« on: October 24, 2013, 04:03:18 PM »
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.
i'm not interested in a crop wide angle, I bought the 17-40 because at 1.6, it fits in most of the zoom range I use most often.
Still, if you shoot crop and want a crop standard zoom there's little reason not to get an aps-c lens because the inherent system advantage (smaller mirror) is also good for the 17- or 15- range.
Personally I'd get the 15-85 for the larger zoom range, but if you really want/need f2.8 the 17-55 is also fine except for the unfortunate fact that Canon doesn't build sealed or sturdy aps-lenses (thanks, Canon!).
I see people arguing for IS even on wide angle lenses. I enjoy IS from the 70-200 and upwards. Below that it has never been an issue. Maybe it´s because I didn´t have IS for the first 25 years I was doing this.It seems I am always shooting something in low light. It seems that shooting in the late evening or inside without a flash is something I am always doing. Sure motion blur and such is a problem but I could see a use for IS.
If I shoot dead subjects, in very poor light, I normally use a tripod. If not, something is moving and there is a limit to how slow the shutter speed can be. I have not shown any Parkinson symptoms yet, so hopefully I can carry on like this for a few more years.
As long as the only real penalty for including IS is the cost of the lens (and not reduced IQ), I think it's totally worth it. Most of the time, I shoot people and have a minimum shutter speed of 1/125 s when using my 24-70/2.8L II. But occasionally, I want to take a low light shot of a static scene, and 4 stops of IS would mean the difference between ISO 6400 and ISO 800 - that's worth the price of admission, to me. I'd rather have it and not need it, then not have it when it would come in handy.
Why does there need to be anything 'next' from Canon, or Nikon, or Sony....
Have all you people actually outgrown your existing equipment???
Your skill in photography demands more camera than you have now???
Your creativity is being suppressed by the outdated equipment you have now???
Or is it really a situation where you do not wish to learn photography and are always vigilant for something that might do everything for you....?
Personally I would prefer the manufacturers stop worrying about MP and turn all that R&D towards a digital sensor that can produce 6400+ ISO as clean as 100 ISO.. Until that has been accomplished everything else is a waste of time and money.
Actually i'm planning to buy one of these, but I don't know what's the difference between canon 300mm f/2.8 ls ll and canon 400mm f/2,8 is ll ? except the cost.
Here is one for you with M + 18-55 IS STM - Transfagarasan, Romania:
It's great in terms of sharpness, I have made some contrast adjustments, but the clouds and everything else are real.
... and where are all of those who said "fake!" now?
Guess Sigma are going to bring the ubiquitous 24-105 to Nikon and Sony.
I presume they must be aiming at 24-70 f2.8 II image quality at a price below the 24-70 f4 IS. I don't see how they can match discounted EF 24-105's price let alone the used ones which are out there in their thousands.
The 24-70 f4 IS is a very different lens it would seem. Small and handy, goes well on an ungripped body whereas the Sigma looks like it's a beast.
I use the 90EX on 5D3 all the time, but it's only useful as optical trigger for off-camera speedlites, e.g. my 580EX II. In that role, the 90EX is great, when I have a 580EX II +/- modifier on top of chair/table or hand-held with my left arm, etc.
Guys, don't get sidetracked on minutiae, I was being polite, the 90EX is pretty much a worthless POS.
What lenses might cause vignetting is missing the point, most of the time it doesn't put out enough light to notice any vignetting issue anyway.