I would suggest scrapping them both and getting a 100-400 IS. For street shots it will get you in close and personal without contaminating the mood. But I don't think it will fit your iPone.
I would suggest scrapping them both and getting a 100-400 IS. For street shots it will get you in close and personal without contaminating the mood. But I don't think it will fit your iPone.
Ya know it's funny. I wish the damned thing was optically better, and didn't suck in dust like a vacuum, but truth be told, it's one of my most used lenses.
I would suggest scrapping them both and getting a 100-400 IS. For street shots it will get you in close and personal without contaminating the mood. But I don't think it will fit your iPone.
Ya know it's funny. I wish the damned thing was optically better, and didn't suck in dust like a vacuum, but truth be told, it's one of my most used lenses.
I don't know how to tell if there's dust in there. I did a sensor dust shot with it, and with my 24-70, and the specks look the same. You can get amazing bokeh with it. My favourite lens!
I don't know how to tell if there's dust in there. I did a sensor dust shot with it, and with my 24-70, and the specks look the same. You can get amazing bokeh with it. My favourite lens!
It sucks the dust into the camera body, Slippy. It ends up on the sensor. That push-pull zoom is just forcing air around like a bellows or something. Still, I love mine. A lot more now I have the self-cleaning sensor :-)
I don't know how to tell if there's dust in there. I did a sensor dust shot with it, and with my 24-70, and the specks look the same. You can get amazing bokeh with it. My favourite lens!
It sucks the dust into the camera body, Slippy. It ends up on the sensor. That push-pull zoom is just forcing air around like a bellows or something. Still, I love mine. A lot more now I have the self-cleaning sensor :-)
Oh, well that doesn't sound so bad to me. I have no qualms about cleaning my sensors. To be honest, I've been extremely cruel to one of them on several occasions and nothing bad has ever happened.
Regarding "ultrawide", the 17-40 IS an ultrawide on FF: 10mm APS-C = 16mm FF ya know. Anything wider than that is really really extreme. Extremer than anything you've used unless you've mounted a fish. And don't rise to the bait on that one, pls :-))
Regarding "ultrawide", the 17-40 IS an ultrawide on FF: 10mm APS-C = 16mm FF ya know. Anything wider than that is really really extreme. Extremer than anything you've used unless you've mounted a fish. And don't rise to the bait on that one, pls :-))
My 10-20 Sigma on my crop sensor is the same as a 16mm on an FF, I think, and I'd like to go a fair bit wide than that.
Regarding "ultrawide", the 17-40 IS an ultrawide on FF: 10mm APS-C = 16mm FF ya know. Anything wider than that is really really extreme. Extremer than anything you've used unless you've mounted a fish. And don't rise to the bait on that one, pls :-))
My 10-20 Sigma on my crop sensor is the same as a 16mm on an FF, I think, and I'd like to go a fair bit wide than that.
Regarding "ultrawide", the 17-40 IS an ultrawide on FF: 10mm APS-C = 16mm FF ya know. Anything wider than that is really really extreme. Extremer than anything you've used unless you've mounted a fish. And don't rise to the bait on that one, pls :-))
My 10-20 Sigma on my crop sensor is the same as a 16mm on an FF, I think, and I'd like to go a fair bit wide than that.
Regarding "ultrawide", the 17-40 IS an ultrawide on FF: 10mm APS-C = 16mm FF ya know. Anything wider than that is really really extreme. Extremer than anything you've used unless you've mounted a fish. And don't rise to the bait on that one, pls :-))
My 10-20 Sigma on my crop sensor is the same as a 16mm on an FF, I think, and I'd like to go a fair bit wide than that.
Yeah, that's what I said :-)
?? You don't have anything wider than 16 do you?
Huh?
I said to Slippy that the 17-40 IS an ultrawide on FF. Just like 10mm is ultrawide on cropped sensor. He repeated that back at me in such a way as to make it look like he thinks I didn't already say that. So I'm poking fun back at him.
And yeah, I do have a 10-22mm. For the 7D. And NickyB has a 12-24mm that works on FF, and I've used that too :-)
...
And yeah, I do have a 10-22mm. For the 7D. And NickyB has a 12-24mm that works on FF, and I've used that too :-)
And how do you rate the performance / optical quality of the 12-24? I have heard it is generally a bit soft and very soft in the corners. Was that just a report written by someone with a bad copy / uncallibrated lens-camera pairing? Your feelings?
I use the 100mm Macro non IS at work and the 100mm Macro L Is in my kit and I really do not notice very much difference in the image quality overall.
What I do like about the 100mm IS L is its actually lighter than the non IS lens so when you are working off the tripod/monopod the overall combination of your lens and body is lighter.
I'd get the 70-200 f4 nonIS, it's a great lens for the money.
The 100mm macro lenses, I have no experience with. My macro lens was a Sigma 105 f2.8. It was very good, but I didn't shoot enough macros to justify a dedicated lens.
...
And yeah, I do have a 10-22mm. For the 7D. And NickyB has a 12-24mm that works on FF, and I've used that too :-)
And how do you rate the performance / optical quality of the 12-24? I have heard it is generally a bit soft and very soft in the corners. Was that just a report written by someone with a bad copy / uncallibrated lens-camera pairing? Your feelings?
The optics are shit when compared to L series lenses, or any really good modern optics. :)
Still an amazing lens. Nothing else like it.
Having said that - I have a 24x30 of this on aluminum, and the details are really fantastic. Although, admittedly, this was shot on the 50D, so the worst of the corners isn't showing.
I would personally go for the second option. The 70-200 is a fine lens that will give you the tele range you need. And the 100mm non-L is also a well-respected lens.
Going for the 100L makes no sense to me unless your job is taking macros/product photos or you absolutely need the IS.
This site explains why IS L is better then the non version.
There is an offer for brand new IS L at $792 vs the non IS at $579.
SH IS L is also around $747 so I'm tempted by the IS L mainly for the IS.
Still thinking.
... And thank you!
Second hand non-IS is $400. That's quite the premium you are willing to pay for IS.
One thing nobody's mentioned about the IS is it makes it MUCH easier to frame the shot, because the "close-up jitters" are pretty much eliminated in the viewfinder. Really, it's a VERY effective IS system and I'm really glad I have it. I get significantly better image quality from the 100mm than I do from the 24-105@100mm also; the optical quality is that much better, even wide open. Sharpness is not to be believed. Look at this MTF chart (higher is better)
