-
If you want a large aperture for portraiture, I would say the 85/1.8 is the best in this group. 50mm on FF in my personaly taste is too wide for portrait in general. Plus, the 85/1.8 feels much better than the 50/1.4. Though it has been a great lens of mine and I have taken fantastic pictures with it, the 24-70 does get boring after some time (especially
-
Ahh, I thought it was easy... Maybe just because I don't know enough to know it's hard. But anyway, fantastic explanation! Really appreciated! Ben PS: I would call 30D and 1D II N "minor, minor upgrades"... hahah =)
-
I have been dreaming about a FF 1D mark IV camera ever since it was in the rumors, but it turned out to be a "minor" update to the 1D III, similar to the 50D to 40D upgrade. Nevertheless, now I begin to think if a possible 1Dv camera will finally bring us the longtime awaited revolution. So let's discuss if such a camera can be designed
-
I think the 70-200/4L non-IS is a good choice if you can hold the camera pretty still or the main purpose of the lens is for fast sports (IS is turned off anyway). The 70-200/4L IS, as Bryan also pointed out, is totally worth the extra cost over the non-IS version not because it is sharper in real world but because it is a lot more usable. Personally
-
If I were in the market of telephoto and I need to choose between these two lenses, I would need to think first if I need a zoom lens or a prime lens will just do the same thing for me. Because in terms of image quality I would say that the Canon combo dominates despite the use of a 1.4x converter. Plus when you take the converter off you get an even
-
It seems to be the eternal debate once again... But nevertheless, I'll try to give some thoughts on the choice. I owned the 24-70L for 2 years but ending up selling it. It has been a great lens of mine and it keeps its value extremely well (made a small profit selling it!) The images are sharp from corner to corner on full frame. Build quality is
-
Since last time I only left you with one sentence saying to go for the Canon and not much else, here I'll try give a little bit my opinion. I personally have owned the Sigma 150/2.8 Macro lens and 50/1.4. I think both of them are fantastic lenses in terms of the optics. I sold my 150/2.8 after owning it for a year and my 50/1.4 was returned. However
-
Simply, awesome lens! Canon's good at making telephoto lenses. The only concern I have is that the IS system is a bit old, only 2 stops correction.
-
Get the Canon one. I'm sure anyone who can spend $800 on a Sigma can pay $1150 for the Canon. It is totally worth it in my opinion.
-
[quote user="Fred Doane"] I'm curious what upgrades would have made you want to run out and buy one? [/quote] Keep everything the 1D IV has already had, make it FF -- that's all I wanted. I know it's a sport camera for journalists, but I hate my 16-35 looks like a 21-45mm lens in the viewfinder. I'm not getting a 5D II cuz