|
Chicago panoramas and other shots (LOTS) (pg. 30)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rasidel Slika
well from the sound of it they are charging more than Canon L for their lenses. thats kinda nuts. |
Not for all of them, but quite a few yeah. I was looking at their 70-400mm, and it's cheaper than Canon's 100-400mm. It's also superior in optical quality by quite a bit.
In fact it was that lens alone that made my gf start thinking of buying Sony gear :p |
|
|
| Rasidel Slika |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
Not for all of them, but quite a few yeah. I was looking at their 70-400mm, and it's cheaper than Canon's 100-400mm. It's also superior in optical quality by quite a bit.
In fact it was that lens alone that made my gf start thinking of buying Sony gear :p |
superior based on? link? :clown: |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rasidel Slika
superior based on? link? :clown: |
Superior based on the resolution charts etc. from photozone.de's review of both lenses.
Its autofocus isn't as fast/accurate as Canon's USM (which bothered me since we do bird photography) but overall it's a kick-ass lens (you can read further back in this thread to see my many issues with Canon's 100-400mm)
Edit: Here's the link to their review:
http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-...-sony_70400_456 |
|
|
| Rasidel Slika |
it just dawned on me that its 70-400. that is awesome! and if its better than Canon L glass. damn.
btw I bought a Tamron 28-300 last week - I am lovin it!
 |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rasidel Slika
it just dawned on me that its 70-400. that is awesome! and if its better than Canon L glass. damn.
btw I bought a Tamron 28-300 last week - I am lovin it! |
Yeah, it's a sick lens alright.
Tamron make some damn nice lenses. I had their 17-35mm f2.8 for about a year and a half, and loved it. Sold it recently to buy Canon's EFS 10-22mm though, since we both have APS-C cameras. And it's awesome :crazy: |
|
|
| Rasidel Slika |
cool - the next two things I really want are a good macro (something like 100 or 180mm) and a good wide (10 would be nice).
another shot with the Tamron, at 28mm
 |
|
|
| Rasidel Slika |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
Superior based on the resolution charts etc. from photozone.de's review of both lenses.
Its autofocus isn't as fast/accurate as Canon's USM (which bothered me since we do bird photography) but overall it's a kick-ass lens (you can read further back in this thread to see my many issues with Canon's 100-400mm)
Edit: Here's the link to their review:
http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-...-sony_70400_456 |
so uh.. I shared this link with the photo guru and here is what he said..
| quote: | | Unfortunately, you can't compare lenses like that. The Photozone tests are really a whole-system test because they rely on the camera to capture a test image, then they perform their analysis on it. If they change their default body, the lens results will change. The only way you'd be able to compare a Sony lens to a Canon is by changing the mount over so you can use the same body. That, or they could buy a multi-million dollar light bench to do their testing. :D |
|
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rasidel Slika
cool - the next two things I really want are a good macro (something like 100 or 180mm) and a good wide (10 would be nice).
another shot with the Tamron, at 28mm
|
Nice pic. Lol at 'Stop and Drink Liquor House'. Subtle :p
Technically, the 10-22mm performs as a 16-35mm on my 50D. Still nice and wide though!
And I can highly recommend the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro. I think it's probably the sharpest lens I own. Just incredible. I heard that the mark II version of it will have IS too, but that may just be a rumour. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rasidel Slika
so uh.. I shared this link with the photo guru and here is what he said.. |
Yeah, that's a very valid point, I hadn't really considered that. |
|
|
| Rasidel Slika |
above shot, at 300mm
 |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
Here's a little green jumping spider shot with the 100mm macro. He's about 1cm in size :eek:
 |
|
|
| Rasidel Slika |
damn.. i need that!
(the lens) |
|
|
|
|
