October 02, 2014, 05:20:34 AM

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.


Messages - Jesse

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 15
121
Lenses / Re: Canon's lens plans
« on: December 18, 2012, 10:41:02 AM »
None of the above, but damn I'm excited for 2013 lenses!!!!!!!

122
Lenses / Re: 2.8 vs F4
« on: December 17, 2012, 04:24:04 PM »
I say 4.0

123
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L in Late 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 14, 2012, 11:17:04 AM »
I love Canon 2013.

124
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 IS in 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 12, 2012, 04:11:43 PM »
Yes! I would totally pay $800 for that. I was about to buy the 85 1.8, this makes my decision harder.

The 85mm f/1.8 is like $300 used, I wouldn't let a lens that's going to cost 3x that (and who knows when it will be released) stop you from picking it up.  Get the 85, it's a stellar lens (one of the highest rated on DxO period) and you'll have no trouble selling it if you want to upgrade in the future.

Yeah I'm probably going to in a couple weeks anyway. But it's the 85L that I really want.

125
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 IS in 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 12, 2012, 03:57:15 PM »
With the new TS-Es, these 2 new lenses, all Canon will be lacking is the ultra-wide zoom. Canon>>>Nikon

126
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 IS in 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 12, 2012, 03:45:17 PM »
Do the new IS lenses have Hybrid IS??

127
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 IS in 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 12, 2012, 03:20:41 PM »
"I don't know if any other manufacturer has a faster lens with IS, but I suspect not."

Firstly, 50s are the easiest to make fast. Secondly, this is Canon, is it shocking that they are ahead with lens technology? No. Thirdly, this is 2012, technology is improving fast. Of course this is possible.

Then again, where's my 24-70 IS? ;)

128
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 IS in 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 12, 2012, 03:17:36 PM »
Yes! I would totally pay $800 for that. I was about to buy the 85 1.8, this makes my decision harder.

129
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« on: December 11, 2012, 12:07:49 PM »
"When you are talking about the same framing, focal length and subject distance have equal and opposite effects, and thus they cancel each other out.  When comparing lenses of different focal lengths for the same framing, DoF is determined only by aperture.  So at f/2.8 for the same framing, there's no DoF difference between the 100mm Macro and the 135L, but the 135L can open up to f/2 meaning it can achieve a shallower DoF for the same framing."

Mind blown. So would this work for all lenses? Eg. a 24mm and 200mm?

130
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« on: December 10, 2012, 03:02:55 PM »
Interesting. Well I sold my 100 2.0 for the 100L because its hybrid IS makes it one of the best lenses for video.

131
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8L vs 135mm 2.0L
« on: December 10, 2012, 01:18:44 PM »
Everyone here always says the non-L macro is identical in sharpness to the L version. I've never seen any real evidence to this.

132
Lenses / Re: 16-35L or related primes
« on: December 09, 2012, 10:39:04 PM »
I would rather have the Canon 14mm + 24mm 1.4 + 35mm over the 16-35 any day, but I'm not super rich.

133
Lenses / Re: Why no L primes from 14 to 24mm
« on: December 09, 2012, 05:29:03 PM »
Again, the Zeiss 21mm. One of the best wide angle lenses available.

134
Lenses / Re: Why no L primes from 14 to 24mm
« on: December 09, 2012, 01:00:49 PM »
14 and 24 are not in between 14 and 24....

135
Lenses / Re: Why no L primes from 14 to 24mm
« on: December 09, 2012, 11:58:29 AM »
Zeiss 21mm

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 15