Recent content by DoctorBob

This is exactly what I found. I now stick to my 17-55 or my 24mm f1.4 depending on how wide I need. Even at f1.4 though, depending on how far you're comfortable pushing the ISO, indoors at night with dim lighting can still require use of bounce flash so [to the OP] I'd probably invest in a...

You'd maybe lose portability and definitely handholdability for long periods :p

Only if you need the extra stop, otherwise not that much difference bar IS.. and you can get an f4 IS for less than a mk1 2.8 IS, which is lighter, smaller, better IS and better IQ.

Well I'm left rather confused.. I was about to launch into an explanation that EF =/ FF (e.g. Sigma 70-300 DC, which has an EF mount but has an image circle intended for APS-C sensors), and that designed for FF meant they have put sufficient glass in for a FF sensor, and then I read and I'm...

Depends on budget really. The Sigma 120-300 is definitely not a cheap lens as you're obviously aware :p I'd hesitantly recommend the 70-200 f4 L IS & 1.4x converter, although this depends on budget.. and I recommend the IS because it has significantly better IQ than the non-IS. The 70-200 f2.8...

The 17-40 is more expensive, designed for FF since it works with full frame cameras, otherwise it would be e.g. designed for APS-C (which is not a downside but I'm confused at why you're even disputing this), a stop slower and a smaller zoom range. IQ has been covered by squishy. So you gain...

Looks like he's just upset the focal plane :p Wonder where the camera is though on those shots. Use tinyurl to stay within forum rules ;)

Nice analogy :D

That sounds silly. Even if all the parts were destroyed (which is possible), all it is is an excuse to redesign older lenses - they could equally easily resume manufacturing old parts to build the original lenses, surely?

This article would beg to differ:

I don't see any complaints about optical or build quality re the Mk1 24-70. Since I doubt they'd be able to cut back on weight significantly without impacting quality, the only area for them to significantly improve on the Mk1 would be by adding IS, IMO. Agreed that it's a bit silly to put IS...

17-55 all the way on crop. Better zoom range for most situations than either of the 24-x lenses, as fast as the 24-70, IS like the 24-105, optically excellent - best of both worlds - unless you really need the long end. Only thing is it doesn't have weather sealing and can accumulate dust but...

If you're in danger of breaking off an articulated screen you probably shouldn't have nice things ;) a) they're pretty sturdy b) it's not necessarily a case of remembering to fold it back as just because it can be out doesn't mean it has to be c) it's better protected than normal for most...

Go to what you want to photograph and take a photo with the aperture setting as you want, ISO to the lowest, and let the camera handle the shutter speed. Then figure out how much slower you want the shutter speed to be, and voila! - that's how many stops your ND filter needs to be.

If it is the only lens you own then you have nothing to compare it against. How can you say it's perfect?