View Single Post
#103
Old 02-25-2013, 05:36 PM
AkumaX AkumaX is offline
L1: Learner
  • Feb 2008
  • 7,434
  • 1,759 AkumaX has a brilliant future
  • 6
Quote from intence01 View Post :
The AF? Yes, the AF on the 5D2 leaves much to be desired. Especially if you've used a 7D (different camera, different target market) which has a VERY nice AF system.

Yes, and supposedly many of Canon's newer lenses focus far better when used with newer bodies such as the 6D.

The problem is, except for the 40mm f2.8, the newer lenses have so far been far pricier than their counterparts (35mm f2, 28mm f2.8, 24-70mm II, etc.)
In real world purposes, how do you think the 7D stacks up against the 6D?

Quote from Excelsius View Post :
No wonder. I was thinking about the cheaper version and didn’t know the difference isn’t just IS: http://www.canon.com/camera-museu...t/2013/02/

50mm almost matches the sharpness of 35 at f/2. Beyond that, 50mm keeps up everywhere except the very edges. I'd say the sharpness differences aren't much [the-digital-picture.com], especially since these are at 100% crop and since the edges at lower apertures are usually in the bokeh region.

So that leaves IS and wider field. Assuming IS gives 2-3 stop advantage, that lens can shoot as slow as 1/5-1/9 hand-held, compared to about 1/50 for the 50mm f/1.4. But the 50 is 1 stop faster for moving objects. I don’t know, given the $800 price tag compared to only $300 for 50mm, to me it doesn’t seem to be worth it. It’s not that much wider than the 50mm. Unless I’m missing something, I should probably get the 50mm and some other focal length later. If it's not possible to shoot a group of 3-5 people inside an apartment with 50mm, then I guess the 35 is an option.

By the way, the stock lens is not nearly as sharp as the 50 1.4. The 40mm STM is sharper, but again not as sharp as the 50mm. Given that 6D cannot use the STM for continuous autofocus, I don’t think that’s a good lens to keep. That would be a good lens for the T4i.

I'm still surprised how the L lenses get beat by regular Canon and even non-Canon lenses. I guess they're not all they're cracked up to be!

Edit: 50mm 1.4 + 70-200mm 4 L [amazon.com] together can cost under $1k, which should be a nice setup.
Too many things to consider Stick Out Tongue I have a Q: though - 35mm f/2 @ 2.8 vs 40mm f/2.8 pancake?

Also, that new 35mm f/2 IS is quite the anomaly.. another thing you might want to consider is the $900 Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (new). That one throws stuff into the mix too...