Thanks! Indeed, my lens copy doesn't seem worse than anyone else's with regard to coma, and the Samyang 24/1.4 appears to be the significantly better option for stellar landscapes.
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 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.
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).