« on: October 23, 2012, 10:06:40 AM »
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.
A couple from around Australia's Northern Territory:Lovely pictures dave. What did you shoot them with?
Is there a site that scientifically tests and ranks filters? I would enjoy such a site. Certainly the anecdotal reviews we get from people trying to justify their spending are unlikely to be reliable.
The old sensor tech in Canon is not up to date 2012 and in a comparison with Sony, not much to discuss
I like the new design of the lenses too. Very clean and simple looking.
Picking this thing up in the morning, we'll see if these results are indeed accurate.
I don't believe these findings at all...
One... claiming the 24 TS/e is the sharpest lens canon has created....
two... they forget that canon made a 28-70mm 2.8 that consistently beat the 24-70I in all tests...but neglected to track down a copy and compare.
I think this is promo-hype to try and sell an overpriced piece of glass.
but 2300 is obscene.
Pretty decent review, mostly because it agreed with my opinion.
:-) ... his videos have a very subjective, amateurish approach - see also his reviews of the Tamron 24-70. While this is fine if you want to p&s, it lacks tech knowledge (the fact alone that he expects 70mm to be the same on every lens).
In this case: The new Canon mk2 uses more doublecross af points on the 5d3/1dx, so it being as fast as the mk1 is a good sign since more precision usually means less speed. And a more detailed test might show that the mk2 has a higher af hit rate on Canon newest systems.
I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.
35L is the sharpest non tele prime canon makes, there is no way 24-70 MKII will be sharper at 2.8, period.first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage. today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good. from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use. BTW- what happened to this thread? and i'm only making it worse, sigh...