This lens cannot make any sense unless it has earth shattering image quality or door busting price. I vote for image quality.
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.
For me, it would have to be lower than the cost of the 70-200/2.8L IS II, which is a bigger lens, with bigger elements, spectacular optics, and IS. To get there, they'd likely have to reduce the cost of the II non IS.
How do you think the new Tamron 70-200 2.8 zoom might compare to the venerable Canon Mk II? I have a T1i and am currently using the Canon 135 f2 for indoor sports.
I wonder if this explains the long, unexpected production delay and finally they just gave up and started shipping.
I looked at a few (ended up with more than one to insure I had a copy for a certain shoot), each copy was different. On the plus side, all were better than all three 24-105 I've seen. On the minus none performed the same as any other copy, all placed DOF of the edges and corners, espc. at wider side differently and all had different 70mm wide open center frame performance. Even the worst at any aspect was still good, but for $2300, yeah it would be nice to have everything 100% the best and not this is better but that is worse and that is a little worse and then that is better.
The one I decided to keep in the end is amazing 70mm wide open center frame and pretty good at wide edges and corners (I think, it's hard to tell which is the way the DOF should be placed) although lower left corner might be a touch soft. Maybe 3 more copies and I'd get something perfect in every last regard?? As it is though, it's good enough to dump my 24 1.4 II over and it has the sharpest 70mm f/2.8 center frame I've seen from any lens, so not so bad (70mm far edges are weaker than my 70-300L on this and all the copies looked at though).
I've read the review and test from Lens rentals where they tested several with good results. I've also read the Digital Picture review, where he bought two lenses, and returned them getting two more for a total of four.
How did you come up with 5?
All 4 sets of images are shown with their images on his site. From what I can tell, the two replacements were better than the first two.
I can't figure out your statement about one of 5 though.
To answer your question, having to return both lenses to get good copies is unacceptable. However, most photographers do not have the test capabilities that Bryan has, and will be thrilled with them.
I'm holding off waiting.
As far as Nikon goes, I've had one, and was not impressed at all, so there are poor, good, better, and best samples and Nikon is well known for its sample variation as well.
I just purchased the EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 17-55 lenses and I'm looking to get some protective filters for them. I've been reading quite a bit regarding lens filters as, at least for my budget, I have invested quite a bit of money in my new lenses. The recommendations always come back to pretty much B+W and Hoya. I have found very little in regards to the protective filters made by canon (or OEM'd - canon product support said they made them, but not sure if they consider OEMing "making" them), or rather, any filter made by Canon. Are there any online reviews I can see, or has someone done a comparison between canon and other brands? I like to research before I buy and I figure that a canon product would work best on a a canon product, but it concerns me that most people are purchasing other brands. What can I say, I over analyze but I'd rather buy right and buy once and not have shoppers remorse. Any guidance or information on Canon filters is appreciated.
I'm facing the upgrade dillema - should I get a second hand 1Ds MkIII or a new 5D MkIII...
For almost eight years now, I'm shooting with a 1Ds MkII
and I'm thinking that maybe it is time to replace it.
It is still doing a good job and my clients are happy, but...
I almost exclusively work in the studio, or outdoors in the range of 100-400 ASA.
I'm only interested in the image quality.
Can someone describe in detail, the differences in image quality between 1Ds MkIII and 5D MkIII?
Was just checking the Samyang site and see they've got an 800mm mirror lens and a 650-1300mm zoom. A second hand shop near my work has a Meade 1000mm f/11 mirror lens for sale. And I see a lot of similar lenses for sale on eBay. A quick google search suggests the image quality from these lenses isn't great. Unfortunately...it seems you get what you pay for.
But my question is this: -
If you had a 300mm f/4, would your cropped image appear sharper than a cheap 1000mm+ lens? What about a 300mm with a teleconverter or two? Is there any point to buying a cheaper, longer lens?
It sounds like it will be a very good lens. Some are reporting issues at the long end, so I'd check that out.
I'm waiting for the eventual price drop to decide if I'll get one. By then,there will be a lot of feedback from users.
Just thought I'd clear things up.
Softness, particularly at the edges and 70mm.
Two pretty respected reviewers have seen this. There have been some that claim to have seen the issue in poosts on this forum, but I tend to look to experienced testers with a good track record of spotting issues.
It is undoubtedly a fantastic lens, and there may be some samples with issues, which is why I'm waiting for more reviews to come in. I've had 5 of the old version and they were not impressive. I have high hopes for this one.
Let us know what you see.
Yeah that sounds the case but I feel it's much better than the 24-105 and if I go professional I could always get another copy later if that's the case. Either way after selling the old lens it cost me an additional $1,400 and I figured I could use it for the holidays so not sure how much waiting I could endure. I hope I made a wise investment. Let me know if you get one. How could I check if my copy was soft?
Considering today's 35 f/1.4 is already superlative...what, aside from the price tag, will be different with the new one?