With both the 100/2.8L and the 70-200/2.8L IS II, a 135/2.0L would a bit redundant (unless you shoot concerts). I agree that a standard zoom seems to be missing in your lineup. The 24-105/4L or one of the 24-70's should do.
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.
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.
While it may not be the best for the moon, I bet you get some amazing auroras.If I lived in Canada that would be true, but in Europe you have to go even more north to see them regularly (although they show up here in Stockholm from time to time). I got a good display while visiting Yellowknife in Canada in 2009, however (50D, EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM @ 10mm/3.5, ISO 800, 15sec).
I went back and put the RAW sharpness settings and unsharp masking to zero before converting the file to TIFF and: halos are gone.You can also reduce the halos in unsharp mask by playing with the unsharp radius, e.g. making it much bigger removes background on a larger, smoother scale. You can increase the brilliance of the stars quite a bit by doing this (by reducing the sky haze), but have to take care to not introduce artefacts on large scales, e.g. foreground objects like the mountains in your case (or the dark lanes in the milky way). You can get around this by using masks etc, but I'm starting to get off topic.
Here is a image of the sun reflecting off a gazing globe. Its a 100% crop, but no black ring.The effect is more pronounced the greater the contrast (steep brightness gradient) and smaller the blown image, i.e. stars and hot pixels are ideal to produce dark halos. The sun in your image is more extended and bright also outside the saturated region, so sharpening shouldn't produce as easily visible halos.
This is a straight conversion from raw to jpg in LR 4, all the settings are nominal, no sharpening or NR.Isn't sharpening applied when using nominal settings? (I'm not too familiar with LR4, but other software apply it by default) If you push sharpening using unsharp mask I'm sure you can produce a dark halo around the bright dot in the right hemisphere. Just to illustrate the effect. (looking closer at your image there actually seems to be a dark edge to the white spots [not the sun] - implying some sharpening may have actually taken place?)
But I also will take care next time and won't do 45 shots within 15 minutes!I have taken long-exposure (30s) shots continously for hours (star trails!) without noticing any significant increase in noise, so I'm not sure this is a real problem. It should be very easy to find out though: do you notice a significant noise increase in your last image (when the sensor is "heated up") compared to your first image (with the sensor still at ambient) of that 15 min interval?
When i say it hasn't been processed and what is going on with images then it is still suggested i am lying and that it in fact has been sharpened, it bugs me a little.I was commenting on Pedro's image. In your case it looks like hot pixels with demosaicing artefacts. Are the bright spots in your picture visible at the same pixel positions in other pictures taken at the same time with similar settings? There's always processing going on in producing images, it doesn't need to be the post-processing that introduces problems.
I can't say but what about the fact that your points of light are ovals?Since your question hasn't been addressed yet... the 'ovals' are due to motion blur.