Sep 17, 2014 09:15 | #1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1dn1CjsuK8 Canon 1DX | EF 17-40 f4L | EF 50 STM | EF 85 f1.8 | EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 17, 2014 10:31 | #2 Far as I know it's L quality just uses a green ring than a red lol. A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
LOG IN TO REPLY |
kingbob734 Senior Member  869 posts Joined Dec 2009 Location: Cheshire, UK More info | Sep 17, 2014 11:32 | #3 |
tkbslc Cream of the Crop 24,604 posts Likes: 45 Joined Nov 2008 Location: Utah, USA More info | Sep 17, 2014 11:42 | #4 DO optics are not quite as sharp and they have uglier bokeh. There's a reason they aren't L designated, even though they are quite good. Taylor
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Palladium Goldmember 3,905 posts Likes: 2 Joined Dec 2005 Location: Not the Left Coast but the Right Coast - USA More info | Sep 17, 2014 11:48 | #5 DJHaze596 wrote in post #17160736  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1dn1CjsuK8 Matt Granger has posted a quick look at the new 400mm DO lens, I'm loving it especially the insane sharpness from it at 20,000 on the 6D. Only downside is the $6800 price.  Has anyone had version 1 and how does it compare to an L lens?Link to one of the Images: http://www.mattgranger.com/images/Canon400f4DO-5.jpg here is the exif of the image linked above
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tkbslc Cream of the Crop 24,604 posts Likes: 45 Joined Nov 2008 Location: Utah, USA More info | Sep 17, 2014 12:08 | #6 F11 and ISO 20,000 for a candid portrait? Taylor
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Palladium Goldmember 3,905 posts Likes: 2 Joined Dec 2005 Location: Not the Left Coast but the Right Coast - USA More info | Sep 17, 2014 12:17 | #7 tkbslc wrote in post #17161122 F11 and ISO 20,000 for a candid portrait? Odd. F4 and 2500 seems a bit more appropriate, but what do I know. That's what I thought...
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 17, 2014 12:37 | #8 tkbslc wrote in post #17161042 DO optics are not quite as sharp and they have uglier bokeh. There's a reason they aren't L designated, even though they are quite good. makes sense, but the picture above and MTF Charts show it's crazy Sharp. Canon 1DX | EF 17-40 f4L | EF 50 STM | EF 85 f1.8 | EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MedicineMan4040 The Magic Johnson of Cameras  More info | Sep 17, 2014 12:49 | #9 ^speaking of the 300 2.8 post Grangers samples/examples I'll have to re-evaluate my 300 2.8 ownership after the 400DOii arrives; to my eye the pic linked to was sharp ENOUGH for me. The high ISO chosen to avoid any possibility of shake? but surely ISO 5000 would even have been overkill....I hope more chime in on those settings, a big curiosity to me. flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 17, 2014 14:40 | #10 DJHaze596 wrote in post #17161201 makes sense, but the picture above and MTF Charts show it's crazy Sharp. http://www.amazon.com …0&linkId=6TNTRNPLCUNXZTHB At this price point, is there any other option that will give equal Sharpness and or range for cheaper? $6800 is crazy high. The only lens that comes to mind is the 300mm f2.8
A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 17, 2014 14:41 | #11 Palladium wrote in post #17161155 That's what I thought... tkbslc wrote in post #17161122 F11 and ISO 20,000 for a candid portrait? Odd. F4 and 2500 seems a bit more appropriate, but what do I know. He's inside with people close. That probably not cropped either. F11 and still look at how thin the DOF is. A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Palladium Goldmember 3,905 posts Likes: 2 Joined Dec 2005 Location: Not the Left Coast but the Right Coast - USA More info | Sep 17, 2014 14:52 | #12 Talley wrote in post #17161433 He's inside with people close. That probably not cropped either. F11 and still look at how thin the DOF is. 400mm and being close DOF is tiny. I understand completely for F11 but I also agree on ISO. Had he done F4 then he would of only had eyelashes in focus. I routinely capture cheerleader action images and portrait images at the minimum focus distance of my 400mm IS at f/2.8 and f/4 and they are "in focus".
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 17, 2014 18:51 | #13 Here's the MTF chart for the v.1  Here's the charts for the v.2 with no, the 1.4x and 2.0 converters    It looks like they have solved the "contrast" issue (i.e. old was max mtf of 0.95. Even with the 2x, the new one has >0.98 all the way at 10 lp/mm and over 0.97 bat 30 lp/mm Can't wait to see some good testing (and unit variation).
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MedicineMan4040 The Magic Johnson of Cameras More info | Sep 17, 2014 23:47 | #14 Looks like green is the new red flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
rwong2k Goldmember  More info | Sep 18, 2014 00:31 | #15 oh wow, this lens is a lot smaller than I thought it would be 5DMK3 + Contax CY Lens
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 semonsters 1485 guests, 138 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
