Prepare for the big waves...
That's a very interesting image. Well done.
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.
Prepare for the big waves...
Another shot (5D MkIII + 17-40).
Sunset on the lake by Giuseppe Cammino, on Flickr
On 500px --> http://500px.com/photo/81375833/sunset-on-the-lake-by-giuseppe-cammino?from=user_library
Just a flower...
...from Samyang without autofocus. Why hasn't anyone made this standby focal length yet??Sigma offers some very good lenses for EOS-M at very affordable prices. Check them
with the 20 set f8 hard stop infinity and everything from 2m to infinity is in focus anyway its a wicked point and shoot when used like this.
Wow, good catch.
Upvote for you!
For folks who don't know, in Windows a right click on image, and "Search Google for this image" is about as easy as can be.One question, when did I ever say the 400 DO wasn't sharp or took TC's well? Because it reads to me like he is calling people that say those things idiots, and his images prove they are.
Nope, you said "horrible bokeh". There are several pictures in that post (and elsewhere on the internet) showing the bokeh of the lens. It is not, in any way, "horrible".What he doesn't show you is stuff like this that demonstrates what DO do to bokeh and how they handle specular highlights, you might have noticed not one of Mr Morris' images has any specular highlights, did you wonder why? No, of course you didn't, you are too obtuse to do that.
No, its probably because it isn't actually a problem in real world shooting situations and you are blowing it way out of proportion. Bryan from The Digital Picture had this to say about it:
"The Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Lens has been criticized for its poor specular highlight bokeh (OOF blur quality), but I have seldom encountered this problem. Specular highlights can have a target-appearance at worst - concentric circles instead of a smooth blur. I can't say I like the bokeh of this lens more than Canon's other 400mm Lenses, but the 400mm focal length combined with a relatively wide aperture can very nicely separate a subject from its background."If you are happy to pay $6,500 for a lens that does that then I suspect you are the idiot, after buying them for that much many owners are happy to sell them for $3,500 to get rid of them, maybe they are the idiots.
One thing I will agree with you on is that I think the lens is too expensive and a new version isn't likely to be cheaper. It would be stellar if it was priced at about 2/3 or 1/2 of the 300 f2.8 IS II. One of the promises of DO technology is that it is easier to eliminate chromatic aberration (a huge problem with traditional optical designs lens manufacturers have struggled with for decades that, curiously, doesn't completely invalidate the entire technology...) so fluorite lens elements aren't needed for high end telephotos which should make them cheaper to manufacture but, well, Canon. *shrug*
One last thing - that photo you posted is pretty disingenuous. Were you just not going to mention that it was taken with the very different 70-300 f4-5.6 DO? Just going to allow that to be inferred by people who didn't bother to do a reverse GIS? The 70-300 DO exhibits far more problems than the 400 f4 DO and is reviewed a lot more harshly for a number of reasons related to its IQ. If you've got a sample that demonstrates the absolutely horrendous disaster that is the 400 f4 DO, I'm all eyes, but make sure its the 400 f4 DO and not that other lens.
My old 24mm f/2.8 would be a very close second. I would say I "mistakenly" sold it if you ask me today. I should have kept it. But I sold it when I had, variously, the 17-40 L, 24-105 L, and 24-70 L. I wish I had it today as a small, lightweight complement to the 40mm pancake for my "running" kit that I carry while running and covering ultramarathons. Sometimes I need something wider, and the 17-40 is just too much lens to carry when I'm running for hours around 50 or 100 mile running routes trying to get the shots.
Wow! a new 400/4 with ISII and improved optics surely.
Light in weight so tough competition for the heavier 500/4 and the possibility of a good 560/5.6 - probably much better than the 300/2.8 with 2xTc.
According to Digicam https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigicame-info.com%2F2014%2F08%2Fef-s24mm-f28-stmef24-105mm-f35.html&edit-text=, it is an EF-S not EF lensQuote24mm F2.8 is a lens that rumor is flowing well recently, but it seems to be EF-S lens instead of EF apparently. The rumor, it is said that this lens become a pancake, but it is where you want to pay attention how to be degree smaller and lighter.
Good link, thank you!
I must say that 24mm for crop is odd. 24mm is a common FF focal length, but not a common Canon crop focal length. An EF-S 22mm (like with the EF-M) version would give a 35.2mm focal length that would make more sense.
But an EF-S offering makes sense as this is the only mount that doesn't have a pancake option right now. It's a pity it won't be EF, though, as I am a 5D3 shooter and would love a wide pancake option with autofocusing.
RAW is worth it as long as it doesn't make you lazy.
Too many people use RAW as an excuse to be sloppy with lighting and lazy with "automatic" exposure.
These folk must love spending time on a computer fixing their mistakes then. Sounds like a nightmare to me.
Less time in post means more time chilling out
in front of the tellywith a beer in my hand.
Who the heck would want a FF lens that only goes to f/5.6 at 105mm?
For years I've been saying American businesses are under a curse of stupidity. The Japanese might be under the same spell. What a waste of marketing and manufacturing time.
PATHETIC if this rumor proves true.
Ok, now come the slavish apologist RemarkS.
400 4.0 DO IS II might be interesting, but I guess I won't like the price.
Raw files are like diving boards, pretty flexible and can take being jumped on in post.
A jpg is like standing on a glass ceiling, it's holding you up when you don't try to jump on it too hard. It'll break apart when you do.