How does a dead fly in a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II affect image quality?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Not really...just send in a spider to catch the fly.
(Cue ensuing responses about birds, cats, dogs, but after that the goat can just eat the lens and the fly will no longer be a problem.)
Then we all wonder how the hell it got in there in the first place
Seems like an expensive way to catch a fly.
What I really want is an internally focusing, large aperture, stabilized fly catcher for under $1000.
What I really want is an internally focusing, large aperture, stabilized fly catcher for under $1000.
So you're saying you already knew about that from elsewhere and didn't need to read about it on a Canon-focused (SWIDT) site, and instead got alerted to a very interesting blog post? I assume you're meaning to thank CRG.
Of course it does, just not measurably so. But by the time we're using half-gigapixel sensors then we'll have to reassess.
I do hate the 'generalisation' of language. When I see a lens listing that says 'mark on objective has no effect on image', I know they're lying and I move to the next listing. Everything in a lens has an effect on image quality. Just because we can't see it right now doesn't make it acceptable to lie.
You think they're lying? Really?! That's a real stretch.
A "half-gigapixel" sensor would not render that dust-speck any more in focus and visible than today's sensors.
Surely it depends on which lens you are using.
When I am taking pictures at rugby matches I frequently find that there are small splashes of mud on the front element of my 400mm lens but they never show up in any of the pictures. However, I once managed to leave a thumb print on the front element of my 8-15mm fish eye and you could see it clearly in all the pictures.
When I am taking pictures at rugby matches I frequently find that there are small splashes of mud on the front element of my 400mm lens but they never show up in any of the pictures. However, I once managed to leave a thumb print on the front element of my 8-15mm fish eye and you could see it clearly in all the pictures.
A fly larvae needs food to develop, don't think there enough of that inside of a lens
I upgraded my old 70-200 f/4L a while ago to the new II version. I had hoped to sell the old one in part exchange, but when the shop checked out the lens they noticed a piece of broken glass stuck somewhere between the rear lens elements. They showed it to me so I could see for myself. No question what it was, but how did it get there? Probably quite early on after buying the lens, I think. It dropped and got a nasty bash. I guess that the edge of one of the lens elements broke and got lodged there.
Did I notice it at all over maybe 10 years or more? No.
Did I notice it at all over maybe 10 years or more? No.
Similar threads
- Contains 3 staff post(s)
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
