Ok, just for fun.......(or maybe not)....
This image was taken with one of the three lenses being debated........85L, 135L, or the 70-200mm... Any guesses?
BTW, not retouched, (obviously)....just from the file and converted to Jpeg....
gordorad Hatchling 5 posts Joined Mar 2011 More info | Dec 29, 2012 09:15 | #76 Ok, just for fun.......(or maybe not)....
LOG IN TO REPLY |
id10t Senior Member 285 posts Likes: 84 Joined Mar 2012 Location: Boston area More info | Dec 29, 2012 09:22 | #77 My guess would be the 70-200. Last night I picked up the 135L off craigslist for $600 in new condition. I we will see if it meets the same standards as the Zeiss 135 that I had with my Sony. 6D/ 24-105 f4 IS/ 85 f1.8/ 70-300L IS
LOG IN TO REPLY |
drzenitram Senior Member 824 posts Joined Aug 2012 More info | Dec 29, 2012 09:24 | #78 I would also guess the 70-200. | Bodies - 5D Mark II, T2i | Lenses - Helios 44-2, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 85 1.4, Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, Tamron SP AF 1.4x TC | Lights - 430ex ii x2, Random 3rd party strobes
LOG IN TO REPLY |
gordorad Hatchling 5 posts Joined Mar 2011 More info | Dec 29, 2012 10:09 | #79 ok, two guesses thus far......And the reasoning? That might be fun.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
wannabegood Goldmember ![]() 1,709 posts Likes: 5 Joined Jan 2007 Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas More info | Dec 29, 2012 10:20 | #80 Looks like the 70-200 to me as well. Dale
LOG IN TO REPLY |
bobbyz Cream of the Crop 20,506 posts Likes: 3477 Joined Nov 2007 Location: Bay Area, CA More info | Dec 29, 2012 10:22 | #81 Not 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. Most probably 85L or the 135L. Fuji XT-1, 18-55mm
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cdang Senior Member 264 posts Likes: 8 Joined Dec 2011 More info | Dec 29, 2012 10:57 | #82 Hmmm 135 is my best calculated opinion.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
id10t Senior Member 285 posts Likes: 84 Joined Mar 2012 Location: Boston area More info | Dec 29, 2012 11:05 | #83 It's sharp enough for a zoom and not quite as sharp as a prime. 6D/ 24-105 f4 IS/ 85 f1.8/ 70-300L IS
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cdang Senior Member 264 posts Likes: 8 Joined Dec 2011 More info | Dec 29, 2012 11:12 | #84 It's definitely not the 85L. It's either the 135 or 70-200. Either way, it's too hard to tell which it is from that shot. But I'll still go with the 135.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
taemo Goldmember 1,243 posts Likes: 7 Joined Sep 2011 Location: Calgary, AB More info | Dec 29, 2012 11:14 | #85 the point is, there's no golden lens that will please everyone. earldieta.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
wannabegood Goldmember ![]() 1,709 posts Likes: 5 Joined Jan 2007 Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas More info | Dec 29, 2012 11:17 | #86 Might not want to run this too long as you kinda are hijackin the op thread with it, even if it does/does not prove his point. Dale
LOG IN TO REPLY |
aperturebystevedavis Mostly Lurking ![]() 14 posts Joined Dec 2012 More info | Dec 29, 2012 11:55 | #87 Just joined your forum today but have been a photographer and owned Canon since 1988. I got back into the business after a 15 year hiatus and repurchased all new stuff including the 135mm. I shoot a lot of high school sports and got the 135 specifically for indoor basketball. For this application the 135 really shines even over the 70-200 2.8L II IS that I own and love. The 135 focuses a tad faste for bball over the 70-200 and bought the 135 over the 85 L only cuz I had heard the 85 focus speed was a touch slower and for hoops that is critical. I like to classify the 135 like almost all L's as "crazy sharp" (2) 1DX's, 14/2.8 L, 16-35/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L II, 100/2.8L macro, 135/2L, 400/2.8L II, 600/4L II, 1.4X III, 2X III
LOG IN TO REPLY |
aperturebystevedavis Mostly Lurking ![]() 14 posts Joined Dec 2012 More info | Here are a couple of game images from last week. Shot with 1DX and the 135/2.0, 1000 @ 2.8 @ ISO 8000. The 135 is sharp but what continues to absolutely amaze me is how spectacular the high ISO looks on the 1DX. My previous 40D @ ISO 1600 was equivalent to the 1DX over ISO 10,000. In a well lit gymnasium it simply blows me away. (2) 1DX's, 14/2.8 L, 16-35/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L II, 100/2.8L macro, 135/2L, 400/2.8L II, 600/4L II, 1.4X III, 2X III
LOG IN TO REPLY |
aperturebystevedavis Mostly Lurking ![]() 14 posts Joined Dec 2012 More info | Not to get off of the subject but the other L that I can't get enough of, even for indoor basketball, is the 400 2.8L II. (2) 1DX's, 14/2.8 L, 16-35/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L II, 100/2.8L macro, 135/2L, 400/2.8L II, 600/4L II, 1.4X III, 2X III
LOG IN TO REPLY |
gordorad Hatchling 5 posts Joined Mar 2011 More info | Dec 29, 2012 12:57 | #90 wannabegood wrote in post #15420126 ![]() Might not want to run this too long as you kinda are hijackin the op thread with it, even if it does/does not prove his point.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
Latest registered member is LillyBates 418 guests, 225 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |