Would you mind saving for a little longer for the 70-200 2.8 IS II? It's an amazing lens. I use this lens 60% of the time I'm shooting.
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.
hmmm... My M fires the AF assist beam with my 430 ex II attached. I had no idea my 600 ex-rt wouldn't work
It fires the assist beam on the camera body, or the speedlite's beam? I just tested with my 430 II and it behaves like the 600 - no speedlite assist beam on the M. The camera's beam will fire.
I disabled the M's AF assist beam, though. I'll enable it if I'm shooting in really dark conditions, but in more typical situations it didn't seem to help the AF speed.
All the time. Tv set to the minimum and the aperture can do what it wants indoors.
Outdoors in good light, Av with Auto ISO.
I'd rather have a some noise to clean up than miss the shot altogether.
Nice surprise. My $299 BH special came in..... but it is the 22 STM AND the 90EX flash kit. Thanks BH. I don't think I would have bot the flash separately but I may try it out and worst case sell it.
I ordered this one
Shipped the next day, I haven't gotten it yet but they have good reviews and have sold a lot of them. I'm guessing overstock since the EOS M hasn't been a big seller. Anyhow for genuine Canon $85ish is hard to beat.
At $600 for the ef-m UWA, one might as well use the ef-s 10-22 with the adapter.
I have found comparing these two lenses that the 16-35 overexposes by approx. 1/3-1/2 stop compared to the 10-22 which I don't mind.
That difference in brightness is significant, IMO. I suspect one of the lenses is outright lying about the aperture that it is giving you, which means your DOF is different because the aperture isn't really the same. The 10-22 is much darker, which, assuming approximately the same field of view (there's a small difference, but not enough to make that much difference in brightness, I don't think) means that the 10-22 is using a smaller aperture, which would result in a sharper picture.
Try taking photos in the same location with approximately the same field of view, but adjusting the 16-35's F-stop number higher until you get the same brightness. I suspect you'll find the DOF to be similar in both lenses. Only then can you fairly compare the two lenses.
Incidentally, this test is high on my to-do list when I get home, as I just bought a 6D and a 16-35 to match the shot angle that I used my 10-22 to achieve on my XTi. I'll see if I can put together some good test shots on the XTi for comparison purposes.
The fact that you're not seeing the DOF problems on a different body further supports that theory; there's probably a camera-specific firmware bug involved in aperture reporting.
My bad, this was first comparison shot I took and I am mistaken after looking at the exif, the camera metered the shot different with respect to shutter speed. The camera chose 1/40 shutter and 1/25 between the two shots. I made sure other shots were the same settings. The 10-22 vignettes quite a bit vs. hardly any vignetting on the 16-35.
If some of you guys have the same combo I do I would be very interested to see how your 16-35's are holding up against the 10-22 on a cropped body. It seems the right side of my 16-35 is much worse than the 10-22 with the 16-35 looking a tad better in resolving detail in center
Just a thought on pop up flashes, nice for snapshots in low light, but not so effective for fill light.
Well, I have a pretty nice dSLR. But I don't use it for handheld video and instead, I have a Canon Vixia HF M41 camcorder for that. I frequently bring both with me. Obviously, the main reason is the lack of a usable 'camcorder-like' AF in the dSLR.
Canon's Dual Pixel CMOS AF appears to change that. I'm not sure if it will get incorporated into the high end dSLRs at some point (it might not - the Hybrid CMOS AF hasn't), but if it does, and the AF performance is as-billed, I'd consider ditching the camcorder and just using the dSLR for video.