I've seen that before. Not really fixable if you lose color information (I've seen this happen, once, with a file mistransmitted over the Internet).
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.
If my equipment produced some of the photos I've seen on facebook, I would have (and once did) run screaming to the lab. This includes everything from photos so soft that nothing looks sharp to photos that look like they were cut in two and glued without being properly aligned.On film, or digital? Sounds like there was a lag on reading from the sensor in the second image...more likely to happen in a still pulled from a movie frame (especially if played back on a computer first) I'd think. Never seen that happen on a digital camera, though I could imagine it.
Resolution can be measured, but Lo CA is not measurable, neither is BokehActually, this raises an interesting point. Most of these features of lenses can be described in a completely mathematical way, and thus can be rated on a scale. Perhaps these is simply an unmet demand for more types of metrics for lens reviews. Personally, knowing a lens's CA characteristics (of the different types) is very useful to me.
The 50mm f/1.4 is a bit weak wide open, but its also fairly cheap. I find myself using 35mm and 85mm a lot more than 50mm, so I'm doubtful that I'd pay $700 for a new 50mm lens.I agree (though since I have a crop body currently I get a lot of use out of the 50 since it's essentially an 80, which is roughly my favored focal length for most shooting). The last couple days I've been experimenting more with the 50mm 1.4 wide open and find myself surprisingly happy with its performance. I might still spring for a new lens if it becomes much sharper at f/1.4, but I've had the current model only a short while and it won't feel like it makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of cost effectiveness, unless I manage to sell my current 50 for a good price.
I'd be surprised and annoyed if a new 1.4 were given L status. Non-L users deserve up-to-date products, too.That's just funny. If it doesn't add anything to the price, why not? I'm just hoping that there will be value for the money.
Late reply here - thanks for the response.Sort of tempted to bump the TS-E 90mm rumors thread, but it's a bit old.
How about TS-E 90mm with a stack of Kemco (for example) extenders on a 1.6 crop Rebel?
Not sure I personally need 1x; .5 sounds pretty reasonable to me. I have gotten dang good "macro-like" results even on a 50mm with that 1.6 crop factor, though nothing like Neuro's amazing picture from the last page.
My TS-E90 worked well with a TC and for close up images. I had bought it to use for product photos, but experimented with closeups with and without a TC. However, 90mm turned out to be a bit long for my product photos, so it did not get enough use for me to keep it.
If a person needed the tilt-shift function, it could certainly work for a near macro lens and have supurb resolution. However, the cost is comparable with the 100L, so its a tradeoff of the features you would use most. I bought a 100L to replace my TS-E90, but was sad to see it go. For me, the IS of the 100L was more useful.
The main alternative is the 100-400L. The zoom adds IS, which is a big plus. Some reviews suggest that this isn't as good at the long end (where it will be used 99% of the time).One thing that drove me away from the Canon 100-400mm (aside from the price) was the very early generation IS - the rating given means that it wasn't going to be much of a fudge factor compared to the Sigma alternative.
If it can be helpful, I recently purchased the Canon 70-300 L and the Canon 5.6 L. I got the second one because 300 mm was too short for any wild animal or plane. The image quality is incredible (compared to my old SIgma 120-400)I imagine this is so, up to 300mm where the Sigma has focal length that the Canon simply doesn't. Though, when you say "old" 120-400, do you mean the DG APO OS HSM? That's only from 2008. Is there an older one? I've been looking around for a long time and I thought that was the introduction of that particular range.
Reading posts like this is frustrating. Speaking of people who think their experience reflects all other experiences - that works both ways! We can't take your post and say it speaks for everyone. There can't be any harm in finding out what the OP asked for - what the extent of any problem was for anybody who had it (this is not the same thing as asking "how bad is the whole range of produced 17-55mm lenses"). A post like this, which even throws in an ad hominem attack against a whole class of people who aren't here, doesn't make anybody want to come forward if they did have a problem, for fear of being labeled a "power monger" or whatever.Read on Amazon reports of problems with the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM due to lack of weather sealing. Can anyone report having this problems and how serious this may/may not be? I'm interested in using this lens on my 7D.
There are lots of people who may have a problem with a lens, and think their experience reflects all the other users, or some just makeup stuff for the feeling of power it gives them.
I used my 17-55mm EF-s for three years and never had a issue. I did not use it in heavy downpours, both my camera and lens were not sealed, so getting it soaked and zooming a push-pull lens is probably not a good idea. I did keep a filter on the front and never saw a spec of dust in it.
Just normal light rain should not be a concern, at least not for me.