Didn't want to get the newer bodies wet so stuck the 24-70 L IS onto the old 5D mk1. Still a great camera, more so in print than on the screen.
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.
- the 6d is a perfectly viable option
Since my earlier posts in this thread I have actually used the 24-70 f/4 IS and just as the MTF predicted it is much better than the 24-105L on FF, especially on the all critical wide end.
If I get 10 years out of it, it'll cost me roughly £100 / year for reliable no worry usage. If I sell it for 80% of what I bought it for....then that's even better.
Same reason here for upgrading from the 100mm non-L macro to the L version ... and my primary concern with the new non-L IS lenses, it's seldom mentioned in tech geek threads. I don't buy red ring because it looks cool (actually I taped it), but because it's much more reliable, and even after less than 10years I'm pretty confident with my 100L/70-300L/17-40L.
I can't see why you can't somewhat reproduce it (only if you want to compare your copy).
1) You have a pdf file and view at 500%
2) Since I didn't crop the image, you can compare your shot with mine at 1:1
Now speaking of screen resolution, it wasn't matter imo because when viewing the chart at 500%, even a super old 840x1024 turns into a 4200x512000 which is plenty of resolution.
Now if yours at 1:1 is smaller/bigger than mine meaning you were further/closer to the screen respectively.
I just hope it helps a potential buyer who may looking.
I checked the image at 300% and didn't feel a tripod would improve much.
First post, a shot I've been planning and waiting for! Hope you enjoy.
Canon 5D ii 20mm (17-40) 5 vertical stitched images ISO 160 F14
I believe that lloyd also stated in his review that the image quality in the center was basically similar to the 50/2 Makro Planar except it goes to 1.4 and that quality stretches to the edges of the frame.