« on: November 06, 2013, 11:57:41 AM »
its an 8mp so it uses 4 pixels for each pixel kinda like a bayern 4 pixel so maybe it uses those for the dual pixel focusing.
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.
It seems like a very nice lens. I have to ask myself though, if his only other choice were using the 100-400 how much different would these shots look? Sure the ISO8000 shots wouldn't have been possible at f/5.6. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of money to gain one stop and IQ. This lens is 10x the cost of the 100-400, but is it 10x a better lens? It will be very interesting to see what an updated 100-400 will bring.
I was flummoxed when I heard that this thing is APS-C only. Why?! If this is a premium lens aimed at serious shooters, why go crop? This is not a screaming need for the relatively few APS-C guys who spend big money on glass (i.e. birders, sports guys), so I can't make heads or tails of this.
Why not push for (idk) a 24-50 F/2 for the FF guys? That would likely have a larger interest level.
hahaha I tried to pull the trigger on 2249 XD6D+24-105mm seems to be 2449.
yeah, i think its a typo. would have made the lens cost only $370. lol
It's $2449 at B&H too.
If this lens with a 2x tele competes with an 800mm prime super tele, then it has justified its price tag. This lens with the 2x mark iii essentially would allow a photographer to replace a few, several thousand dollar lenses (along with their weight and bulk). Hopefully, this will get some good super teles on the used market with lower prices so us regular folks can afford to pick up a super tele. Not all of us are brain docs ... lookin' at you Neuroanatomist!Yeah but a 400mm f/4 with a 2x multiplier becomes a 800mm f/8, and not many cameras focus at that aperture, or focus with at most 1 AF point. And to be fair, this would compare to 800mm with a 1.4TC (1120mm f/8)