andrikos Goldmember  1,905 posts Likes: 9 Joined Sep 2008 Location: Stuttgart, Germany More info | Dec 28, 2013 15:57 | #31 16-20? Think new Canon lenses are overpriced? Lots (and lots) of data will set you free!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
lsquare Goldmember 1,933 posts Likes: 2 Joined Apr 2008 More info | Dec 28, 2013 16:00 | #32 Osiriz wrote in post #16539017  Yes!! Bring it  Tele lenses.. Really? As if there aren't already a gazillion of tele lenses available for Canon. There is a wide angle void in Canon's lineup that needs to be filled. The 17-40L and 16-35L are bad jokes in terms of sharpness. There was a rumour of a Canon 16-50mm f/4 lens thanks to a recent patent filing. I'd be excited if that lens is ever announced by Canon.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
lsquare Goldmember 1,933 posts Likes: 2 Joined Apr 2008 More info | Dec 28, 2013 16:01 | #33 andrikos wrote in post #16560167 16-20? What? Is that a misprint? I bet they meant to type 16-28 and the 2 little circles of the 8 became a single big one for a zero... 16-20 makes no sense. It combines the complexity and design compromises of a zoom lens without its single biggest benefit: zooming. Horizontal view for FF is 96.7 degrees at 16mm and 84 degrees at 20mm. You can achieve that by taking half a step forward. The zoom range is so small that it was probably not that complex to begin with. Even a little zoom range is better than nothing.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
RobDickinson Goldmember More info | Dec 28, 2013 16:01 | #34 Well I would love this lens and this zoom range ! www.HeroWorkshops.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dian11 Hatchling 3 posts Joined Jan 2014 More info | Jan 08, 2014 06:04 | #35 Sigma really need to update their tele lenses and are messing about with a 1.25x zoom? daily deals
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DocFrankenstein Cream of the Crop  12,324 posts Likes: 13 Joined Apr 2004 Location: where the buffalo roam More info | Jan 08, 2014 06:48 | #36 dian11 wrote in post #16587660 Sigma really need to update their tele lenses and are messing about with a 1.25x zoom? What's wrong with their tele lenses? National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jan 08, 2014 14:17 | #37 If think 16-50 f/4 canon rumor is more tempting to me; though I don't currently do any star photography... [6D]
LOG IN TO REPLY |
xanctum Senior Member 499 posts Likes: 23 Joined Nov 2010 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand More info | Jan 08, 2014 14:38 | #38 This lens would suit me so well with my band photography. I am currently wanting the Tokina for the range, 2.8, IQ and price over the canon. But I would certainly get this over the Tokina if it came out soon and wasn't 9 gabillion dollars. Canon 5D3 | Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC | Σ 35 ART | Σ 85mm F1.4 | Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC | Canon 580EX II | YN568EX II Flash
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nick3434 Goldmember  More info | Jan 08, 2014 18:40 | #39 DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16539072 I think it's a good one. Zooming from 50 to 60mm is nothing. But from 16 to 20 the difference is huge. If you couple it with a standard zoom, the kit becomes really flexible. THIS! If it is sharp, and 2.0.....and under $850.....sounds good to me. Everything is relative.
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 ealarcon 892 guests, 153 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
(24Lii, sigma 50A, 135L), and for the other ends of the spectrum, sigmaEX 14mm2.8 and sigmaEX 100-300F4.