« on: June 08, 2012, 08:28:43 PM »
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm still trying to figure out the POINT of the OP's post here? Looking for a reaction, what? I'm lost.
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.
How much better is the EOS 3 over the Elan 7?
I have an EOS-3 and love it. They are super cheap these days and are fantastic cameras. Obviously compatible with all EF lenses.
I'd recommend getting it if you wanna shoot film.
Much better than 17-40L is Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 at the same price. See
I found this lens for sale local near a friend of mine that I can get it for me....
From pics..appears to be in good shape? But this is a f/4 lens..right..so, much slower than the 16-35, right?
I had been saving for a new 16-35mm L.....maybe I should pass on this and save my pennies a bit longer?
I'm just so anxious to get something wide angle....I've started off with the kit 24-105mm....and got the 85mm 1.8 too...but need something for more wide angle now....and I'll be good to go for awhile...
Or sell the 7D and 10-22mm and put that towards a MKIII and have the MKIII as the primary and your MKII as your second/back-up body.
That would put me at ~2k out of pocket and without an UW... interesting thought though...
The 2 lenses I mentioned are 1/2 to 1/3 the price of the 16-35 II, and also I think they both take 77mm filters instead of 82mm. Mostly for me it's the initial cost. I can see myself spending up to ~$650 or so for one, but definitely not the ~$1600 or so for a 16-35 II.
get the mrk iii with the latest Tech. You will loose some reach, but iq, fps, and 61pts af are great. One less body to carry around.Cortection. IQ (sharpness, DR, e.t.c) is exactly the same between the 5D2 and 5D3, unless you are into shooting above ISO 3500.I say skip the 5D3. Improved AF and FPS alone is not worth it.
"Cortection. IQ (sharpness, DR, e.t.c) is exactly the same between the 5D2 and 5D3" ==> Base on what? Let me guess....DP told you
"unless you are into shooting above ISO 3500" ===> So why do you want mrk II AGAIN???
Have you try mrk III yet? Better AF, faster frame rate, and better ISO(low light)...pls don't tell me these features are NOT worth it.