« on: March 06, 2013, 11:17:50 AM »
$11,000 vs $3000 - That is the question.
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 have the canon 50mm 1.4 an the canon 85mm 1.8 using on my 5d3.
I'm constantly on a quest for shallower dof. I do a lot of street photography.
My hesitations on upgrading to the L lenses are (other than cost):
Will I actually see a noticeable difference in dof?
The 50mmL has a pronounced focus shift narrower than f2.
The 85mm 1.2. is slower af than the 1.8
My question is will I see much difference between 1.4 and 1.2 @ 50mm and 1.8 and 1.2 at 85mm?
Also, does anyone know if the sigma 85 is any good? And similarly is it worth going from 85mm 1.8 to 85mm 1.4?
A little late to the 1998 USM party nikon?
As a prior owner of a dust blower 100-400, I'd send tat memo to canon....and their 50s inspired push, puller.
I still shake my head when I see a cheap filter on a premium lens such as the photo posted with the review.
Proven to make your images softer but protect your lens from a tree. your call.
Noticeably softer? I would like to see the source of that fact (unless you are referring to cheap filters).
also stated in this is the earlier made point that modern chips don't pick up uv rays anyway.
Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro? None. There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.
Good reasoning but does being a unique one-lens option provide that sort of value? One could think of it in the opposite direction too; it is only f/4, not a true macro at 0.7, and neither much (if) better than the competition optically.
After all, I guess we all agree, it is worth for those who purchase and not worth for those who do not. If the market consists mainly of the latter, the price goes down and vice versa... This lens might become the kit lens replacing the 24-105 eventually which would be unfortunate for us who like the 24-105 and would like to see a v2 of it. I recall even calls for a f/2.8 version of it...
If Zeiss would just put AF, I'd never own any canon lenses.
I wonder why they don't make AF lenses for Canon or Nikon bodies?
Because $0ny doesn't want to.
Don't they make AF lenses for Sony DSLR systems?