Latest Thread Images

The Canon Thread
Jan 30, 2009 at 7:50 PM Post #1,486 of 2,718
Canon 70-200 f4 IS is just the sharpest zoom of them all. It's near prime sharp. It's the most modern design and has the most modern IS system also. I only keep 2.8 around because I can. I have 4 zoom lenses in that xx-200mm range as well as 135 f2. 70-200 f4 IS is just in another class of quality. The 2.8 @ 4 is not the same.

There's beyond marginal difference between Nikon 14-24 and anything else. They are not close in the corners.

Nikon 14-24mm v Canon 16-35mm v Contax 17-35mm

But yeah different people have different priorities. I didn't know which Canon lenses you already had. 100/2 is good. No need for 135/2 or 85/1.8. I didn't recommend getting all of those primes, just choosing amongst them whatever you'd prefer.

200 2.8 is better than 70-200 @200 though.

Lens weakness will show on higher megapixels and on full frame but you gain some sharpness being full frame so it's a give or take. Then again if you don't care about megapixels or sharpness then not much of this matters. Just get whatever is most convenient.
 
Jan 30, 2009 at 10:34 PM Post #1,487 of 2,718
3239929178_56c248a444_b.jpg
 
Jan 30, 2009 at 11:24 PM Post #1,490 of 2,718
The camera seems to be working well.
biggrin.gif
What was your setup?
 
Jan 30, 2009 at 11:45 PM Post #1,492 of 2,718
I find it a bit boring though. Do you fight the other photographer in the small area where you are for your place? I rather watch the show than take the photos for visual appeal. Better yet backstage.
biggrin.gif
 
Jan 31, 2009 at 10:55 AM Post #1,494 of 2,718
Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_baseball_08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Do you have the 70-200 2.8 IS as well? I've heard that it's a wonderful lens, but I'm very happy with my f4 non-IS version. I'm seriously debating whether it's worth the extra $1000 (which it probably is).

I've also read about how great the 24-70 is and am actually still debating between it and the 16-35. Was the 16-35 everything you'd hoped it would be?

P.S. The problem with me is how ridiculously priced the 5D MarkII is. It will be the largest sum of money I've ever dropped on anything (besides my car) and it's already got me thinking about insurance for all my gear. It will probably be the last body I buy for several years to come, however.


I hired it out for a wedding 6 months ago and it is a great lens, not one that i would use a lot but it is worth what it is.

I haven't received the 16-35 yet, its still in transit, and the 24-70 will come after i saved up enough for the 5D 2 !
 
Jan 31, 2009 at 11:36 AM Post #1,495 of 2,718
Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If you have little money, it makes no sense to switch brands.

Nikon is a better street camera IMO with auto ISO. Nikon also have smaller prime lenses which are easier to carry and less noticeable.

Unless you wanted to go super wide angle. < "17mm"?


I've been thinking about it, and it is not something I would have the money for right away, but it would be fun to play around with. I have played around with a 17-55 f/2.8 Nikon but that was on a crop sensor, was kinda hoping the 24-70 on a FF would yield almost the same results on the wide end.

The auto ISO is a nice feature, but the metering is so crazy on a D80. The 5D doesn't have the feature but the pictures look really good even at ISO 1600 (I am not comfortable shooting ISO1600 on the D80 it is way to grainy), plus you have the FF advantage.

Thanks a lot for your reply! I think I will reconsider the brand swap, and maybe just wait for a cheap D300 to come my way some day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top