« on: January 07, 2014, 10:01:44 AM »
The next are at iso 640 and 1/320 s.
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.
While I understand the 300/2.8 II is an excellent lens, I can't understand why this lens is being trumpeted without the 200-400/1.4x also being mentioned. At 560mm with the built in extender it is just as sharp as the 300/2.8 II + 2x III and at 300mm is very close. Add in the flexibility to go between 200mm and 560mm and this is a no brainer choice of the 300/2.8 II unless you are photographing sports where you need the bare 2.8.
Personally, I bought this lens over the 600/II. It was a tough choice but the flexibility makes the lens more valuable. I would of course like more reach but it does a decent job with a 2x extender. If I were photographing exclusively birds then the 600/II would have been the better choice but the fact is I photograph a wide variety of things.
In the late 70's Canon switched its FD mount from the old design with a coupling ring to the "standard" bayonet. And they made the first "plastic" lenses e.g. the 35...70mm/3.5-4.5. The magazines were full of discussions why this would be the death of Canon and a shame - while Canon said those "plastics" would be more precise and durable than metal...
My 35...70 (bought in 81) still works perfectly (and my other FDs too!) though I didn't really kept an eye to them while shooting outdoors... A full metal Tokina isn't working for a long time now and my "full metal" german Exakta from the late 60's is working but not smoothly...
And the brakes of some super sport cars are also made of "plastics" - or isn't carbon fibre not a kind of "plastic"?
I have *terrible* luck with Canon L's....
Some examples with brand new lenses (some issues over multiple copies)...
70-200 II - decentering, broken IS, build quality issues, scratched front element, excessive CA.
35L - USM squealing.
24-70 II - decentered, scratched front element.
16-35 II - USM high pitch squealing.
17-40 - decentering.
I am sure there are more I am forgetting... I almost expect to go through a few to get good a good copy. The 16-35 issue is from yesterday! Waiting for my replacement copy now.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I though that the native ISO for this sensor was multiples of 80?
It doesn't matter what the native iso is, the important thing is that the only unmodified iso values that go through from the sensor are multiples of 100, +-1/3ev (125, 160, ...) are digitally modified losing dynamic range - which is nice for movie & jpeg, but if you shoot raw you can do the same thing by over/underexposing 1/3ev.
Here's some more info on this topic: