Breitling65 wrote:
I personally own two 35L's both great on 5D/5D2 and bad on mk III. Sold both. I am sure FM is bigger comunity of mk III/35L owners but how would it change problem that exist for other people and not for you
As I said you migh don't know many other things, that is why google helps lot.
Google brings up nothing, can you give me the search term you used to obtain the results you see? Better yet, if you can, would you mind posting links? If there was a "design limitation" that affected "most users" we would hear about it, especially on FM, yet the only thing I came up with was your single link, which was posted here--that doesn't say much at all.
M Vers wrote:
Google brings up nothing, can you give me the search term you used to obtain the results you see? Better yet, if you can, would you mind posting links? If there was a "design limitation" that affected "most users" we would hear about it, especially on FM, yet the only thing I came up with was your single link, which was posted here--that doesn't say much at all.
I did gave you one link, with posts from some very known respected on POTN/DPReview photographers confirming issues. What else do you need? You don't know their names and that is my problem? Maybe you would you like Jesus personally call to you and confirm? If this issue not happening to you personally to me it means nothing...
Breitling65 wrote:
I did gave you one link, with posts from some very known respected on POTN/DPReview photographers confirming issues. What else do you need? You don't know their names and that is my problem? Maybe you would you like Jesus personally call to you and confirm? If this issue not happening to you personally to me it means nothing...
Good God--Do you even hear what you're saying? You post ONE SINGLE link with a few people complaining of issues (15 posts TOTAL) and you claim google offers more results when in reality it doesn't at all. You claim the lens has "design" issues on modern bodies and that "most" users experience it yet you have absolutely zero evidence to back that claim up. I asked you to provide more links that focus on the issue and you reply with an absolutely asinine comment. If you want to make bold claims like the one you made initially, be ready to back it up with hard, concrete evidence rather than a single minuscule source that includes an irrelevant sample size.
M Vers wrote: Good God--Do you even hear what you're saying? You post ONE SINGLE link with a few people complaining of issues (15 posts TOTAL) and you claim google offers more results when in reality it doesn't at all. You claim the lens has "design" issues on modern bodies and that "most" users experience it yet you have absolutely zero evidence to back that claim up. I asked you to provide more links that focus on the issue and you reply with an absolutely asinine comment. If you want to make bold claims like the one you made initially, be ready to back it up with hard, concrete evidence rather than a single minuscule source that includes an irrelevant sample size. ...Show more →
Again - I provided enough, you need more - look on web. I just did another quick search and here we are:
Instead of always just "upgrading" current lenses (although I can't wait for the new 400 f/2.8L I.S. II lens), I'd like to see some actual NEW focal lengths. Such as a 12-24 or 14-24 f/2.8L lens. Or even a 12-16mm f/2.8L lens, which would be wonderful on the 1.3x crop 1D bodies.
As far as updating lenses go, I'd love to see a 24-70 f/2.8L I.S. lens.
I wouldn't upgrade either my 35L or 135L because I fail to see the reason and I sold my 200L2.8 right when I bought the 70-200 MkII. The latter is even taking the place of my 135L at weddings and events. It's that good. Well, you can't vote in every poll, can you.
Something that no one else has mentioned in this thread so far is that the EF 35/1.4L is not weather sealed. A Mark II version would also bring weather sealing to this lens, just as the EF 24/1.4L II did from the Mark I.
Indeed, none of the three lenses listed in the poll are weather sealed.
but how would it change problem that exist for other people and not for you
Good God--Do you even hear what you're saying? You post ONE SINGLE link with a few people complaining of issues (15 posts TOTAL) and you claim google offers more results when in reality it doesn't at all. You claim the lens has "design" issues on modern bodies and that "most" users experience it yet you have absolutely zero evidence to back that claim up. I asked you to provide more links that focus on the issue and you reply with an absolutely asinine comment. If you want to make bold claims like the one you made initially, be ready to back it up with hard, concrete evidence rather than a single minuscule source that includes an irrelevant sample size.