe 1/5 to 1/2s) without a tripod...for someone already considering the EOS-M line, that's another few pounds saved.
I didn't think people really needed to handhold 1-second exposures at 11mm, but I suppose the technology does help sell lenses to novices.
" MTFs curves also tend to get higher for longer focal lengths as well."
no they don't, longer focal lengths are measured around 10lp/mm which gives higher higher curves, for example Canons 300mm has higher resolution than 500 or 600 who are optimized for high contrast and do well at lower Lp/mm
300/2,8 and shorter lenses has higher resolution and are often measured around 30-50Lp/mm when they are compared to each other
So, there are nothing strange about that 300/2,8 are a sharper lens regarding resolution and contrast
The 300 f/2.8 IS II would be at a disadvantage for the thin lines because that's at max aperture, so you're comparing f/2.8 versus f/4 for the other two lenses. MTFs curves also tend to get higher for longer focal lengths as well.
But you are right in that the MTFs for the 500 are better than 600. I wonder if DxO's reversal is due to copy-to-copy variation...
But as I understand it the thin dotted blue line is sagittal resolution af f/8, the 300mm still has a larger drop off towards the edges than the 500mm in that regard.
It is technically feasible, a 50mm lens is one of the easiest to design, a IS for f/1.4 would be small and lightweight, just expensive. I doubt that too many want a $1500 lens.
Canon does price out various designs and marketing then has to decide if a design is going to sell enough to be profitable. The tooling and startup cost for a new design is high, and a f/1.4 might be extremely high. Still, it would sell if they keep the price to $1000 and the IQ is high.
Looking at Canon's own MTF charts for the bare 300, 500 and 600mm lenses (the mk2 versions) the 500mm appears to have the least drop off towards the corners (in sagittal resolution if I am reading the charts correctly), less than the 300 and 600mm. I realise Canon's MTF charts are theoretical, but based on this, how come the 300mm is sharpest? It appears to have the largest drop off of the three lenses.
300mm IS II: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm
500mm IS II: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_500mm_f_4l_is_ii_usm
600mm IS II: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_600mm_f_4l_is_ii_usm
Well they managed f2 with the 35 IS so any upcoming 50 should be at least as fast, and hopefully faster!