I do notice a little more resistance when mounting M lenses...assumed it was normal. I wouldn't worry about it.
I'd like the chime in with a neutral stance. I owned the 50L for over a year and also own the nifty fifty and the 50 f/1.4. Love all 3 of them. The 50L was brilliant from f/1.2 to f/2.8. Absolutely brilliant. After f/2.8 though, it was the worst of the 3 lenses. In fact, at f/5.6, the 1.4 lens looked much better and was much sharper and if I were shooting stopped down I always went for the 1.4. Now of course I go for the 24-70 f/2.8L II because I don't shoot wider than f/2.8 anymore.
Does the 35mm 1.4L have that "special" look that the 50 and 85 L give?
QuoteFor the intended users, the lens is fine, its not a Pro lens, so don't expect $2500 performance.
Still the current (novelty) price tag is steep for a product that will have to compete in a few weeks with the Canon product.
Purple fringing can be removed in lightroom.
There's one situation where that's not true, though. Depending on the mix of full-frame and EF-S lenses that you own, some 7D users who decide to upgrade to full-frame might end up selling several of their lenses anyway, not to mention upgrading to lenses with longer focal lengths to make up for the lack of the 1.6x crop factor.Entirely fair. Current EF-S mount users choosing between a 6D/5D3 or waiting for a 7D2 absolutely are out there. But I don't really see that as a Nikon conversion risk. I see that as a one-time ripping off of the EF-S band-aid that you have to do to migrate to FF regardless of what company's products you use.
I see that less as a "Because I am mad at waiting for Canon" and more of a "Movin' on up (movin' on up) to deeeeluxe apartment in the sky-hiiiiiiigh".
But yes, you are right. Leaving crop altogether costs money, well above the cost of the body itself. This burden varies depending on what you shoot:
- Best case: You just have a standard EF-S zoom, like an 18-55 or 18-135 --> You go and get a 'pried-from-a-kit' 24-105L for $750ish or a 28-135 for $475ish. Ouch, but small change compared to a FF rig.
([Sigh] "Yeah, there's that... But it's worth it.")
- Slightly painful case: You have a standard EF-S zoom and an ultrawide --> Same as above, but now you need a 17-40L for $800ish as well. Painful. But doable.
([Deep breaths] "I can do this... I'll just get that 17-40L next year.")
- Really painful case: You have have a standard EF-S zoom, an ultrawide and a 55-250 and enjoy shooting around 250 on the crop --> Same as above, but now you need a 100-400L as well. Oof.
(The value proposition is starting to take on water rapidly...)
- You-are-totally-screwed case: You are a seasoned vet who shoots a 300 or higher prime on your 7D for wildlife or birding. You have the comically painful choice of settling for the downsides of T/Cs, investing in $10K superteles, or simply not ever making the jump to FF because the glass will bankrupt you for what you shoot. That's a buckler.
(Hint to Canon: You kind of own these people. The 7D2 could be $4k and these people might still the first in line for pre-orders, b/c $4k is still less than Supertele prices. Check and mate.)
Thank goodness I had a succession plan when I bought my third and fourth lenses. I opted for EF glass long before I made the move to FF and my only headache was doing without a 16-24mm FL option after I migrated (sold the EF-S 10-22 but the 24-70 I owned covered the wide end on FF pretty well).