Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM
- By TheJock
- Canon EF Prime Lenses
- 25 Replies
LOL ;DMikehit said:I'd send it back - there's a whole load of dust on the front of the lens ;D
Upvote
0
LOL ;DMikehit said:I'd send it back - there's a whole load of dust on the front of the lens ;D
Zv said:On a separate note and I know the topic is FF UWA but just wanna throw it out there -
The EF-M 11-22mm lens totally rocks. You could have a two body solution with UWA on the M body and your general purpose on the 6D. Never miss a shot. I've tried this before and it works quite well. No lens changes, just keep shooting. Unless you shoot at night the IQ difference isn't that noticeable.
Nicolai.b said:So yes, there is most likely something wrong with either your cam or the battery. Are you sure GPS is off? I forgot that once and it drained the battery in one or two days (cause the GPS gets no signal indoors but constantly tries to).
-Sebastian
Jopa said:As far as I know IS helps AF during tracking. When the object moves less jittery, it simplifies the tracking process significantly. Source: Canon.
Talys said:ecka said:Talys said:jeffa4444 said:On the G 7X & G 7X MKII they have the FF equivilent of 24-105 to me that makes great sense, never understood a fixed 28mm or 35mm so limiting.
A fixed zoom lens in FF, especially one with a large FR, would put the camera in a space that not many people would buy, IMO. I mean, imagine if the 5D4 came in at $1300 but it could only have a 24-105L -- I sure wouldn't buy it, because the 24-105L is inferior to the 24-70 in every way except FR and massively inferior to all primes in IQ. And, it would be way too expensive as a carryaround consumer camera.
Now, imagine if you could buy the a 50/1.2L fixed on 5D4 body for $1300. I don't know about you, but I'd be super excited, because it would be like carrying around a 5D4 and a 50 1.2 always attached. If the body were rebel sized but had all the capabilities and features of a 5D4, I'd buy it in a heartbeat, because I'd never take the body off the lens anyhow.
Sure, it would make a lousy only camera. But I think most people who are would consider FF have just one camera anyhow.
So, it all depends on the cost and IQ. If Canon releases a fixed-lens, mirrorless prime that is close to the price of the lens by itself, it becomes an exciting value proposition for today, and a gateway and learning experience of Canon into the future, for tomorrow.
So, you want to get 5D4 with a permanently attached 50L for the price of the 50L alone?
Who wouldn't?
5D4 with a permanently attached 24-105L is not that bad either. $4400 combo for $1300 ... pure gold.
How about 5D4 with 40/2.8STM? Maybe $799?![]()
Yeah, exactlyI would happily buy an "experimental" camera/fixed prime lens combo if it weren't that much more than the lens would be by itself. For Canon, it would not cannibalize sales, because nobody is going to own ONLY a fixed 50 or 35. A few hundred dollars over the price of the 50L would be fine for me.
24-105L for $1300 would get me really excited, I'd buy one... and then rarely use it, because the 24-70L is just better for... everything unless you need the top end of that zoom range. I actually use my 17-135 nano more than my 24-105L (version 1). But, such a beast would probably hurt Canon's other sales, because some people would be perfectly content with a 24-105 on a fixed pro-grade body -- and then never buy anything else.
Remember, for canon, the idea would be to experiment with building a FF sensor and ergonomics -- not to give us the deal that would keep us from buying more toys![]()
MrFotoFool said:Here is a picture of my one and only phone. I bought it in 1997 at (I think) Radio Shack and it works as well today as it did then. It uses no electricity and has no charger - just plug in the phone line and voila!
Tinky said:2.2x crop for 4K.
YuengLinger said:I'm finding even +1/3 is blowing more highlights than I like.
privatebydesign said:bdunbar79 said:privatebydesign said:There is no way on earth I'd think about swapping a 5D MkIV for a 1DX, especially for, as the OP stated, the 'action' shooting was kids and family stuff and a bit of birds in flight.
The AF of the two is very comparable, the image quality is a different league. Sure an image out of focus isn't worth any amount of image quality, but the AF is so close as to not be the biggest factor.
PBD, would you say then, that the IQ of the 5D4 at equal ISO values is superior to the 1Dx? If so I can certainly justify purchasing one for other sports. Thanks for your input.
Absolutely. As straight out of camera or unmolested imports there is little difference, touch the shadows slider and there is a big difference. Now if you nail exposure perfectly every time or sell SOC jpegs there isn't much in it, but for BIF I am always trying to lift the under wing shadows, football players with a helmet under lights? 5D MkIV every time!
Not exactly. Tests show that the cameras distort the ISO value to compensate for the greater waste of extremely steep light rays on F1.2 lenses. It would be something like the correction of vignette in camera. But as with vignettes, the correction is most needed near the edges of the sensor, and in lesser quantity in the center of the image.Arahn said:So this means that when I am shooting in very low light situations, let's say f1,2 ISO 25600, it would actually make sense to step down to f1,6 ISO 25600, underexpose -0,66 EV and later ramp up the image by 2/3 of a stop in post? The result then would be the same level of noise as the f1,2 image but feature even have more DOF!?
To make my trail of thought clearer*:
My Settings: f1,2 - ISO 25600 - 1/100s
Camera really shoots with: f1,2 - ISO 40000 - 1/100s (+0,66 ISO to compensate for "lost light")
New settings: f1,6 - ISO 25600 - 1/100s (-0,66EV - camera does not compensate)
+0,66EV in post f1,6 - ISO 40000 - 1/100s (Same Noise as in "real camera settings" but 0,66 f-stop more DOF)
*assuming the cameras do not compensate for the phenomenon when reaching f1,6 or smaller.
Or am I totally of track here?