B
briansquibb
Guest
branden said:Just another voice seconding trying out the 70-200 more thoroughly before upgrading. The 70-200 isn't shy.
The 70-200 f/2.8 II is sharp but the background blur doesn't compare
Upvote
0
branden said:Just another voice seconding trying out the 70-200 more thoroughly before upgrading. The 70-200 isn't shy.
7enderbender said:Good point about the IS that I totally forgot in my assessment above. I personally count IS as a negative in any lens. I find its usefulness overrated and see it as another lose part that will shorten the lifespan of the lens. IS -and frankly the AF - will potentially be two of the reasons for me to look elsewhere for a macro lens (and wide angle prime).
Not a very popular view, I know, but one I'm willing to reasonably defend. And just a different perspective. Not trying to convince anyone one way or another.
willrobb said:.... I've found it to be great for individual portraits and even a good travel lens when I don't want to lug my 70-200mm f2.8L around. I've attached some example photos from it.
neuroanatomist said:Wide angle zoom lens designs for a FF image circle are more difficult than telephoto zoom designs - the fact that the 70-200/4 and the 17-40/4 are close in price is consistent with the 17-40 needing more optical compromises and suffering lower IQ for them. It has a LOT of barrel distortion, and at wide apertures, especially at the wide end, the corners are a mushy mess. Not sure if one of the EF-S lenses you sold was the 10-22mm, but the small image circle makes a huge difference - for the same cost, the 10-22 delivers much better optical performance (rivals the 16-35 II except for the slower aperture).
Now, the 17-40mm isn't all bad - like any piece of gear, if you know its limitations and how to work around them, you can get good results. For example, don't shoot architecture at 17mm. Generally, if you shoot the 17-40mm at 20mm or narrower and stopped down to f/8-f/11 (e.g. landscapes from a tripod), it's fine. If you plan to shoot at 17mm f/4 a lot, you'll likely be disappointed. So...good as a landscape lens, not so good as a walkaround lens (for which I'd really recommend the 24-105mm, as 24mm on FF is wide enough for many needs (equivalent to 15mm on crop). But, the best time to get the 24-105 is with the 5DII as a kit, when you pay just $800 for the lens.
Have you considered renting for your Hawaii trip, perhaps the 16-35 II?
briansquibb said:Simple facts:
I would bet on the 135L being a faster AF than the 100L
Brian