Show Posts
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.
Did the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS cease to exist while I wasn't looking?
I shoot with the Canon products, a 5D Mark III to be exact. I also shoot with their professional camcorders. That being said, I have to say that as a former Nikon user, the Nikon cameras provided a much sharper shot. Don't get me wrong, I love my Mark III but honestly, it leaves me wanting more. There are many cameras out there that are arguably better. The Canon 6D is not one of those cameras. That's not to suggest that it is a bad camera but, it is not better. The picture taken in Costa Rica that was posted is not a very good picture in terms of quality. The composition is good but the quality is typical of what I have seen from non-professional users. More specifically, the picture lacks sharpness throughout and for whatever reason is not properly focused; however this is probably due to user error and not a deficiency within the camera.
I'm not saying they designed it "not to be sharp". As I mentioned, it tests very sharp. It's just not as sharp as the 85/1.2L or the 200/2L. Sharpness is just one goal for a lens designer. It isn't the only goal. A lot of goals come to together in a lens design.The 50/1.2L stands out in the EF lens line, not for its sharpness, but for the beautiful way in which it draws, especially in the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range. Canon obviously designed it with a certain look in mind.
Are you saying Canon designed the 50L not to be sharp but instead to get a 'certain look'? I really doubt Canon would design an L prime with sharpness NOT their top priority... if what you're saying is indeed the case, then I wonder what the Canon engineers had in mind when they designed the 24mm 1.4 Mk I?
Now, if Canon is indeed planning to release a 35mm MkII and 14-24mm f2.8 they better make sure making them tack sharp is their main priority.
Ummm can we get back to talkin about 14-24 and 35s? This 50L talk is ruining our fun!Sure thing, now that I've commented on that "crap" lens.
And the 50/1.2 L is a sub-par piece of cr*p as well by todays standards. A Sigma 50/1.4 runs circles around it.Crap may be too strong a word, but I agree the 50L is not good value for money. I dare anyone to put it in their top 5 best primes (super teles excluded) if their life depended on it. I mean, my top 5 would be 100mm f2.8L IS Macro, 135mm f2, 85mm f1.2, 24mm II TS-E, 35mm f1.4.
Your "L" lenses are so good that Canon will only provide warranty for 1 year.
Tamron will provide warranty for 6 years.
It is good to see that Canon back up their excellent build quality with a warranty to match, isn't it?
The length of warranty period tells me what the manufacturer expects from the product they make.
The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 does exist for a while now. Aren't those reviews made at the beginning of the release of the Sigma? Later on the production models improved. I own the Sigma bought it in 2010 and it does not have focus problems though granted its IQ is less on my 5D MKIII than on my 7DA quick look at the reviews on B&H finds complaints about autofocus as late as August and September of 2012, so those were not made at the beginning of the release (2008?). On Amazon, there are customer complaints about autofocus as late as October and November of 2012. Of course the Canon 50/1.4 still gets complaints about its autofocus many years after its release. The manufacture of these lenses may be getting better over time, but without some evidence, this idea about improvement may just be wishful thinking.
In the last 12 to 24 months we've seen an array of new lenses from Tamron and Sigma that seem to be laying down the gauntlet to Canon/Nikon in the area of providing good IQ that perhaps started with the 50/1.4 from Sigma. Why the Sigma 50/1.4? Because it tests better than both the Canon and Nikon equivalents albeit, it is more expensive however when Canon replaces the 50/1.4 with a 50/1.4 IS, the Sigma will be cheaper.I was reading up on the Sigma 50/1.4 recently. The review on The Digital Picture (TDP) and reviews by some customers on B&H were somewhat disappointing. I'm referring to the comments about autofocus consistency (and the Canon 50/1.4 is no champ in this either).
What confuses me is the way people always find something to complain about. 3 months ago everybody was saying "This is ridiculous, please lower the price," now fast forward a few weeks and people are complaining that Canon did exactly what everyone asked - lowered the price!It's pretty funny — they get nasty complaints even when doing exactly what people want. "I'm so pissed off ... the price is too high!" followed a few months later by "I'm so pissed off ... the price came down!"
... as Nikon's decrease seems more in line than the extortion-like routine that Canon pulled.It's really nothing like extortion. That's over the top too, though not as over the top as the OP's "screwing without lube" comment.
I was playing around with my friend's Sigma 35 and it's a toy compared to the 35L. Aside from the difference in bokeh, I also found the Sigma wasn't as sharp as the L. Shot both lenses on the 5D3 and 5D2. I can't really say anything about build quality in the case of the 35L because it's barrel is plastic... although it still seems a slightly more robust (better plastic composition). Has sigma ever produced lens elements that are optically superior to the glass in L lenses?Are you talking about the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM "Art" lens? The one that's bigger and heavier than the Canon 35L?
Canon, like most companies markup their prices for those who must have the latest gadget first. After those people are ripped off the prices slowly start to come down and are aimed at the consumers waiting for a deal.That's just the way the technology business is. Buy the big screen TV that just came out and you pay full price. Buy the one that came out last year and you get a discount. It's variable pricing over time. As prices come down, they attract new buyers with smaller budgets. Is this news to anyone?
Why is Canon seemingly actively screwing over it's buyers with insane price cuts, and equally insane introductory mark ups? The only reason I can come up with is that they want to lose customers and lose credibility.