« on: July 29, 2013, 04:26:42 PM »
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.
24 II corners are pretty much like the 24-70 II and much better than on the 24-105 or 24 2.8 non-IS. Of course a 24 2.8 II non-IS could cost a lot less than the 24 1.4 II and weigh less and be even better.
I wonder how the 24 2.8 IS performs.
I'd pay $1-2K for a breathtakingly sharp autofocusing 24mm L that didn't shoot itself in the foot (i.e. corners) to offer side a wide aperture.
I thought that the 28mm II fit the bill?? I don't own the lens, but have read some nice things about it on this forum.
16-50mm ? That leaves an interesting concept in my mind of a 50-135mm F4 IS - creating a crop centric focal range that migrates to full frame when the user wants too...
Or how about a 24-50mm f/2?
The 16-50 F4L IS sounds REALLY intriguing, lets hope it's around 1k and I'll buy it.
let's hope it does 24mm as crisply, edge to edge as the 24-70 II
I could see a 16-50 f/4IS sell well among rebel users intending to upgrade from kit and to full frame at a later date. Though it would cut into 17-55 2.8 IS sales. I suspect it would be priced similar to the 24-70 f4 IS. Not sure which I would prefer on a crop camera, a 16-50 or 24-70 given both at f/4. That would be a tough decision.
I do my serious shooting with a 5D III, but I had been looking for a while for a small, lightweight camera for family pics and travel. I had considered a high end compact but it somehow seemed too much of a compromise, particularly in operation (shutter lag, viewfinder, etc). When the SL1 came out it seemed an ideal solution, and after having spent some time with it I can say that for me this camera (with the 40mm pancake) is almost perfect as a lightweight complement to the 5D/III. The great thing, for me, is that both cameras share so many things - the optical view finder (obviously), the Canon layout of the buttons, and the general shooting method. The only real difference in operation is the lack of back button focus (and the lack of the second wheel).
I feel Canon produced a wonderful little camera in the SL1, and for me it is the perfect "informal" complement to the amazing 5D III. I figured others might be wondering about this so I thought I'd share my positive experience!
This thread title made me very angry - it's Canon fanboys like OP that drive the insane Canon glass prices up. 3rd party lenses can be just as good as Canon's at fraction of the cost. Don't blindly recommend Canon's glass against Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang etc. - they all have some outstanding products, while having to reverse-engineer the AF communication.
The flip side is to get angry at Sigma, etc. fanboys for not being picky enough. This keeps the QC of the Sigma, etc., low; and allows Canon to keep high prices!
Not too suprised about the price. Sigma has found a nice spot shy of 1k. If it were FF, then it'd be 2k or more, depending on it's peformance.
I do have a question about its design, though. It's heavier and longer than the 16-35L II, so is this lens essentially a 16-35 FF UWA design with a speedbooster added? If it is, does that imply that a fast FF zoom would be similar is size to a medium format lens?