- Status
That 300mm mirror lens is really tiny: 65mm wide x 74mm long. If it has acceptable IQ, that would be quite intesting at the announced price level.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
Mixed feelings:
At f6.3 it's not vastly slower than a budget 70-300 tele zoom at 300, no af night be dealbreaker for target market.
Mirrors generally lack contrast and can be tricky to filter, this one is small enough to front filter tho...
Time will tell, not seen any reviews for the earlier mft versions.
The 16mm f2.0 is quite a prospect tho, up against the sigma f1.8 zoom perhaps?
At f6.3 it's not vastly slower than a budget 70-300 tele zoom at 300, no af night be dealbreaker for target market.
Mirrors generally lack contrast and can be tricky to filter, this one is small enough to front filter tho...
Time will tell, not seen any reviews for the earlier mft versions.
The 16mm f2.0 is quite a prospect tho, up against the sigma f1.8 zoom perhaps?
Upvote
0
Personally I'd go for the Canon EF-S 16mm f/2 because it's better quality. Oh ... hang on ... 
Mind you Canon aren't alone in this. Thom Hogan has repeatedly bashed Nikon on this point, suggesting that the quality and range of their DX cameras should be matched by better quality and range in their DX lenses.
Will be interesting to see how the Samyang 16mm compares with the Canon 10-22 at 16mm and the 17-55mm at 17mm. On a related note check this out:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/831-canon_1855_3556stmis?start=2
The recent 18-55mm STM kit lens gets a solid review from Photozone (who are generally hard markers). Peak resolution is actually higher than for the 17-55mm, which is very surprising. Since I am considering the purchase of the latter lens it does cause me to wonder if it is really worth it at 4x the price...
Mind you Canon aren't alone in this. Thom Hogan has repeatedly bashed Nikon on this point, suggesting that the quality and range of their DX cameras should be matched by better quality and range in their DX lenses.
Will be interesting to see how the Samyang 16mm compares with the Canon 10-22 at 16mm and the 17-55mm at 17mm. On a related note check this out:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/831-canon_1855_3556stmis?start=2
The recent 18-55mm STM kit lens gets a solid review from Photozone (who are generally hard markers). Peak resolution is actually higher than for the 17-55mm, which is very surprising. Since I am considering the purchase of the latter lens it does cause me to wonder if it is really worth it at 4x the price...
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
bardamu said:Personally I'd go for the Canon EF-S 16mm f/2 because it's better quality. Oh ... hang on ...
Mind you Canon aren't alone in this. Thom Hogan has repeatedly bashed Nikon on this point, suggesting that the quality and range of their DX cameras should be matched by better quality and range in their DX lenses.
Will be interesting to see how the Samyang 16mm compares with the Canon 10-22 at 16mm and the 17-55mm at 17mm. On a related note check this out:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/831-canon_1855_3556stmis?start=2
The recent 18-55mm STM kit lens gets a solid review from Photozone (who are generally hard markers). Peak resolution is actually higher than for the 17-55mm, which is very surprising. Since I am considering the purchase of the latter lens it does cause me to wonder if it is really worth it at 4x the price...
I actually sold my 17-40 f4L when I got my 550D with 18-55 IS, the IS version on have all been very good in their own right if you can live with the plastic construction, rotating ring etc, all capable of very good images and an absolute bargain at the small premium over body only.
I eventually moved to an 18-50 f2.8 (Sigma) because I really need the fast aperture for video.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
