+1 on the Tokina 16-28mm. That's what I got for my 5D3
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.
jthomson, great shots, what are you shooting with? Human gluttony is nothing compared to this guy.
All serious photographers need the 24-70ii and the 70-200ii in their kit!
All serious photographers with deep wallets that is.... Or are you not a serious photographer without these lenses?
If you can get a high enough shutter speed with the 400/5.6, that's sharper than the 300/4. Both are very slightly sharper than the 100-400, but there is copy variation to consider, so you may find some 100-400s that best the 400/5.6. The 70-300L is sharper than all three.
The superteles are on a different class, for IQ and cost. My 600/4L IS II delivers substantially better IQ than my 100-400L, my 70-300L, or the 300/4L IS that I used to own.
Ah, since we're on the topic here's one I shot in April I thought was a lesser yellowlegs but I'm being told it's not. Any idea?
It's a fair sized bird maybe about the size of a Canadian robin.
I am a little confused. The Digital Picture review claims that this new S version shows a significant improvement in sharpness, and has the comparative test results to back this up. Yet the MTF charts and optical design for this lens and the previous version are identical. Also, Roger over at LensRentals (who I have a great deal of faith in) says: "the optics are identical" and consequently he wouldn't pay the extra grand for the new version.
What do you think is going on here?
Which one to choose? The cheaper Tamron or the Canon with the better optics?