Hmm....what lens next. That's a good question...
I think the Canon TS-E 17mm L might be at the top of my list. I've also considered the TS-E 24mm lens, but I have a feeling I'd get a lot of use out of the wider angle of view of the 17mm version. Though being extra careful with that front element would be a pain.
Oh yes.....I forgot about thatOriginally Posted by DavidEccleston
Joel, good news. You can ignore the D800, there is a D810 now.
I assume for a dedicated landscape system?Oh yes.....I forgot about that
Why not just spend a couple of grand more on the Pentax 645
Actually I would want the resolving power for both birds and landscapes.I assume for a dedicated landscape system?
Why not just spend a couple of grand more on the Pentax 645
If I could get enough focal length for my birds too I would strongly consider the 645Z (0.78 crop factor)
I would want a superb performing 800mm medium format format lens. They make a 560mm but I cannot find much information about it's resolving power.
Apparently there is no viable way to adapt canon lenses due to the diameter and also the distance from the sensor being so different.
Last edited by Joel Eade; 09-18-2014 at 05:14 PM.
Next up for me is the TS-E 17mm f/4L. After that, probably the 300mm f/2.8L IS II...unless Canon tempts me with something else first!
Hi everyone,
I'm looking into buying either an EF 300 f/2.8L IS II or the new EF 400 f/4 DO ID II with an EF 1.4X III.
Love the 300 with it's wide aperture but the 400 is lighter and longer but I have read a lot of bad reviews of the old 400 DO.
I have not yet made my choice.
AB
Which do you think would be more useful...an extra stop of light or a 33% longer focal length? The weight difference isn't much. May want to wait for Bryan et al. to review the 400 DO II, but looking at Canon's MTF charts the MkII is a big improvement over the original 400 DO.
Hi,
I will definitely wait for reviews but the more I think about it the 400 with it's longer focal lenght and weight saving (around 1 lbs) is more attractive to me.
Also I have the EF 70-200 f/2.8 if I need the fast aperture.
Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar is definitely next - I've been using my wife's Canon 100/2.8L IS Macro too much, and I have a soft spot for the Z100M.
After that, probably the new-model 100-400, the new-model 24-70/2.8 (shifting my existing one to remote duty), and the 16-35/4IS (then definitely selling our EF-S 10-22, and possibly selling our 16-35/2.8II or at least shifting it to remote duty).
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
So many lenses, so little disposable income. ! Haha...
I'm torn, I've felt that I needed a long reach zoom for a while the 100-400 + extenders were looking like the compromise with AF to 400 but manual reach to 800 for slow moving stuff like ships at sea etc... Would I keep my 70-300L though.... The Tamron 150-600 opened my eyes, the Sigma 150-600 is likely to excite more but I've a fear of 3rd party glass... A Canon 500 f5.6 prime for £1500 would probably make me happy though.
However, I've been using my Lensbaby Fisheye much more recently so the 8-15 is perhaps looking more likely as my next, but then I've a desire still for a 35mm, do I go for a not much better than my 24-70 2.8 II 35 2.0 IS or the getting old and huge 35 1.4 ? But then the 85mm... The headache !!!
Last up, come on Canon, I'm ready for better standard zoom for my EOS-M - either a 15-85 or a shorter range pancake will be good thank you ;-)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote