Awesome, but i bet you $5 its soft as hell...a lens like this is not likely going to be that great optically..the 200/2 is a FAR better lens
Ye of Little Faith Kenji!... Its a Zeiss, its fawking beautiful!
nureality Goldmember 3,611 posts Likes: 1 Joined Jan 2008 More info | Oct 02, 2010 09:45 | #16 KenjiS wrote in post #11018921 Awesome, but i bet you $5 its soft as hell...a lens like this is not likely going to be that great optically..the 200/2 is a FAR better lens Ye of Little Faith Kenji!... Its a Zeiss, its fawking beautiful! Alan "NuReality" Fronshtein
LOG IN TO REPLY |
rx7speed Goldmember 1,204 posts Joined Jun 2008 More info | Oct 02, 2010 09:56 | #17 KenjiS wrote in post #11018921 Awesome, but i bet you $5 its soft as hell...a lens like this is not likely going to be that great optically..the 200/2 is a FAR better lens so do you have any proof to back it up or are you just assuming digital: 7d 70-200L 2.8 IS MKII, 17-55 2.8 IS
LOG IN TO REPLY |
KenjiS "Holy crap its long!" More info | Oct 02, 2010 10:41 | #18 I admit im assuming, but lenses of such extreme capability are generally NOT that great optically... Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
LOG IN TO REPLY |
rx7speed Goldmember 1,204 posts Joined Jun 2008 More info | Oct 02, 2010 13:44 | #19 I can agree with you but I would also imagine it wasn't designed for perfect spot on top notch optical sharpness. I would say doing a 1.3 at 200mm they were going for something very much different but doesn't mean that it can't be sharp still though digital: 7d 70-200L 2.8 IS MKII, 17-55 2.8 IS
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TheRan Goldmember 1,555 posts Likes: 2 Joined Jan 2010 Location: Hertford, England More info | Oct 02, 2010 15:14 | #20 Well on that Hassy the field of view has got to be closer to a 135mm on full frame, isn't that a common head and shoulders portrait focal length?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
KenjiS "Holy crap its long!" More info | Oct 02, 2010 15:15 | #21 The Ran wrote in post #11021215 Well on that Hassy the field of view has got to be closer to a 135mm on full frame, isn't that a common head and shoulders portrait focal length? Yes, its probubly more like a 135mm f/0.95 in terms of 35mm Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Oct 02, 2010 15:27 | #22 The Ran wrote in post #11016967 Holy ****, chuck a 2x TC on that and you've got a 500mm f/2.8, and a short one at that. I wish I were a millionaire. You can already get that from Sigma for a mere 28,000. The only upside to the other is that it would take less space in your Gulfstream V.
Stuff and things
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 ANebinger 1234 guests, 149 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||