Show Posts
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.
Better examples: Photo 1 is the unedited RAW file converted straight to jpg. I've then included two versions of edited photos. You can edit it them any way you'd want, I just applied two presets I happened to have to illustrate the point. This shot is at ISO 5000 and shot about +2/3 at this end of the court.
Better yet, how about a D30 with a set of L prime's? Makes great photos.
Sarcasm?
The lens I'm currently coveting is the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II. I may get distracted by purchasing the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS II along the way...None. (Although a Canon EF-S 30mm f/1.8 L USM would be nice, provided it is sans IS.)According to a recent poll, the 14-24L is the most coveted lens here on CR
Not that it matters much, but I got the sense that the OP was interested in lenses that actually exist.
Quote"Plus, according to PBD, f/2.8 and f/4 look the same, why bother?"
And again you selectively misquote. F2.8 on a crop camera and f4 on a full frame camera when using an appropriate focal length to achieve the same framing don't "look the same", they are identical in dof characteristics. It is called equivalence. See my demo below.
You on the other hand have stated very vigorously that any photograph can be taken with any camera; when challenged you further stated, specifically, you could take any image including any image shot with a 135 @ f2 with a box brownie.
One of us can demonstrate our point with images, one of us keeps changing their position. Have fun Ramon, I am not interested.
PBD, dude let it go. Your not covinceing me, nor people who actually used both lenses. That's why I asked him, not you.
I am not trying to convince you, you have already been shown to be contradictory and unable to backup your claims. I was showing examples, yet again, that illustrate the "differences" to a completely different person who asked the same question.
You, Ramon, have already failed the test on multiple occasions, I am just using empirical evidence to back up my assertion, you on the other hand think you can bully people into submission with nothing more than an overinflated ever changing opinion that invariably fails at the first challenge.
Again, I already sold my 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200L. Version II of course. I also bought a 500D close up lens for the little macro work I wanna do, sure I don't get 1:1 but easily the double of what the 70-200 can natively do.
Anywho, if I find myself in need of a macro anytime in the future, I can just grab another 100 non L, or a Tamron 90 VC or something like that, it's just no need for a L anymore.
Out of curiosity, can you see a difference in shots from the 135L and 100L?
You couldn't, I used florianbielers images in our 100 vs 135 match off, you didn't have a clue which lens was used.