here's another guy who likes to shovel cash out of my wallet
And, you're the one advertising that you're gonna get more glass. :poke I'm just trying to :help!
Anyhow... you're earning the big bucks shooting. I know you can afford it!
too bad you can't use a 10-22 like us mere mortals.
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
it's special purpose, sid... landscaping on a tripod. i'd mostly be at f/8 and narrower. so my first criteria would be sharpness, yeah
in fact, there's no af and no metering from the camera with this puppy, either.
Ooh, an interesting challenge. I know you'll get the exposure right (if not, you always have the histogram as a fallback.) But these cameras don't really seem to be built for manual focusing - that should get you attention.
Ooh, an interesting challenge. I know you'll get the exposure right (if not, you always have the histogram as a fallback.) But these cameras don't really seem to be built for manual focusing - that should get you attention.
yer right. well, i'm hoping that 24mm on my ff camera will be enough, actually. i'm going to spend the next month researching the distagon wa choices out there, talk to some folks who use it, and then make a decision before yosemite-time....
yer right. well, i'm hoping that 24mm on my ff camera will be enough, actually. i'm going to spend the next month researching the distagon wa choices out there, talk to some folks who use it, and then make a decision before yosemite-time....
Very interesting, thanks for posting this. I didn't know anything about distagon until this thread.
I thought you could meter with any lens on the Canon? I know you have to have a pro Nikon body to meter non-CPU lenses, but for some reason I thought most every Canon could?
the 24-70L is a stellar lens. i love mine. it's right in the same class as the 70-200/2.8L. and it really doesn't need IS. only you can tell if 24mm is going to be wide enough. it's wide (on a FF), but not UWA. have you considered the Canon 14/2.8L?
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Andy, I thought you had the 16-35mm f/2.8? That won't do what you need? I am curious as to the application.
i just sold it today. why? well, i use the 35 f/1.4L very very often. the 16-35 less and less these days. when i do mount the 16-35L, i shoot at roughly 20mm +/- a couple. and there is some softness in the corners, noticeable on my ff body. never saw it on the 20d - and it doesn't show up there at all on that body.
for tripod and landscaping work, the general agreement "out there" is that you cannot beat the zeiss distagon glass for sharpness and overall pic quality for the really wide angles.
i just sold it today. why? well, i use the 35 f/1.4L very very often. the 16-35 less and less these days. when i do mount the 16-35L, i shoot at roughly 20mm +/- a couple. and there is some softness in the corners, noticeable on my ff body. never saw it on the 20d - and it doesn't show up there at all on that body.
for tripod and landscaping work, the general agreement "out there" is that you cannot beat the zeiss distagon glass for sharpness and overall pic quality for the really wide angles.
Creator of Dgrin's "Last Photographer Standing" contest
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
I have never been 100% happy with my 24-70. it is ready for pickup at Canon however, hopefully it got tweaked for improvement.
lenses are funny that way. i was never happy with my 17-40/4L, so I sold it to ginger, and she's making amazing art with it. go figure
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
At that price....and f/4 is it really a better piece of glass than, say, the 16-35 f2.8 L?
Lee
many say it is. look at the mtfs, and also the pics! also, remember, i'm considering it for landscaping on a tripod so f/8 or f/11 is likely where i'll be. i have my 35 f/1.4 for lowlight work.
the 16-35L on the FF body is a little soft in the corners, the distagons apparantly blow it away.
the 16-35L on the FF body is a little soft in the corners, the distagons apparantly blow it away.
assuming you buy that contax lens, should we start a pool to see how long it is before you put it up for sale?
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Comments
Even cooler when it gets back in stock, some of theit stuff can be out for a while.
here's another guy who likes to shovel cash out of my wallet
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Anyhow... you're earning the big bucks shooting.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
it's special purpose, sid... landscaping on a tripod. i'd mostly be at f/8 and narrower. so my first criteria would be sharpness, yeah
in fact, there's no af and no metering from the camera with this puppy, either.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Ooh, an interesting challenge. I know you'll get the exposure right (if not, you always have the histogram as a fallback.) But these cameras don't really seem to be built for manual focusing - that should get you attention.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
I see some people hack sawing a bit off it to fit it to EF cameras. May be handy advice when canon change ....AGAIN.
actually, i'm hoping that my 24-70L that i'm picking up tomw at b&h will be enough wide for me
i've seen some really really good stuff on that lens with the 1Ds Mark II.
here are some sharpness examples wow looks darn good.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
yer right. well, i'm hoping that 24mm on my ff camera will be enough, actually. i'm going to spend the next month researching the distagon wa choices out there, talk to some folks who use it, and then make a decision before yosemite-time....
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
i've actually just gotten a lead on an 18mm f/4 that looks darn good!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
You may want to check into that again.
Dave
http://www.lifekapptured.com (gallery)
the 24-70L is a stellar lens. i love mine. it's right in the same class as the 70-200/2.8L. and it really doesn't need IS. only you can tell if 24mm is going to be wide enough. it's wide (on a FF), but not UWA. have you considered the Canon 14/2.8L?
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
i just sold it today. why? well, i use the 35 f/1.4L very very often. the 16-35 less and less these days. when i do mount the 16-35L, i shoot at roughly 20mm +/- a couple. and there is some softness in the corners, noticeable on my ff body. never saw it on the 20d - and it doesn't show up there at all on that body.
for tripod and landscaping work, the general agreement "out there" is that you cannot beat the zeiss distagon glass for sharpness and overall pic quality for the really wide angles.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Lee
many say it is. look at the mtfs, and also the pics! also, remember, i'm considering it for landscaping on a tripod so f/8 or f/11 is likely where i'll be. i have my 35 f/1.4 for lowlight work.
the 16-35L on the FF body is a little soft in the corners, the distagons apparantly blow it away.
will i ever stop buying? who knows?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
assuming you buy that contax lens, should we start a pool to see how long it is before you put it up for sale?
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Hey don't leave me out. I am here to help too you should buy this ASAP.
man, that is one sweet piece of glass! i've been drooling over them for months now! crimony, you can drive a truck through that lens opening!
the going price on that lens, in good condition, has gone from about $2750 to now $4000 inside of a year.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I hope the same happens with the 50/1.0. I will probably be selling mine in the next few weeks. I simply do not use it enough to justify keeping it.
hmm interesting. hopefully, won't affect me too much. i'm looking now.
the 18 f/4 or the 21 f/2.8? i can't find any prices on the 21 f/2.8, patch yer good at this, lemme know if you find any ok?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter