Phew!!! I think I've satisfied my GAS for the moment... cheaply! Enjoying my little 24mm f/2.8 (scroll down):
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.
So I just got the camera back.
The new pentaprism has some tiny black specks in the pentaprism too. Oh well...much better than before and I can live with this.
It's come back with a slight problem, however. When I try dropping the focusing screen down it sticks. It drops down about 2-4 millimetres and stops. I have the use the screen removal tool to pull it down and then it releases dropping the focusing screen.
Think this is an issue worth sending it back over?
The camera keeps getting dust on the bottom of the focusing screen now. Not a big deal as I just remove the battery, remove the focusing screen and blow it off. While the focusing screen not dropping down freely is a bit annoying, it doesn't particularly bother me. Probably the technician tightened something a bit more than normal. Either way it's not really interfering with the removal of the screen other than just having to use the tool to slightly move the bracket down a bit more before it drops down on its own.
I don't use UV (protection) filters on my 40/2.8 pancake or on my EF-M lenses, but I do on the all the others that take them.
Crap, that technically should change my vote. I am answer #1 above, but the pancake is an exception.
Should change mine as well (I voted as close to the actual as I could). I have the same exceptions as Neuro, plus my TSE 24 (version 1) and my Rokinon 14mm. Haven't yet figured out filters for those. And sometimes it's too much work to replace the clear if I am swapping my CPL on and off lenses doing landscape shots.
not only that, but the improvements in IQ from the series 1 to series 2 big whites are truly astounding. As someone who has been into photography for more than 40 years, I find the quality of the recent lenses astounding. A lot of people fixate on sensors, but the glass is whats makes it all possible.....I am sticking with my non-stabilized 400mm f/5.6L until I can afford an f/4 supertelephoto.. I would not advise beginning birders to start with a non-stablized lens. unless they have lots of patience.I keep hoping to see an updated version of that lens..
Yes, IS would make all the difference.
It reduces flare quite a bit and generally halves the number of sunspots in the photo. When the sun is low in the sky (to save your eyes & sensor!) give it a try and you'll see that you get better contrast (i.e. less flare) and fewer sunspots with the filter off of the lens vs. on it.I will also remove the filter when shooting sunrise/sunset shots directly into the sun.
What's the advantage of doing that?
I will also remove the filter when shooting sunrise/sunset shots directly into the sun.
I am sticking with my non-stabilized 400mm f/5.6L until I can afford an f/4 supertelephoto.. I would not advise beginning birders to start with a non-stablized lens. unless they have lots of patience.I keep hoping to see an updated version of that lens..
There's another advantage too, the curent design pushes the centre of balance way forwards and the tripod collar is right at the back of this lens towards the rear mount. Hopefully the newer design will address this.
Cool, will get the IS 4.
70-300 is not sharp enough at wider end and I don't need 300mm for anything.
...to be honest, there isn't any losers here, all three lenses are top tier and we really are splitting hairs between them. There has never been so much top end choice as we have available to us these days.
Nice sky in the second one. Now I can't stop thinking about this lens . Could be GAS infection.
I used and liked my 100-400 but it frustrated me. Maybe I don't have one of the "good" copies but there have been many times when the image is fabulous. But, there seem to be many more times when the image is not that good. My frustration peaked during my trip to Denali last year. I just could not get the IQ I was searching for and now would like to repeat that trip someday since I got the 300ii. Here's one of the "better" images I got using the 100-400 at 400 with the 1.4x. In fairness, these critters were way far away but I think I can do better.
So, do I go for the 100-400ii or not? We will see how it fares if and when it arrives and at what price.
If the focus ring was at the other end of the push/pull barrel so it didn't get turned accidentally, and if the IS was worth anything, it would be a far more pleasant lens to use.
Have you used the 70-300L? The design places the focus ring next to the body, the zoom ring further out. That's reversed from other L lenses, and means your hand (well, mine at any rate) reflexively grabs the focus ring when intending to zoom. A real PITA, and if the new 100-400 has a similar design, it would be unfortunate.