Yakim Peled wrote:
Yes, but it won't help WRT AF speed and shallow DoF.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Theoretically a FF body will have over twice the high-ISO and DoF performance compared to a 1.6x APS-C, so the 24-104 and a FF of the same generation should be roughly equivalent to the 17-55.
Sp12 wrote:
Theoretically a FF body will have over twice the high-ISO and DoF performance compared to a 1.6x APS-C, so the 24-104 and a FF of the same generation should be roughly equivalent to the 17-55.
I am shooting for 20 years or so and although I am not a pro gone is the time which I settled for inferior products. I want FF and good AF system and plenty of useful features and a constant f/2.8 aperture on my main lens and good IQ and stabilization. The 7D + 17-55/2.8 IS gave me all these save from FF and it served me well for 2.5 years. Now - assuming IQ will be very good - the 5D3 + 24-70/2.8 VC could be the step-up I was looking for.
okay, here is my brief review of the lens (i only had about an hour to play with it)
AF Speed = VERY FAST, honestly i think it's faster than Canon, or same. VERY SILENT too
Sharpness = it's SHARP at 2.8, slightly sharper than average Canon IMO
Vignetting = it's HEAVY at 2.8 in 70 mm. (nothing you can't fix in post anyway)
Build = very well built, however Canon one feels tougher
VC(Image Stabilization) = Spot ON! with it on, i think i can shoot 3 stops down at 70mm, and 4 stops down at 24mm
Overall, other than heavy vignetting, I would use this lens over the original.
duet wrote:
okay, here is my brief review of the lens (i only had about an hour to play with it)
AF Speed = VERY FAST, honestly i think it's faster than Canon, or same. VERY SILENT too
Sharpness = it's SHARP at 2.8, slightly sharper than average Canon IMO
Vignetting = it's HEAVY at 2.8 in 70 mm. (nothing you can't fix in post anyway)
Build = very well built, however Canon one feels tougher
VC(Image Stabilization) = Spot ON! with it on, i think i can shoot 3 stops down at 70mm, and 4 stops down at 24mm
Overall, other than heavy vignetting, I would use this lens over the original. ...Show more →
How are the color and microcontrast compared to the Canon?
I got mine today, and had just a very short time to experiment. So far, I don't think I'm overly impressed. Within the next week I should have a chance to do some direct comparisons with some other lenses using a tripod and MLU. I'll probably post some examples. I'm thinking of comparing at f2.8 - f11 to the Tokina 16-28 at 24 & 28, the 24L II, the Zeiss 35 f2 (the only 35 I have), the 50L, and maybe the 70-200 f4L IS and 70-200 f2.8L IS II at 70. That should tell the tale about how this thing performs. Not that I'm expecting or wanting it to equal those other lenses, but direct comparisons will be revealing.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I am shooting for 20 years or so and although I am not a pro gone is the time which I settled for inferior products. I want FF and good AF system and plenty of useful features and a constant f/2.8 aperture on my main lens and good IQ and stabilization. The 7D + 17-55/2.8 IS gave me all these save from FF and it served me well for 2.5 years. Now - assuming IQ will be very good - the 5D3 + 24-70/2.8 VC could be the step-up I was looking for.
RobDickinson wrote:
But constant f4 on a full frame is the same or better than constant f2.8 on a crop.
A 24-70f2.8 converted to a crop would be a 15-45f2.0
I highlighted the issues that were problematic in the 5D and 5D2. It's not just the constant 2.8 aperture. It's many things. The aperture is just one of them. I had to make a compromise somewhere and the 7D + 17-55/2.8 IS was the combo I chose that gives me the least heartaches.
