« on: February 25, 2015, 03:45:52 AM »
I think Neuro mentioned hanging his 600/4 on a BR strap.
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.
After releasing the EF 11-24 4L, i am waiting for the new ef 35 1.4 II that outperforms the Sigma 35 1.4 Art. Any hints on that?None of the three wide angle-to-standard focal lenght 'L' primes (24L, 35L & 50L) can match the resolution and IQ needed for the new 50MP bodies. Particularly the 24L and 35L.
You clowns just don't get it, do you? Read what privatebydesign wrote; he's one of the most intelligent and well educated members on this board. What he said is true.
Couple of pics - first is a 5D with the 70-200 @ 200mm and the second is a T1i with the 85mm @ 1.8.
A note on polarization, two polarizers result in what is called cross polarization, which causes an increase in reduction of light transmission. This technique is used by geologists in optical mineralogy to determine internal structure as different minerals naturally polarize light transmitted through a thin section.
The net result is two polarizers can cause near opaqueness when properly oriented to each other. Someone, don't remember who, make a double adjustable polar. What I would recommend is a larger polar with a step up ring.
Good luck! Tom
thank you all for your replies. My idea is to mosly hand-hold this lens. this is why the IS is essential to me with this focal lenght. i tried my 135L on my 7D (becomes 216mm) and the view was shaking quite a bit, which i am not use to. I appriciate 200mm f2.8L with respect to size, apature and optical quality, but i just cannot see using it if i cannot frame things properly.
but to say their autofocus is arguably worse is incorrect.
Sorry, I'm not a native speaker (native English speaker, that is :-)) ... doesn't "arguably" mean that you can argue about the point, i.e. find it correct or incorrect? The trusty dict.leo.org site seems to think so, but it only translates single words and doesn't put them into a sample context.
I remember the excitement when the 7D first came out. For a long time, it was THE camera to buy with the best video features and the AF and build quality was as good as it got. Its a little sad to read some of the comments above, which clearly indicate that time and technological advances wait for no one.
To the OP, it is easy to say that a 1DX, 5Diii and 7Dii are better cameras. But I assume you are asking due to budget constraints? In the 7D price range, you are probably comparing it to a used 5D/5Dii, 1Ds Mkii, maybe a new 70D, 6D etc. In which case it is the ruggedness and speed of the 7D vs slightly better image quality of the FF cameras vs the benefits of buying a new 70D (which is also meant to be a good camera). The answer comes back to what features you value most, the subjects that you shoot and the environment in which you do it.
Yes, the old 7D is good enough for professional use.
If you do not need to shoot without a flash in dark places ...
If you do not need more than 8 frames per second ...
If you do not need continuous AF in Live View ...
If you do not need to go above ISO1600 ...
If you can settle for a lower hit rate than current cameras ...
If you will not feel inferior to have an old camera ...
The old 7D is good enough.
The 100 mm f/2.8 L macro is another magic lens for the macro use. Its rendition is absolutely great. It seems like a faultless lens. I cried when I gave it back.
I agree, but I find the bokeh "faultless" and even to the point of "boring" though - it's optimized for macro, and you certainly don't get results like these f1.2 primes from it. Even the bokeh my 70-300L looks more interesting most of the time, but of course that's personal taste.
What would be the point of bringing up two defferent lenses with two differents kinds of magic if they were similar?
You find the bokeh of the 100mm L macro boring because the lens is too perfect.
You do realize that you are a snob, don't you?