Pulls jaw off floor, stops shaking head, you are da master, those are great shots Peter...and with a 40D, hmmm, 15mm fisheye...dementia may have set in before I purchase one
StillFingerz wrote:
Pulls jaw off floor, stops shaking head, you are da master, those are great shots Peter...and with a 40D, hmmm, 15mm fisheye...dementia may have set in before I purchase one
Glad you like those, Jerry. The old 15 FE is a phenomenally sharp lens, at least my copy is.
That little ancient lens is the main reason I haven't been interested in 14L nor 8-15L.
The little buzzy one is a veritable treasure of a lens.
PetKal wrote:
Glad you like those, Jerry. The old 15 FE is a phenomenally sharp lens, at least my copy is.
That little ancient lens is the main reason I haven't been interested in 14L nor 8-15L.
The little buzzy one is a veritable treasure of a lens.
I'm doomed for sure now, when my budget gets bigger, just looked at the 8-15, it would make a great addition to my f4L zooms
And, I'm not even going to look at your postings on the 200-400 f4L IS, knowing you will get one and go BIFing with it...if I do look it could be white jacket time
PetKal wrote:
Glad you like those, Jerry. The old 15 FE is a phenomenally sharp lens, at least my copy is.
That little ancient lens is the main reason I haven't been interested in 14L nor 8-15L.
The little buzzy one is a veritable treasure of a lens.
Great fishy bird shots Peter. My 15 FE is in the same condition as yours. it is a quality lens. I can understand your sentiment re 14 and 8-15 with the quality of 15 FE,.... but to help you move to Dimentia your really need a lens capable of circular fisheye shots and and rectlinear super wide 14 even if you only use them once a century.
Just thinned the herd down to 4 in anticipation of adding 200-400L. Of course, an official decision on that purchase will have to wait until the obligatory review, courtesy of the OP .
ben egbert wrote:
14 samyang, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 17TSE. But I just sold a 35L, 50 Zeiss 500f4 and 17-40. I am going backwards.
I don't see a lot of redundancy here and I am thinking about a 300 or 400 for occasional wildlife.
Ben, I've the 300 f4L IS, it's quite nice, I use it with a 1.4x for some extra reach, IQ is ok but AF does slow a bit. When I look thru LR, it seems I use the bare 300 most of the time and it's mostly for portraits/head shots and; this may seem odd, but it's used even more with extension tubes for close-up work.
I've found the 70-200 w/1.4x a good combo, and wish I had gone for the 400 f5.6L instead, the extra reach would be much better for the surfing and drag racing I like to shoot. The only downside to the 400; if you can call it that, is the lack of IS...if you're a tripod user then it's a no brainer, would've been my pick over the 300.
Guess I'll just have to struggle with both one day
I am just a humble hacker (8), but may be a "know it all" soon (planning to buy a kit for my wife, which I may occasionally "borrow" -- does wife's gear count? Gray area here..)
Anyhow, there are actually 9 people with more than 30 lenses?! What, each of you own a lens rental outfit?
StillFingerz wrote:
I'm doomed for sure now, when my budget gets bigger, just looked at the 8-15, it would make a great addition to my f4L zooms
And, I'm not even going to look at your postings on the 200-400 f4L IS, knowing you will get one and go BIFing with it...if I do look it could be white jacket time
Jerry, I would seriously suggest you consider 15 FE instead of 8-15L. I mean it.
As far as 200-400L is concerned, that lens would have to be truly an excellent performer. I could possibly accept its high (postulated) 4 kg weight, I could perhaps make my wife swallow its excessive (postulated) price, but if the IQ and AF responsiveness are not at least on the level of 500 f/4 IS MkI, then that will not be a lens for me.
We just need to remember that 100-400 is still a very good lens albeit one stop slower, but you can have it used for 10% of the anticipated new 200-400L price.
burningheart wrote:
.... but to help you move to Dimentia your really need a lens capable of circular fisheye shots and and rectlinear super wide 14 even if you only use them once a century.
You are helping me awlright, Robert.
The worst thing of all is that you are partially right.
PetKal wrote:
Jerry, I would seriously suggest you consider 15 FE instead of 8-15L. I mean it.
As far as 200-400L is concerned, that lens would have to be truly an excellent performer. I could possibly accept its high (postulated) 4 kg weight, I could perhaps make my wife swallow its excessive (postulated) price, but if the IQ and AF responsiveness are not at least on the level of 500 f/4 IS MkI, then that will not be a lens for me.
We just need to remember that 100-400 is still a very good lens albeit one stop slower, but you can have it used for 10% of the anticipated new 200-400L price.
Peter, the 15mm is nearly $500 cheaper, I'll def look more closely, it wouldn't be used all that much, more a nice to have. Understood regarding the 200-400, IQ/AF in your type of shooting are 'must haves', and it's ugly high pricing would be nasty.
I keep seeing folks ref the 100-400, I'm just not a big push-pull fan, now if Canon in their wisdom were to upgrade it to a two ring style with the newer hybrid IS...I might bite...but I'm guessin it would be around $2k or more
mitesh wrote:
Just thinned the herd down to 4 in anticipation of adding 200-400L. Of course, an official decision on that purchase will have to wait until the obligatory review, courtesy of the OP .
Mitesh, I am afraid that you and I will both have to wait for Roland ("Netexpress") to evaluate his 200-400L, because that is surely one lens I wouldn't buy based on a kiss and a promise from Canon.
PetKal wrote:
Mitesh, I am afraid that you and I will both have to wait for Roland ("Netexpress") to evaluate his 200-400L, because that is surely one lens I wouldn't buy based on a kiss and a promise from Canon.
If past performance is indicative of future results, not only will we get an early hands-on from Roland, but he will have procured several copies and will have conducted a detailed analysis of copy variation by dealer.
StillFingerz wrote:
I keep seeing folks ref the 100-400, I'm just not a big push-pull fan, now if Canon in their wisdom were to upgrade it to a two ring style with the newer hybrid IS...I might bite...but I'm guessin it would be around $2k or more
The other option, if you must have a zoom, is 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII + 2xTC MkIII. Pretty good IQ at 400mm. However, that is a relatively pricey option.
If you can forget about zooming, then 400 f/5.6 prime simplifies and cheapens significantly your access to 400mm FL. Moreover, it will give you better IQ than those zoom options, provided you can steady the lens well enough.
) because I do not have the lens required for that)
The old 15 FE is a phenomenally sharp lens, at least my copy is.