Dont buy new stuff?

[jrw]

What is the best we have ever shot with? Wow, there's a question.

For bodies I'd have to put the 5D3 ahead of the 5D2 for the images delivered from the camera as well as AF and everything else that was improved. Am finding post-processing to be minimal. Contrast and colour rendition are quite nice. Haven't used a 1D body yet to compare myself. Have used quite a few of the cropped body range from the original Rebel through to the 7D. The 7D is at the top of that list for the AF and feature set. The old XSi I always liked as well but that may be more sentiment at this point than anything else. The cropped sensors are definitely lower on my list than the 5D2. Have sold off my 7D bodies since 5D3 came out. Only had them for the AF system for action shots not for image quality and did not want to pay for two of each of the 1D and 1Ds bodies for the broad range of items that I shoot. Am transitioning to having only two of the 5D3 bodies as they seem to be capable of doing everything I need/want in one package.

Lens wise for primes, I'd put the 300 f2.8 II up at the top. New 500 mm may bump it from top spot. Will have to wait and see on that one. The 100 mm L IS macro would also make my short list for IQ and versatility.
For zooms, the 70-200 f2.8 IS II reigns supreme. It comes close to the primes that share its range in all areas except aperture.

My choices are based on sports and event shooting, portraits, landscapes and wildlife, and macro work. For portraits I favour the 70-200 over the traditional primes. I am not the biggest fan of portraits with such a thin DOF that only the eyes and part of the eyelashes are in sharp focus. For me the versatility of the zoom to change framing rapidly more than compensates for the small IQ gain that some of the primes offer. For macro work I use the 100mm and 180mm lenses interchangeably depending on desired field of view and minimum focus distance and find that the 100 mm is sharper, but doesn't deliver the bokeh of the 180mm.

If you were able to narrow down the scope to the types of shots you normally take, I'd expect the answers you get, especially for the lenses, would become more relevant for where you are trying to get to.

[Rocco]

What is the best we have ever shot with? Wow, there's a question.

For bodies I'd have to put the 5D3 ahead of the 5D2 for the images delivered from the camera as well as AF and everything else that was improved. Am finding post-processing to be minimal. Contrast and colour rendition are quite nice. Haven't used a 1D body yet to compare myself. Have used quite a few of the cropped body range from the original Rebel through to the 7D. The 7D is at the top of that list for the AF and feature set. The old XSi I always liked as well but that may be more sentiment at this point than anything else. The cropped sensors are definitely lower on my list than the 5D2. Have sold off my 7D bodies since 5D3 came out. Only had them for the AF system for action shots not for image quality and did not want to pay for two of each of the 1D and 1Ds bodies for the broad range of items that I shoot. Am transitioning to having only two of the 5D3 bodies as they seem to be capable of doing everything I need/want in one package.

Lens wise for primes, I'd put the 300 f2.8 II up at the top. New 500 mm may bump it from top spot. Will have to wait and see on that one. The 100 mm L IS macro would also make my short list for IQ and versatility.
For zooms, the 70-200 f2.8 IS II reigns supreme. It comes close to the primes that share its range in all areas except aperture.

My choices are based on sports and event shooting, portraits, landscapes and wildlife, and macro work. For portraits I favour the 70-200 over the traditional primes. I am not the biggest fan of portraits with such a thin DOF that only the eyes and part of the eyelashes are in sharp focus. For me the versatility of the zoom to change framing rapidly more than compensates for the small IQ gain that some of the primes offer. For macro work I use the 100mm and 180mm lenses interchangeably depending on desired field of view and minimum focus distance and find that the 100 mm is sharper, but doesn't deliver the bokeh of the 180mm.

If you were able to narrow down the scope to the types of shots you normally take, I'd expect the answers you get, especially for the lenses, would become more relevant for where you are trying to get to.

You left out the 135 f/2L. Stupid sharp.

[Mickw]

Heres the best cameras ive ever used which was i think a Canon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepper

Tha last ones i ran experiments on produced critical dimensions down to less than 0.018 of a micron and both the Canon and Nikon cameras could move an image to less than a thousanth of a micron. The human hair is 36 microns. The last Canon stepper i used in late 20th century cost £5,000,000 and illuminated the image by laser light. The semiconductors and images i was able to produce was amazing. Technology has moved on but the ability to move a silicon wafer of 10 inches and achieve an acurate image when moving through x, y and z was amazing. Thats not to forget the orthogonality of the axis aswell. We actually thought x rays were the way to go in the future but im sure whatever they use now is way beyond what i used.

So yes, i know a little about lens's. What do i do now? Lets just say it involves human behaviour.

Next, before i post my most killer post, are you absolutly sure human eyes can tell the differance between the new lens and the old at A3 which was my original post?

Mick

[Steve U]

Next, before i post my most killer post, are you absolutly sure human eyes can tell the differance between the new lens and the old at A3 which was my original post?

Mick

Just do it Mick, just do it. And I'm absolutely not sure about anything.

[jrw]

You left out the 135 f/2L. Stupid sharp.

So yes, i know a little about lens's. What do i do now? Lets just say it involves human behaviour.

Mick

Rocco, there could be cases made for many different lenses depending on their usage and style of the user. Have used many different lenses including some primes which are sharper than the zooms I routinely use. The reason I keep coming back to the zooms is that they are delivering sufficient image quality for my purposes while offering versatility that a prime can not. I do have and use primes as well. The ones most frequently used are specialized, like macros, or for specific focal lengths and applications that are outside of the zoom capabilities, no zoom comes close to matching the super teles for instance. While I like sharp details in my images, at some point a lens is sharp enough for its usage and further dollars spent will not make much difference in the photos captured.

Mick, is it true that cats simply enjoy playing with mice?

[Mickw]

Steve, the new gear is better, i absolutly agree it is. The reduction in flare, the improvements in IS noise etc, totallly amazing.

Mick

[Steve U]

Nice images Mick, love the light on that landscape.

[Mickw]

Ive deleted my images etc. Lets end our disagreements as i think i agree with %90 of what we say. Can we be friends? I must go to bed, im a bit tired. Best of luck guys.

Mick

[Steve U]

Ohh. I thought we were.
It was nice light on that arch in the landscape.

[jrw]

Not sure about disagreements, but it certainly has been enlightening to learn something of the process that others use in evaluating new lens offerings.