Da lensa which keptcha on da Edga

Okie dokie, here's the first shot I came across. This one was 1/250'', ISO 100, f/5. I'm so confident in this lens, it wouldn't matter which shot I posted from it..it'd be spectacular (disregarding shot subject matter )

Here's the full one:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

In case anyone asks for one that's completely untouched, here's another. Got the lens late at night, and this was a test shot just to see the sharpness. My mother, holding one of our chihuahuas.

BTW, this was no flash, at f/1.4 wide open, in near darkness. 20D, neutral parameters.

Full image:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Yup, good capture, good image, no doubt. However, the 24-70 and a few other good lenses should yield a comparable quality at f/5.6.....that's a sweet spot for so many lenses.
Now, you shoot that baby at f/1.4 or f/1.6 and then you'll see if you got your money's worth.

If one does a good job up front with exposure, WB, focusing, camera stability, framing, etc., then any subsequent image tweaking is often superfluous, right ?

f/1.4, ya say? check my last post.

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2000792
In case anyone asks for one that's completely untouched, here's another. Got the lens late at night, and this was a test shot just to see the sharpness. My mother, holding one of our chihuahuas.

BTW, this was no flash, at f/1.4 wide open, in near darkness. 20D, neutral parameters.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE 35MM F/1.4L, WIDE OPEN AT F/1.4. I'd call this lens a keeper.

Well, you are ahead of me, a good wide open shot that is. In fact. I like that shot a lot, never mind the lens "sharpness".

swear to god I didn't do a single thing to it, too. (other than resizing) I was very impressed.

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2000811
swear to god I didn't do a single thing to it, too. (other than resizing) I was very impressed.

Well, when one does their camera/lens-work just right, that's what often happens.

70-200 2.8 IS USM.

Just can't justify the price tag and don't think I would get enough use out of it. in fact my Sigma 70-200 spends a fair bit of time sleeping at home. Yet that lens just keeps calling me....

Lightstream wrote in post #2001515
70-200 2.8 IS USM.

Just can't justify the price tag and don't think I would get enough use out of it. in fact my Sigma 70-200 spends a fair bit of time sleeping at home. Yet that lens just keeps calling me....

I think your hesitation is understandable. Da Zoom is an excellent optical device, yet it does not get used often by many owners....it's FL range is a
bit awkward....too short for wildlife, too long for just about everything else (perhaps the court sports?)

135L

lensview wrote in post #2002223
I think your hesitation is understandable. Da Zoom is an excellent optical device, yet it does not get used often by many owners....it's FL range is a
bit awkward....too short for wildlife, too long for just about everything else (perhaps the court sports?)

That's what I'm thinking. My shooting style doesn't really call for it. It's $400 more expensive than my most expensive lens (24-105 f/4L) but I had no hesitation plowing the cash into the 24-105 because I knew I'd get some serious mileage out of it, and I do. It's the one-lens-do-it-all solution for me. If I used the Big White as much, I'd have no qualms about the price tag.

Lightstream wrote in post #2005593
That's what I'm thinking. My shooting style doesn't really call for it. It's $400 more expensive than my most expensive lens (24-105 f/4L) but I had no hesitation plowing the cash into the 24-105 because I knew I'd get some serious mileage out of it, and I do. It's the one-lens-do-it-all solution for me. If I used the Big White as much, I'd have no qualms about the price tag.

I took a look at your gear list....I think you are very well provisioned as you are. (That 300 f/4 is your main weapon, I suppose.) If you need a 70-200 zoom once in a blue moon, you've got the Sigma. So, might as well close the book on Da Zoom. Now, if you crave a hi IQ 200mm, then there is only one place to go (rationally, that is): EF 200mm f/2.8L USM.

I have dismissed the 24-105 in a similar way.....really do not need it, does not bring anything new to the table, neither performance-wise nor the FL range.

funny thread title

The 100-400L. I was at least moderately happy until I tried one! I've just got to unload some of my medium format gear on Ebay and I'll have it....its tough letting go...

lensview wrote in post #2005653
I took a look at your gear list....I think you are very well provisioned as you are. (That 300 f/4 is your main weapon, I suppose.) If you need a 70-200 zoom once in a blue moon, you've got the Sigma. So, might as well close the book on Da Zoom. Now, if you crave a hi IQ 200mm, then there is only one place to go (rationally, that is): EF 200mm f/2.8L USM.

I have dismissed the 24-105 in a similar way.....really do not need it, does not bring anything new to the table, neither performance-wise nor the FL range.

That's what I was thinking. I got a very good deal on both the 300 f/4L and the Sigma, so I don't feel bad about the Sigma being called upon only when it's needed. The 300 is indeed my long reach tele, because the stuff I shoot is either usually within the 24-105's range, or WAAAAAY out of range when I am stacking a TC, 300/4L, and a 350D to get 720mm! It's really all about what one shoots and what one needs, my favorite lens could be someone else's paperweight because they don't work in that range.

LUST only comes into it when one starts hankering after other glass even though they don't need it