October 20, 2014, 09:01:57 PM

Author Topic: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM  (Read 13383 times)

Chuck Alaimo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 986
    • View Profile
    • Chuck Alaimo Photography
Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #135 on: May 16, 2014, 04:05:13 PM »
You do realize that was a 38lb lens that cost around $120,000 ... right?

I'm sure the list of people that would welcome it would be close to nil.
20+ years of R&D can significantly lessen the weight and what people can and cannot afford really isnt any of our business.

yes, it could lessen the weight, and yeah, ok, take the price down a notch or 2...so maybe they could make one now for a retail of $80,000... eho can afford such a lens????

And what people can and can't afford may not be our business - it certainly is canon's...why wouldthey devote time, money, resources into making a thing no one would buy because the price tag is outrageous and it's use is very very very much niche....
Owns 5Dmkiii, 6D, 16-35mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 1-600RT, 2 430 EX's, 1 video light

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #135 on: May 16, 2014, 04:05:13 PM »

scyrene

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr feed
Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #136 on: May 18, 2014, 06:46:41 AM »
16-35 f4 IS?.. this lens IMO is useless.. WTF!!!

and who uses IS on wide angle lens?.. where's the 14-24 2.8?... we need something good, not stupid!

I'll assume this is a genuine question and not just trolling. I'll give you a couple of scenarios. First, taking photographs inside a dark cathedral. Few would allow the use of a flash (and flash probably wouldn't light the space attractively or effectively), many would discourage a tripod/monopod, and most are very dark. I was shooting in Southwark Cathedral last year and even at f/1.2 I needed ISO 6400-12800 for some shots. These were static subjects and therefore IS would have helped massively (and allowed a more useful narrower aperture). Second, I often hike for long distances with lots of equipment (for birds mostly), but occasionally I also want to photograph landscapes I see along the way. I rarely want to carry a tripod because it's extra bulk and mostly I don't need it. Stopping down for landscape shots to f/10 say, IS helps with handholding for the longer exposures required. It depends on the light, of course, but this is what I do with the 24-104, and it works for me. So there's two examples.
5D mark III, 50D, 300D, EOS-M; Samyang 14mm f/2.8, 24-105L, MP-E, 85L II, 100L macro, 500L IS II, EF-M 18-55; 1.4xIII, 2x III + 2xII extenders; 600EX-RT; EF-M--EF adaptor.
Former lenses include: 70-200L f/4 non-IS, 200L 2.8, 400L 5.6

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #137 on: May 18, 2014, 09:46:39 AM »
I'll assume this is a genuine question and not just trolling. I'll give you a couple of scenarios. First, taking photographs inside a dark cathedral. Few would allow the use of a flash (and flash probably wouldn't light the space attractively or effectively), many would discourage a tripod/monopod, and most are very dark. I was shooting in Southwark Cathedral last year and even at f/1.2 I needed ISO 6400-12800 for some shots. These were static subjects and therefore IS would have helped massively (and allowed a more useful narrower aperture). Second, I often hike for long distances with lots of equipment (for birds mostly), but occasionally I also want to photograph landscapes I see along the way. I rarely want to carry a tripod because it's extra bulk and mostly I don't need it. Stopping down for landscape shots to f/10 say, IS helps with handholding for the longer exposures required. It depends on the light, of course, but this is what I do with the 24-104, and it works for me. So there's two examples.

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations.  But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that.  In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds.  IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas.  I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2014, 09:49:53 AM by Ruined »

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1264
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #138 on: May 18, 2014, 11:36:27 AM »
I'll assume this is a genuine question and not just trolling. I'll give you a couple of scenarios. First, taking photographs inside a dark cathedral. Few would allow the use of a flash (and flash probably wouldn't light the space attractively or effectively), many would discourage a tripod/monopod, and most are very dark. I was shooting in Southwark Cathedral last year and even at f/1.2 I needed ISO 6400-12800 for some shots. These were static subjects and therefore IS would have helped massively (and allowed a more useful narrower aperture). Second, I often hike for long distances with lots of equipment (for birds mostly), but occasionally I also want to photograph landscapes I see along the way. I rarely want to carry a tripod because it's extra bulk and mostly I don't need it. Stopping down for landscape shots to f/10 say, IS helps with handholding for the longer exposures required. It depends on the light, of course, but this is what I do with the 24-104, and it works for me. So there's two examples.

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations.  But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that.  In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds.  IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas.  I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.

I have no experience with the 35mm f/2 IS but it sounds like the IS system may be faulty if you are not seeing any difference. You should be getting sharp shots at 1/8th at least. How slow did you go with your testing?
5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #139 on: May 18, 2014, 12:22:58 PM »

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations.  But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that.  In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds.  IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas.  I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.

I have no experience with the 35mm f/2 IS but it sounds like the IS system may be faulty if you are not seeing any difference. You should be getting sharp shots at 1/8th at least. How slow did you go with your testing?

What image-stabilized wide angle Canon do you have experience with?

There is nothing wrong with the IS system, I use it for panning shots all the time.

I tested from 1/30 all the way down and in between to 1/2, as Canon claims the IS system had the equivalent of 4 stops stabilization - which would be around 1/2 for a 35mm.  The bottom line was the the IS system was unreliable at 1/15, 1/8, and especially below that while the pics were usable, they were definitely blurry compared to a monopod and not much different than with IS disabled assuming halfway decent technique.  This is different than with the 70-200 where the IS truly works as many stops as advertised.

I also noticed the same behavior with the 28mm IS when I had it, the IS simply is not as effective at very slow shutter speeds.

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1264
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #140 on: May 18, 2014, 01:05:51 PM »

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations.  But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that.  In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds.  IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas.  I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.

I have no experience with the 35mm f/2 IS but it sounds like the IS system may be faulty if you are not seeing any difference. You should be getting sharp shots at 1/8th at least. How slow did you go with your testing?

What image-stabilized wide angle Canon do you have experience with?

There is nothing wrong with the IS system, I use it for panning shots all the time.

I tested from 1/30 all the way down and in between to 1/2, as Canon claims the IS system had the equivalent of 4 stops stabilization - which would be around 1/2 for a 35mm.  The bottom line was the the IS system was unreliable at 1/15, 1/8, and especially below that while the pics were usable, they were definitely blurry compared to a monopod and not much different than with IS disabled assuming halfway decent technique.  This is different than with the 70-200 where the IS truly works as many stops as advertised.

I also noticed the same behavior with the 28mm IS when I had it, the IS simply is not as effective at very slow shutter speeds.

Yeah I agree that the stabilization effect is more noticeable with a 70-200 than with the wider focal lengths but with my 17-55 @ 17mm I was getting fairly sharp useable shots at 1/8th and that has an older version of IS. The 24-105 has pretty decent IS too. Even the old 18-55 kit lens did alright.

What I find is that while IS cannot truly replace a tripod or monopod it does reduce the amount of camera shake to the point where it is at least acceptable for web use. The shake is still there and likely most of it from the mirror which makes me wonder actually ... I know the 70-200 IS has an anti mirror slap vibration function, maybe the 35 doesn't have that so there is a limit to how effective it can be?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2014, 01:08:01 PM by Zv »
5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #141 on: May 18, 2014, 02:42:04 PM »
Yeah I agree that the stabilization effect is more noticeable with a 70-200 than with the wider focal lengths but with my 17-55 @ 17mm I was getting fairly sharp useable shots at 1/8th and that has an older version of IS. The 24-105 has pretty decent IS too. Even the old 18-55 kit lens did alright.

What I find is that while IS cannot truly replace a tripod or monopod it does reduce the amount of camera shake to the point where it is at least acceptable for web use. The shake is still there and likely most of it from the mirror which makes me wonder actually ... I know the 70-200 IS has an anti mirror slap vibration function, maybe the 35 doesn't have that so there is a limit to how effective it can be?

Also, it may be a personal thing based on how you use it.  I do agree that I was able to get usable 1/8 shots with the 35mm IS, but the issue for me is that they were not significantly more usable than when I just shot with IS disabled.  It wasn't like one was razor sharp and the other was terrible, generally I found both were usable but not super sharp.  Again, unlike the 70-200 which can be super sharp several stops down.

I thought IS was making a big difference with the 35 IS and slower shutter speeds until I turned it off and shot slower shutter speeds quite a bit without it, then I found the difference was not really significant unlike the 70-200.  This of course was real world shooting and not myself trying to purposely induce shake into the shot to see the performance of IS.  There was a big difference with a monopod, tripod, of course.

I am not sure the reason why for this, but the 35 IS is supposed to have the same advanced IS system the 100L does - which was supposed to be more advanced than the one in the 70-200.  So, my guess is that Canon's IS  system can only do so much when the shutter speeds get really slow, even if it is only 2 stops down... Which does sort of make sense if you think about the way optical IS works.

However, I do frequently use the IS in the 35mm to do panning shots.  It assists in keeping the vertical axis stable and I have gotten some really cool and crisp panning shots in doing so.  The 35 f/2 IS USM is my go-to panning lens due to the IS and flexible wide-normal focal length, I will pick it over the 24L, 50L, 16-35L II, 24-70L II, etc... I don't shoot video really so that part is less useful to me.

It is of course possible Canon will improve up on the system for the 16-35 f/4L IS - we will see.  Personally I won't be able to test this lens though, as the 16-35 II is a better fit for what I shoot.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2014, 02:53:48 PM by Ruined »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #141 on: May 18, 2014, 02:42:04 PM »

scyrene

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr feed
Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #142 on: May 18, 2014, 03:00:22 PM »
*Well* there's probably something in this. I guess in really long exposures you start getting bigger movements, drift rather than wobble, if you see what I mean. That's probably harder to account for, so maybe the wider the angle of view, the less effective IS is (but then, the wider the angle, the less apparent any movement is in general). It's also worth noting that "4 stop IS" doesn't really mean "you'll always get clean shots 4 stops slower" but that the percentages are better. When you see IS reviewed (in places like dpreview and The Digital Picture), they do it in clean shots out of ten, or as a percentage, say. Some shots will still be motion blurred. I always take bursts of shots - two or three at least - of anything, at any focal length, with IS or not, just in case. I've never tested my IS lenses, but I suspect they are bending the odds in my favour (I do notice a lot more motion blurred shots on my non-IS lenses though, like the 85 1.2L, but that's entirely anecdotal).
5D mark III, 50D, 300D, EOS-M; Samyang 14mm f/2.8, 24-105L, MP-E, 85L II, 100L macro, 500L IS II, EF-M 18-55; 1.4xIII, 2x III + 2xII extenders; 600EX-RT; EF-M--EF adaptor.
Former lenses include: 70-200L f/4 non-IS, 200L 2.8, 400L 5.6

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #143 on: May 18, 2014, 04:03:10 PM »
*Well* there's probably something in this. I guess in really long exposures you start getting bigger movements, drift rather than wobble, if you see what I mean.

Yes, I believe something like this is occurring.

Quote
That's probably harder to account for, so maybe the wider the angle of view, the less effective IS is (but then, the wider the angle, the less apparent any movement is in general). It's also worth noting that "4 stop IS" doesn't really mean "you'll always get clean shots 4 stops slower" but that the percentages are better. When you see IS reviewed (in places like dpreview and The Digital Picture), they do it in clean shots out of ten, or as a percentage, say. Some shots will still be motion blurred.

This is true, but the longer focal length lenses seem to live up a lot more to the marketing in # of stops IS provides than the wider ones do.  To me it seems, in addition to IS being less necessary for wide angle, it is also less effective. 


Quote
I always take bursts of shots - two or three at least - of anything, at any focal length, with IS or not,

I do this also, not just for sharpness but also if taking people shots I will get more pleasing expression one frame than the other two.

Quote
just in case. I've never tested my IS lenses, but I suspect they are bending the odds in my favour (I do notice a lot more motion blurred shots on my non-IS lenses though, like the 85 1.2L, but that's entirely anecdotal).

I generally like to set my shutter speed to 1/100-1/125 in most cases as events is my specialty.  This makes 85mm about as high as I will go without image stabilization (wouldn't regularly use the 135L for this reason).  Everything I own higher than 85mm is image stabilized, but almost all of my lenses are non-stabilized at 85mm and under. I do like to keep the 35mm f/2 IS, though, as its light weight, flexible focal length, small size and IS makes it perfect for panning shots.  It is also a good city lens, regardless of IS, and I personally feel that at any aperture narrower than f/2 the 35 IS has better bokeh than the 35L.

85L generally does not give camera shake problems if you set shutter speed to 1/125, at least this seems to be the case.  What you will get if you are shooting at f/1.2 though is blur due to moving focal plane.  The depth of field is so thin that leaning the camera just a tiny bit forward or back before shooting can result in blur through missed focus.  It is really a challenging lens to use, though I like the results both it and the 50L give best out of all the the Canon lenses - they seem to be lenses you use when you want to get an incredible shot, but have the time to potentially miss a couple of shots in obtaining it.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2014, 04:28:19 PM by Ruined »

scyrene

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr feed
Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #144 on: May 18, 2014, 04:30:08 PM »
This is true, but the longer focal length lenses seem to live up a lot more to the marketing in # of stops IS provides than the wider ones do.  To me it seems, in addition to IS being less necessary for wide angle, it is also less effective. 

Oh absolutely. I've got the odd clean shot at 1/15 with my 500mm lens :D But I suspect the super-telephoto lenses contain the best IS systems so far.

Quote
just in case. I've never tested my IS lenses, but I suspect they are bending the odds in my favour (I do notice a lot more motion blurred shots on my non-IS lenses though, like the 85 1.2L, but that's entirely anecdotal).

I generally like to set my shutter speed to 1/100-1/125 in most cases as events is my specialty.  This makes 85mm about as high as I will go without image stabilization (wouldn't regularly use the 135L for this reason).  Everything I own higher than 85mm is image stabilized, but almost all of my lenses are non-stabilized at 85mm and under. I do like to keep the 35mm f/2 IS, though, as its light weight, flexible focal length, small size and IS makes it perfect for panning shots.  It is also a good city lens, regardless of IS, and I personally feel that at any aperture narrower than f/2 the 35 IS has better bokeh than the 35L.

85L generally does not give camera shake problems if you set shutter speed to 1/125, at least this seems to be the case.  What you will get if you are shooting at f/1.2 though is blur due to moving focal plane.  The depth of field is so thin that leaning the camera just a tiny bit forward or back before shooting can result in blur through missed focus.  It is really a challenging lens to use, though I like the results both it and the 50L give best out of all the the Canon lenses.

I agree, I would say the 85L needs 1/100-1/200 to be certain. And it's a big heavy lump, so maybe that's working against stability (though some say weight helps). It's not *my* favourite, but I don't do all that much portrait work. It's a great lens anyhow :)
5D mark III, 50D, 300D, EOS-M; Samyang 14mm f/2.8, 24-105L, MP-E, 85L II, 100L macro, 500L IS II, EF-M 18-55; 1.4xIII, 2x III + 2xII extenders; 600EX-RT; EF-M--EF adaptor.
Former lenses include: 70-200L f/4 non-IS, 200L 2.8, 400L 5.6

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #145 on: May 18, 2014, 05:33:41 PM »
The 85L puts out some of the most beautiful pictures of any lens I've seen.

For indoor events, though, if I am going to use two primes it will generally be 24L II and 50L, as it is rare I have enough space to use 85mm focal length.  In less chaotic situations with more working room the 85L is the go-to lens, however.  Although I am sure there will be arguments for the pricey 200mm f/2L IS instead :)

This 16-35 range is great for events too, though again using primarily indoors I need f/2.8 for cleaner shots in low light, so this particular 16-35 f/4 IS lens would not be for me.  Landscape photogs will have a blast with it though.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2014, 05:36:04 PM by Ruined »

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4519
    • View Profile
Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #146 on: May 18, 2014, 09:03:35 PM »
I'll assume this is a genuine question and not just trolling. I'll give you a couple of scenarios. First, taking photographs inside a dark cathedral. Few would allow the use of a flash (and flash probably wouldn't light the space attractively or effectively), many would discourage a tripod/monopod, and most are very dark. I was shooting in Southwark Cathedral last year and even at f/1.2 I needed ISO 6400-12800 for some shots. These were static subjects and therefore IS would have helped massively (and allowed a more useful narrower aperture). Second, I often hike for long distances with lots of equipment (for birds mostly), but occasionally I also want to photograph landscapes I see along the way. I rarely want to carry a tripod because it's extra bulk and mostly I don't need it. Stopping down for landscape shots to f/10 say, IS helps with handholding for the longer exposures required. It depends on the light, of course, but this is what I do with the 24-104, and it works for me. So there's two examples.

Theoretically, IS should help in those situations.  But, I have done extensive testing with the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and found otherwise - and the 35 IS USM uses a very recent revision of IS, probably the same revision as the one in the 16-35 iS.

What I found was that though Canon's IS does work great on or above shutter speeds of 1/30 (such as with the 70-200), it is very unreliable below that.  In fact, I found little to no improvement of my handheld "hit" ratio with very slow shutter speeds and the 35mm IS USM; sometimes IS completely failed to stabilize the shots, and often when it did it remained overly soft bordering on blurry - I did not see any real advantage to using it with 35mm and very slow shutter speeds, a monopod/tripod was night and day better and far more reliable for wide focal lengths and very slow shutter speeds.  IS did have use for video and panning shots on the 35mm, though - it worked quite well in these areas.  I assume the same limitations will hold true for the 16-35.
You must need to work on your abilities then as I have no problem with 1/5 sec or even 1/2 sec on my eos m and 11-22....
APS-H Fanboy

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #147 on: May 18, 2014, 09:38:53 PM »
You must need to work on your abilities then as I have no problem with 1/5 sec or even 1/2 sec on my eos m and 11-22....

Ironic you state I need to work on my abilities when you are attempting to argue in favor of Image Stabilization making a big difference in an ultrawide angle lens.  Image stabilization helps a photographer's camera shake, recall ;)
« Last Edit: May 18, 2014, 09:41:49 PM by Ruined »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Images of the New EF 16-35 f/4L IS & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
« Reply #147 on: May 18, 2014, 09:38:53 PM »