itw wrote in post #16531267
Originally Posted by TerminalCity View Post...Somehow didn't see that tree in the corner, guess I'll just have to go back and re-shoot!
Hey, don't let me dissuade you from returning for a re-shoot, but I like the tree. It grounds me, tells me where I am and gives me a better sense of what I'm looking at. Beautiful sharp shots !
Happy Trails !
Thank you .
forcefed wrote in post #16531390
Hey I see you have the 17-55 2 8, how does it do with video compared to the stm?
i-G12 wrote in post #16531409
I don't know for sure but probably noisy compared to the STM. You can't hear the STM at all.
Yes, for AF in video the STM is much smoother to focus and practically silent. This came up recently ...
Hermelin wrote in post #16531077
Cool. How do you think the 18-135 STM compares to it? Is there a big difference in IQ?
I think there is; to my mind it's apparent in the subtleties - clarity in high detail areas. In terms of rendering, probably the short tele version of the 70-200 II. And the f/2.8 helps for subject isolation.
Hard to say really if it's a big increase in IQ or just a subjective difference that's appealing to me; but since I bought it, I've only used the 18-135 STM a couple of times (though that's what I reach for when doing video. The 17-55 is not quiet).
That said, between 55 and 135, the 18-135 has it beat .