Advantages of full frame?

[neuroanatomist]

<div>

I have used the 100-400 and really don't dig the push-pull zoom. If they made that range in a normal zoom lens, I would be all over it. I have no real problem with the IQ, just the functionality.

I actually find it to be beneficial. Often, when shooting birds for example, you want to just zoom to 400mm and use it. (Yes, the 400mm f/5.6L prime is cheaper, lighter and smaller, but it lacks IS). In rapidly changing situation like an air show or outdoor sports, the speed with which you can adjust the focal length is an advantage over a rotating zoom ring, IMO.

I don't think there are
mathematical or physical limitations on small sensors, at least, not
ones that are relevant to our discussion.

</div>


Not of the sensor, per se. But as I mentioned above, getting the equivalent DoF of an f1.2 lens on FF at &lt;100mm focal lengths on a crop body isn't physically possible (barring the release of an f/0.75 lens).

[Keith B]

<div>

I have used the 100-400 and really don't dig the push-pull zoom. If they made that range in a normal zoom lens, I would be all over it. I have no real problem with the IQ, just the functionality.

I actually find it to be beneficial. Often, when shooting birds for example, you want to just zoom to 400mm and use it. (Yes, the 400mm f/5.6L prime is cheaper, lighter and smaller, but it lacks IS). In rapidly changing situation like an air show or outdoor sports, the speed with which you can adjust the focal length is an advantage over a rotating zoom ring, IMO.

</div>


Love the push pull! Air shows and football, it is so quick to go in and out as a runner is coming at you or going away.

[HiFiGuy1]

Sounds good. The interesting thing to me was that I actually liked the concept originally, but when I tried it, it felt really weird. If you guys like yours so well, I guess I should give it more consideration. I will still have to wait a while, though. I am going to have to get a more general purpose lens with the money from the sale of my two current lenses and be happy with that for now. John kind of has me talked out of what I thought was nearly the ideal lens for my immediate needs in the EF-S 15-85, and has me thinking long and hard about the 17-55 instead. I love the speed and the sharpness, but I just wish it had more range on the long end. Whichever I get, it will be my only purchase for a while, notwithstanding an L-bracket.

[Keith B]

Sounds good. The interesting thing to me was that I actually liked the concept originally, but when I tried it, it felt really weird. If you guys like yours so well, I guess I should give it more consideration.

It did feel weird at first but after time it felt very natural. For me it was getting use to using the tension ring. There is never one right setting for me, I love that I can have different tension and speed for different applications.

[Roland Scheiner]

I have both the 5D2 with the handgrip and the 1D4, a 16-32; 24-105, 28-135 and a 70-300 and a 580 EX flash. In about 3 weeks I will join a group of tourists on a bustour all trough Ireland. (I live in Germany). It is clear, that I can`t take the whole gear with me. So question what is the most apprpriate solution.


I tend to take the 5D2 plus the 24-105 an the 70-300 with me, and the flash. Why not the 1D4? It has all the features of the 5D2 and few more, which I probably will not need during the tour (for example 10fps/sec). The 1,3 crop of the 1D4 is, so I think in this case a bit of a disadvantage. I only have place in the bag I will use for 1 body and 2 lenses. The wide angle with the 1D4 and the 24-105 is 31.2; not very much for a wideangle. My expierience in 35 years of touristic photoshooting is, that you need more often a wideangle than an telephotolens beyond of 180. But to save place and weight and to only take the 28-135 would restrict
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document" />
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11" />
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11" />
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:\DOKUME~1\Nutzer\LOKALE~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_ filelist.xml" />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:PunctuationKerning />
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas />
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables />
<w:SnapToGridInCell />
<w:WrapTextWithPunct />
<w:UseAsianBreakRules />
<wontGrowAutofit />
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"]
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
&lt;!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
--&gt;
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> the possibilities too much.


So what do you think.


Maybe Canon brings a few perfectly adapted lenses for 1,6 crop covering the same angle than FF lenses. Or a 1D5 to come is a FF body.