« on: November 06, 2012, 11:05:33 AM »
I prefer FF.
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.
My opinion on the 24-70L f/4 is that for 1500$, it's exactly how I originally imagined it. DOA.
This lens should have been a affordable FF lens for users not needing 2.8 or the extra reach of the 24-105L. It proved to be neither of those things.
What do you want? Canon to sell it for $500 and make a LOSS then go BUST
"it proved to be neither" - that's past tense! Affordability is subjective...depends on the consumer, plus this lens is not out yet
Go back 6 months on CR and read how many contributors said @ $3.5k the 5D3 was DOA vs D800 and then look at the CR commentators that said 24-70mm mk II @ $2.3k was DOA.....several months on and they're in the kit bags of many CR bloggers. LOL
Congratulations! At the MSRP of 1500$ for the 24-70 f/4L IS. This lens is now
I agree if purchased separately, but the theory was all along that this price will be just a marketing joke to be able to sell heavily "discounted" kits with the 6d making the new camera body more attractive.
1. 14-24 L f2.8 - on par with Nikon or better
2. 50L II - sharp at wide open, fast AF, no more focus shift issue
The 5Dc is still better than any APS-c camera canon currently makes in the IQ department. If you can over look its limitations, you'll be rewarded with files that are very similar to film.
I was able to use all ISO speeds with good results, even ISO 3200 with some NR.
These are some examples
I think this is a fallacy, I bought an old 5d before jumping right to the 5d3 and it(5d) and my 7d were pretty much even in terms of image quality