« on: May 14, 2014, 05:12:13 PM »
I'm for a 14-24 2.8, this would fit in perfect with my 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 II. I'd use that speed indoors also. But like previously stated, it has to be tack sharp and I have no doubt it would.
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.
Well, those 2 lenses are targeted at different markets.
The 24-70 f/4 is targeted at the lower end of the market where IS (shooting at slow shutter speeds or have shaky hands) and wants closeup/short 'macro' operation with fairly good image quality, but not top end.
You may be interested to know that I have a friend and colleague who must be one of the most financially successful photographers in recent times - we're talking $400,000 yachts here, all genuinely from photography - and he now uses a 24-70 f4 IS.
It's inaccurate to say it's not aimed at 'top end'.
I'm tempted to say the 24-70 f2.8 II is aimed as much at very wealthy hobbyists as much as professionals who want the best possible IQ straight off the camera but I don't have any hard evidence for this, so I'd better not
Add the 14-24 mm and we will be in heaven... or will we? What is the point of having a 24 mm TS-E f/3.5 II, a 14-24 mm and the 24-70 II all in the same camera bag? Sometimes I believe we are just too gullible and blinded by gear lust!
This lens together with 70-200/2,8 mk2 is an excellent reportage combo
I never take the card out. I only shoot to the CF. The SD is in with the ML code. I never have images going over to the SD...Yeah, did it with my 5Dc. Bent the pin and it shorted and cost me three months and $350 to fix it. Won't be doing the same with the 5D3. Saving for a 64GB CF Extreme Pro so I never have to change the card.
On my 300D I would take the card out. However I once bent a pin while putting it in. So ever since, the card would only come out when it is full and I need to shoot more. My default card on the 5D3 is 64GB and on the 300D is 2 GB so that has not happened so far...
Just to add to that, didn't the sales indicate that both the lower end (Rebel) and high-end (5dIII & 1DX) categories both belong to Canon? I would think that photogs in the 'pro' class would of done their homework, not just go out and blindly purchase.
Actually, In the pro market I would expect them to look at the combination of camera and lens..... and I think we all have to admit that Canon's selection of high end L glass makes it onto our "if I won the lottery " list.. This has to be a big factor for a pro deciding which way to lean.
Alas, Nikonistas will say that us Canonistas all over the world live in a false reality... the number of cameras sold does not make one the better camera.
Ahhhh, so the majority of people are intentionally buying inferior cameras, or are not savvy enough to determine what's a better camera. If that thought is what lets you sleep at night.....
No, they're not savvy enough. Even shop assistants who advise people are not savvy enough.
By definition, masses of people can't be made of experts. It's quite clearly a paradox.
In fact, if we go by the number of units sold, then the 18-55 IS and the 50/1.8 are likely to be considered as the best lenses ever. Or in the same way, if Canon sells more rebels than 1DX, then Rebels are better.
Quite a childish way of reasoning.
What's interesting is that you list two lenses that obviously sell more units due to price, in my opinion that is. Now take DSLR's. Everybody complains about how Canon is overpriced relative to Nikon. Yet they still sell more of them. I'm going to guess it's because the majority of the market believes Canon to be a better DSLR. There has to be some reason why this is, don't you think?
Then we totally agree: sales figures mean nothing to us end users.
Pros and other people who are heavily invested in a system are obviously reluctant to change system. Canon has had the lead for more or less 20 years and they're still getting revenues on that, so it's hardly a measure of the situation in this exact moment.
On the other hand, consumers have most likely no deep understanding of specs, graphs, etc, and are heavily influenced by advertising, discounts, and whatever. So their choice is also hardly relevant in determining who is better than who.
Seems logical to me. Many inferior cars sell more than better cars....
Not saying Canon or Nikon is better. But volume of sales does not seem to indicate quality of product.
Of course volume of sales doesn't indicate better or worse quality. I would have been fine if some of the more ignorant posters had left it at that. I'm ok with: "Just because Canon sold more, doesn't mean they sell better products." Are you with me? That's not what the people against Canon argued. They argued, rather, that, "Higher sales couldn't possibly mean better product, because Canon has an inferior product."
Do you understand?
When I was ten there wasn't even Pong.Correction, there was pong, it just started with 'ping'