I am not sure where this thread is heading with all these off topic posts. No EOSfun to me. My contribution on the 85L doesn't seem to belong here, not with a photo of my lovely daughter. So I deleted my post. Sorry guys. Self moderation ;-(
PetKal wrote:
That's interesting because if purple fringing is a major concern, then 85L as the queen of purple fringing is the last lens to get. True enough, 85 f/1.8 has some CA, but that is a child's play compared to what 85L does wide open and all the way to f/2.2.
heh well the 85mm 1.8 probably has it all the way to f/2.8
not fair to compare 1.2 to 1.8
halie wrote:
Think how much money you would lose if you spent that $20,122 after 30 years instead of waiting 60 or 90 years. The cost of buying something would be gianormous.
I'm actually a multi-billionaire a, well, bit off in the future. How? I DIDN'T buy that pack of bubble yum last week. Instead, I put it into stocks and let it keep compounding.
On the downside, a pack of bubble yum now costs a couple trillion dollars. Damn and to think back then I could've easily afforded it.
Whether the lens is worth it or not depends on the one's personal circumstances more than anything. For the blogger and others, it isn't... great!
For others it is. I'm in the latter group. For me this is a specialist lens, like the fisheye, or tilt shift, that one can use to differentiate themselves from others. The look of a wide open 85 L is unique and recognisable.
I no longer own this lens, but like EOSFun I have photos from it which to me are priceless.
Of course. But if the non-masked link points to fredmiranda.com or canonusa.com, the chances of malware are exceedingly low. However, if the non-masked linked points to RussianDiscountPharmacy.com, then I would not click it.
You can't tell everything from a URL but often you can tell enough.
So just copy and paste the link rather than copy-paste to a URL shrinker and then copy-paste to here with extra steps and obfuscation.
If the link contains non-alphanumeric characters, just put it inside the URL tags that Fred Miranda and just about every other forum on the planet provides.
You can hover your mouse over the link and see in the status bar or browser bottom where that goes, but you can't do that with an opaque URL. You can alternatively "copy link location" and paste it into the browser address bar and see where it goes, but you can't do that with an opaque URL.
It's just a little thoughtfulness that is considerate of your dear gentle readers rather than saving a second or two of your own time. ...Show more →
If clicking a link gives you malware, you should brush up on computers, browsers, and phishing. It's not rocket science to avoid malware in a web browser.
h00ligan wrote:
If clicking a link gives you malware, you should brush up on computers, browsers, and phishing. It's not rocket science to avoid malware in a web browser.
Exactly. Ordinary prudence is to avoid clicking on opaque links without thinking two or three times.
h00ligan wrote:
If clicking a link gives you malware, you should brush up on computers, browsers, and phishing. It's not rocket science to avoid malware in a web browser.
In many cases, this is true, but it is actually not always true. There do exist unpatched vulnerabilities and security flaws that, despite any reasonable protective measures by the user, would compromise your system, and all it requires is visiting a malicious link. That said, worrying about a shortened URL is kind of...well, strange. Any given website can be loading content from other sites without your knowledge as part of its page structure. There was an incident some time ago where an ad server inadvertently hosted malicious content that was submitted by one of their customers, which then ended up on presumably "safe" and well-known sites. If you didn't have additional protective measures in place, you would be compromised just by loading the page that displayed the ad.
There are a huge number of compromised machines on the internet, more than you might realize. How else do you think so many spam emails are sent every second of every day? The spammers don't exactly own a supercomputing cluster to do this. They're running a bot network comprised of many thousands of infected machines. And the people who own these machines very often have no idea they're infected, because they think they're safe, or that it's reasonably simple to protect oneself.
h00ligan wrote:
If clicking a link gives you malware, you should brush up on computers, browsers, and phishing. It's not rocket science to avoid malware in a web browser.
Not really. If they hit upon someone you didn;t patch yet or for which a patch is not yet avail to fix they could load it just like that.
If someone posts here a lot they probably aren't looking to send you to a bad link, but what if someone new posts, it's probably fine, but it doesn't have to be and I do see monito's point a bit. It's not the end of the world, but he is hardly the first to suggest fully exposed links be used for anything other than twitter or something where you need the compact links.
wickerprints wrote:
In many cases, this is true, but it is actually not always true. There do exist unpatched vulnerabilities and security flaws that, despite any reasonable protective measures by the user, would compromise your system, and all it requires is visiting a malicious link. That said, worrying about a shortened URL is kind of...well, strange. Any given website can be loading content from other sites without your knowledge as part of its page structure. There was an incident some time ago where an ad server inadvertently hosted malicious content that was submitted by one of their customers, which then ended up on presumably "safe" and well-known sites. If you didn't have additional protective measures in place, you would be compromised just by loading the page that displayed the ad.
There are a huge number of compromised machines on the internet, more than you might realize. How else do you think so many spam emails are sent every second of every day? The spammers don't exactly own a supercomputing cluster to do this. They're running a bot network comprised of many thousands of infected machines. And the people who own these machines very often have no idea they're infected, because they think they're safe, or that it's reasonably simple to protect oneself....Show more →
This thing has obviously rocketed waaaay off topic.....but......I do have to say that I have been using a Windows operating system for many years....since Windows 95 and I have never been infected with a virus or malware that did any damage to any of the PC's I have owned. I have always had anti-virus software installed and updated. But I frequently read about how seemingly easy it is to get infected. As much web browsing as I have done and as much crazy free off-beat software I have installed.......I never had a machine compromised.
The tiny mini small print:
As always, there is no 100% foolproof internet, use at your own risk.
Even fredmiranda.com can be spoofed, be redirected to malicious sites, or injected with malwares. __________ <-------- click ME.... click ME... (just kidding)
It is a fallacy to imply an equivalence between an inability to visually discern the f-numbers at which a pair of photos was taken, and claiming that one lens is just as good as another. In reality, while you may not be able to state that a specific scene was shot at, say, f/1.2 instead of f/1.8, the same scene shot at f/1.2 will always have more blur in out-of-focus areas, and a shallower DOF compared to f/1.8. You might not be able to pick it out, but that's not a meaningful rationale for saying that the f/1.8 lens gives just as much blur as the f/1.2.
wickerprints wrote:
It is a fallacy to imply an equivalence between an inability to visually discern the f-numbers at which a pair of photos was taken, and claiming that one lens is just as good as another. In reality, while you may not be able to state that a specific scene was shot at, say, f/1.2 instead of f/1.8, the same scene shot at f/1.2 will always have more blur in out-of-focus areas, and a shallower DOF compared to f/1.8. You might not be able to pick it out, but that's not a meaningful rationale for saying that the f/1.8 lens gives just as much blur as the f/1.2....Show more →
I think it's amusing that some people compare the $400 EF 85/1.8 and $2100 EF 85L, and think, "why would I pay $1700 more for just one stop additional light and a much heavier lens?" Yet these same people, when asked to consider the $1300 EF 300/4L IS against the $5000 EF 300/2.8L IS (and let's not even mention the $7300 IS II), the price differential there is twice as much as that between the 85/1.8 and 85L, yet you're still only getting one stop more light. But nobody starts threads about how the 300/2.8L IS is a horrible value, or writes stupid blogs about how the $3700 price difference at 8% interest would represent $40,000 over 30 years. Same thing with the 200/2L IS vs. 200/2.8L. You don't see people trashing the faster lens for being a poor value.
Behind it all is the basic human genetic programming, whereby one is compelled to elevate oneself while denigrating the other, thereby attaining an illusion of superiority in order to survive in a society that only issues win and fail labels.
To play it safe, buy both lenses, and whenever the compulsory semi-annual 85L thread comes up, you can take whichever side that appears to be winning.
....