Hehe, an ultra-wide lens.. how could you expect any other advice from a user nicked Canon 14-24? But from your options, yes, I agree.
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 meant I wanted to shoot the whole sky with the comet in it, and feature part of the terrestrial view as well.I see, well, then perhaps a fish-eye would serve you good. But generally, if you choose a very short focal length, the comet will not look as impressive (unless it is very impressive). If you want terrestrial features in the foreground, another strategy is to choose a time when the comet is nearer the horizon, and use a focal length more appropriate for the comet.
Incidentally, how well would a 300mm lens work on the Vixen Polarie?I have no personal experience with it. The Polarie is intended for more wide-angle work, but is rated for 7 Ibs. of load, so it could potentially take a 300/4 for some 30s, if properly polar aligned. A 300/2.8 would probably be too much, including mount head and camera. An Astro-Trac could be the better mobile option, or a dedicated "light" tracking mount like the iOptron ZEQ25GT if mobility was not essential (i.e. no hiking with equipment unless you have plenty of assistents).
Nice image and very good advice. Recently I have looked over the lens offerings, and tests...decided to go two routes for the object of my own night time pursuit, the upcoming comet ISON. Assuming it looks like it will be worth going to the trouble, I will buy a Sigma 35mm f/1.4, and do (perhaps 5-shot-overlapped) stitched panoramas of the comet. There simply is no other wide or medium wide lens that compares to its resolution...even the Zeiss 21 or 25mm offerings...let alone any of the 24 f/1.4's. I also have decided the very best, sharpest wide angle lens, is also the least expensive, the Samyang 14mm f/2.8. So that one is kind of a no-brainer (obviously it would be best for single shots). It might be interesting to try a motorized mount as well...but would not help for the terrestrial aspect of the shot. Of course if the shot is stitched, it would work...but the mount might hamper the ability to pan while doing the shots in succession...don't know.
My main lens though is the 100-400L, which is less sealed than the 70-300L. After some hours in the rain, the 100-400L will develop condensation inside which blocks the optical path. Unless you really love the soft focus look, I switch to a backup lens and keep shooting.Switching lenses during rain to get better sealing doesn't sound like a good idea, unless you can get away from the rain to do that.
Depends on your budget... I think only the 800/5.6L IS is more expensive among the Canon lensesFor example, the 600/4L IS IIIf I were just starting out, and being on a budget, would this be a good lens?
The only relevant downside to FF is the higher cost of bodies and often lenses.For the equivalent specs/quality, FF lenses would actually be cheaper than APS-C - if equivalent lenses really existed. The EF-S 17-55/2.8 (on APS-C) and EF 24-105/4L (on FF) are probably the best examples, the EF 85/1.2L II (on APS-C) and EF 135/2.0L (on FF) is another example with similarly spec:ed lenses with the second lens being half the price. Even with the cheaper lens, I would expect the IQ to be better on the FF. If there was an EF-S 85/1.2 lens made that actually rivaled the EF 135/2.0L on FF, it would probably have to be even more expensive than the current EF 85/1.2L II.
Honestly, I don't know what all the gripes about the Mark II's AF being slow are all about.I found the 5D2 to be inadequate when it came track moving objects. The 7D and 5D3 do that much better. Otherwise the center-point speed/accuracy/sensitivity is fine on the 5D2.
I wouldn't put it past Canon to make a new EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM intended for video.Or why not EF 50mm f/2.8 IS USM for $700, in line with recent trends.