Living proof that not all L's are 'magic'... what's your nominee?
gorby Senior Member 531 posts Joined Mar 2007 More info | Jun 02, 2008 03:48 | #1 Living proof that not all L's are 'magic'... what's your nominee? 5D MKII | 650D [SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=1]| 350D (RIP)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Super-Nicko Goldmember  1,652 posts Likes: 1 Joined Dec 2006 Location: Perth, Western Australia More info | Jun 02, 2008 04:03 | #2 dunno first hand.... havent owned them all... dont know if anyone has owned them all to say... My gallery - just posted some of my top shots
LOG IN TO REPLY |
xarqi Cream of the Crop  10,435 posts Likes: 2 Joined Oct 2005 Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand More info | Jun 02, 2008 04:06 | #3 17-40??
LOG IN TO REPLY |
WhyFi Goldmember  2,774 posts Gallery: 246 photos Best ofs: 1 Likes: 845 Joined Apr 2008 Location: I got a castle in Brooklyn, that's where I dwell. More info | Jun 02, 2008 05:09 | #4 gorby wrote in post #5641264  Living proof that not all L's are 'magic'... what's your nominee? Great subject Bill is my name - I'm the most wanted man on my island, except I'm not on my island, of course. More's the pity.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ObCom Senior Member 697 posts Joined Jun 2008 Location: UK More info | Jun 02, 2008 05:13 | #5 xarqi wrote in post #5641306 17-40?? Hi, "To look is to forget the name of the things you are seeing" Paul Valery
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cdifoto Don't get pissy with me  34,108 posts Likes: 55 Joined Dec 2005 More info | Jun 02, 2008 05:23 | #6 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L and/or 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS most likely. They're ~10x jack of all trades lenses with distortions and high price tags, but they aren't bad per se. No lens can be great at everything. Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Molnies Senior Member 277 posts Joined Mar 2008 Location: West Coast, Sweden More info | Jun 02, 2008 05:26 | #7 Last time this was discussed here I do believe that the 50 f/1.2L and the 17-35 f/2.8L were the two "leaders". Fredrik — Portfolio
LOG IN TO REPLY |
The_Camera_Poser Goldmember 3,012 posts Likes: 1 Joined Dec 2006 More info | Jun 02, 2008 05:34 | #8  Permanent banFrom reading, I'd agree with Molnies. 50/1.2 seems to have some problems.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Boucher Goldmember  1,455 posts Likes: 1 Joined May 2007 Location: Canberra, Australia More info | Pretty much cdifoto said. Josh Boucher | Flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
PAFC2004 Goldmember  1,084 posts Joined Mar 2006 Location: Adelaide, Australia More info |
xarqi Cream of the Crop 10,435 posts Likes: 2 Joined Oct 2005 Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand More info | Jun 02, 2008 05:46 | #11 Ob Com wrote in post #5641435 Hi, I'm interested in just this lens. What do you feel are its failings please? thnx "Failings" is probably a little strong; "relative weaknesses" might be more accurate. The double "?" on my post means I'm not very confident about this, and I've had almost no direct experience with this lens, but from what I hear and read, it could be the weakest of the current L lenses. Perhaps its biggest shortcoming is that at f/4 it is quite slow for a lens in this focal length range. Other weaknesses are some corner softness, barrel distortion and vignetting at 17 mm (particularly on FF bodies).
LOG IN TO REPLY |
xarqi Cream of the Crop 10,435 posts Likes: 2 Joined Oct 2005 Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand More info | Jun 02, 2008 05:47 | #12 PAFC2004 wrote in post #5641500 Whoever suggested the 17-40L... what are you on? I'm on my computer, what are you on?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cdifoto Don't get pissy with me 34,108 posts Likes: 55 Joined Dec 2005 More info | Jun 02, 2008 05:47 | #13 The 17-40 is far from Canon's worst L. Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here
LOG IN TO REPLY |
timnosenzo Cream of the Crop 8,833 posts Likes: 14 Joined Sep 2005 Location: CT More info | Jun 02, 2008 05:48 | #14 PAFC2004 wrote in post #5641500 Whoever suggested the 17-40L... what are you on? I agree, I've had 2 of these lenses and I'd say they are among the biggest value in the L lineup, along with the 70-200 f/4L (non-IS version). connecticut wedding photographer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
xarqi Cream of the Crop 10,435 posts Likes: 2 Joined Oct 2005 Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand More info | Jun 02, 2008 05:50 | #15 timnosenzo wrote in post #5641512 I agree, I've had 2 of these lenses and I'd say they are among the biggest value in the L lineup, along with the 70-200 f/4L (non-IS version). Who mentioned value?
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 was a spammer, and banned as such! 1832 guests, 87 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
