Pre-ordered from B&H on Jan 20. Shipped on Feb 6.
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.
I have since picked up the 300mm 2.8 ii. As one should expect for the price difference, it's a much better lens in almost every way, shape and form. The quality and AF of the 300mm 2.8 ii with 2x iii is ridiculous. Tamron wins hands down on the size and versatility of the zoom... but I feel is severly lacking in contrast, color, sharpness, bokeh, AF performance, etc...And to make this reply on-topic, I've been thinking about selling my 150-600mm that I got back in early February. I really like the range and it's a great lens for the price, but it has really made me even more tempted to spend my money on at least one Canon supertelephoto.
Funny you say that...Been thinking the same thing...I got the Bigron in Feb...While it's a good lens, I'm not gonna say great. My 400L 5.6 is sharper and if I crop a shot to 600mm equivalent, it's probably better than if I used 150-600...
ALL YOUR LIGHT ARE BELONG TO ME!Nice.
If you want sharp pictures at 2.8, you need the 24-70ii or the 70-200ii.+1.......I don't see the point buying f1.2 lens and shoot at f4. On Canon lenses, I like to turn down the dial twice - hit sweet spot everytimes
I see it a different way. I buy a 1.4 lens, not because I want to shoot at 1.4, but because I want sharp images at 2.8 -- stopped down 2 stops. That way on those shots when I need to shoot at 1.4, I can, but for most of the shots I can easily shoot stopped down.
It all depends on what type of photography each photographer does. Some like to shoot wide open, others like to stop down. I guess that's why they make changable apertures on lenses.
+1. Exactly. If I want something with more DOF, I'll show up with the 24-70ii or the 70-200ii, not a fast prime. There would be more argument for IS in the 24-70ii, as it a slower lens.I'm sure I'll get throttled for this comment but here it goes: typically, I don't stop down my f/1.2 lenses a whole lot. Sort of negates the point of having them. Therefore I tend to use pretty decently fast shutter speeds relative to the focal length. Others may use theirs differently of course.
+1.......I don't see the point buying f1.2 lens and shoot at f4. On Canon lenses, I like to turn down the dial twice - hit sweet spot everytimes
One of these kids is doing his own thing...
- Quite high MP count
- Vastly improved AF performance
- Greatly improved low light and ISO/noise performance
- Potentially a different sensor and/or technology than expected
- Good price point
- Very close to ‘pro’ classification, but non-compete with flagship such as 1dx
- Release by Fall season as expected
- Canon holding back 7Dmk2 for a reason. I suspect 100-400 mk2 announcement, or some other coinciding situation.
Kit it with a first-ever L lens in an EF-S mount? An EF-S 15-50 F/4L IS? An L-quality update to the 17-55 F/2.8 IS?An EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 L IS STM? Sounds like a jackalope, but there could be some logic to it. I loved my 17-55mm when I shot APS-C.
I'm guessing this was intended to go here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21186.0No kidding! Thanks for the heads-up. I've never had it do that before.
I find that sometimes when you are in a thread when you log into the site, it forwards you to the next thread from the login screen rather than returning you to the appropriate thread.