Guy Mancuso wrote:
I sure would like to know the person i am bashing for using Canon gear. Excuse me i spent 30 k on Canon gear , I would be bashing myself.
Kent BTW i could give a rats tail about my improper English . As long as I can write my name on the back of my clients check than, I will just keep using a spell checker that does not seem to work here.
What grammer checker did you use , remind me not to buy it.
opps - it should have read "who" and not "you"
thanks for correcting me self - oh and I do not use a speel cheaker just me self and me bad tpyeiing
ha ha Good One Guy ( just kidding ya man !!! Lighten up dude )
10DFT wrote:
Actually, I don't agree WRT the 10-22 either - as zooms go, it's a stellar lens in terms of IQ, and really competes well with all the other offerings of its competitors (Tamron, Sigma, Tokina). No, it's not built like a brick outhouse, but that isn't detrimental to most that use it.
I've owned one and tried another and they both had terrible CA on high contrast subjects, windowblinds, tree branches you name it and it had a red fringe. in addition they both vignetted pretty badly which is unbelievable in a 1.6 crop lens. So much for "using the sweet spot" theory. I figured I'd just stick to the 17-40 on my 5D when I need wide and let my 20 take care of the long end.
regards,
Jon
Kmanphoto wrote:
opps - it should have read "who" and not "you"
thanks for correcting me self - oh and I do not use a speel cheaker just me self and me bad tpyeiing
ha ha Good One Guy ( just kidding ya man !!! Lighten up dude )
kman
by the way Guy I really Like your work - keep it up it looks great
and by the way I also cash checks from photography and you are correct about the only thing that counts is the my name at the back of the checks
Guy,
PMA is not a big thing at all. It's just a small show where companies can make a few announcements and that's it. The 30D announcement is perfect for PMA, however:
The year is NOT OVER. There's more coming. Just wait and see. I know you probably have no faith in them now, but, perhaps you'll just have to wait.
BubbaJon wrote:
So much for "using the sweet spot" theory.
There is no sweet spot on an EFS lens. The sweet spot in on a non-EFS lens with a crop body. I wouldn't expect the 10-22 with one UD element to have less CA than a similar 16-35 lens with one UD element on a FF camera. Why would an EFS lens be expected to have less CA?
