It's anything shot with a 1Dx, not anything shot on a 1Dx !
But maybe this was both
But maybe this was both
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.
Found interesting info on Sony 7R image quality vs. 5Dm3, Nikon D800E and Pentax 645D with 100% comparison crops at different ISOs at imagine -resource:
Very interesting to see comparison of Canon 5D M3 with Sony a7R at ISO 3200 both low contrast high details shorts and for high contrast ones.
What surprises me is how much sharper the A7r is compared to the D800E. Both have no low-pass filter, but the A7r has noticeably more detail before sharpening. I wonder if that is due to literally not having a low pass filter at all, where as the D800E is actually blurring (separating) light in one direction, then "unblurring" (converging) it. Guess that, despite its special filter stack, it still isn't quite as good as not having a filter at all...
The pancake? An option for sure. But sharper than the 24-105/17-40?
Don't buy new. There would be plenty of impulsive photographers like mackguyver and me who used it for five minutes then pushed it straight out onto eBay/Craigslist/Gumtree. You should get a pristine one for under $100.
If getting it used, try to get one with the latest firmware to correct for loss of AF. I've run into the problem a few times.
Today is one of those days where I've been going thru some of my Renaissance Faire photos from the summer.
I have seen many battles and enemies fallen by SauceyJack, on Flickr
On my 5D Mark III, it's like a "baby - L" lens; sharp, great color & contrast from f2.8 - f8.
Try it for yourself; take a hand held shot with 50mm focal length of something with lots of fine detail that's far away from the camera. Take the same shot five times at 1/250 and then see if they are all as sharp as each other.
Ok, I get your suggestion a try, or rather something lose to your suggestion. I shot a sign with lettering of different sizes from a distance of ~60 yards, with a lens set to 70mm and a shutter speed of 1/320 s. I was at f/4…that means a DoF deep enough to safely ignore focus (everything from halfway to the sign to infinity was within the DoF). I took five shots handheld. There was, indeed, a small variation in the sharpness of the shots, with three of them very slightly sharper than the other two.
But that's not the whole story. The lens I used was the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and for the above tests the IS was turned off. I then turned the IS on, and took five more handheld shots. In that series, there was also a slight variation in the sharpness of the shots, and the sharpest of the IS shots was no sharper than the non-IS shots.
I then mounted the lens on a tripod, and took five more shots. This time, there was no variation in the shots, and all of them were similar to the sharpest of the handheld sets with or without IS.
From that, I would suggest that when shooting at 1 / >4x the shutter speed, IS makes no difference, but using a tripod is likely to get you consistently sharp images.
The best $130 I ever spend on Canon lens. It's compact and sharp @ wide open. It feels like FF mirrorless when you attach to your 5D III. Maybe I should cancel my A7 and stay with this combo
So, I'm wondering..is this one of those "bang for the buck" lenses?