///M5

I am at a camera segue. Seriously contemplating the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I need the length and speed. Considering it is nearly a $2k investment though I wanted to review my options. Functionally if I sell everything I have and put that towards something else this is the breakdown. (all trending now prices from Ebay). Item Used Price 70D $715 50mm 1.4 $229 17-55 2.8 $540 11-16 2.8 $330 Total $1,814 70-200 IS II $1,655 G Total $3,469 Needless to say that means I can also look at what $3500 buys me in an alternative. That being said, my plan is to demo the 70-200 with Matt as well as just hang out and have some fun. The other demo I will do is on some mirrorless cameras. Looking at what I can get for $3500 really opens up some opportunities. I am concerned about the focus speed, but perhaps a used body now that I upgrade in a year resolves that as they have made huge strides. I was also unaware that they added a viewfinder on the mirrorless bodies. The Fuji 40-150mm 2.8 is a ridiculously great lens. The Oly isn't bad either. Long term this may be a much better choice for me, but I am only guessing from what I have read. Seth - exactly why I said I am open to the Nikon. I currently don't see how putting $3500 into Nikon would net me anything positive over what I have (with the 70-200 2.8 included), but in the mirrorless I am tempted solely based on size and future expansion. I am sure that the manufacturers will focus hardcore on that tech over the SLR.

I just use built in chrome on my phone

I wouldn't hesitate to buy a used 1.8 to get started. Easy enough to sell again.

The quoting is also really fucked up atm in google on Android. Almost unusable.

Was doing it automatically until that last one

Should play some more then.

Should play some more then.

wtf img

24mm and back cap lol https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SphCFILQd7w/maxresdefault.jpg[/img]

If you are truly budget driven the 1.8 is a great buy. Makes kit lenses look like donkey dung, but it is trumped in every way by the 1.4 except sharpness at 1.4 compared to 1.8 which is dumb in particular since the 1.8 can't shoot in 1.4

img or not, that is broke.

This you will not get with the 1.8 http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff492/SeansPhototbucket/Children/May 2016 6 of 9_zpsru0ii9qw.jpg[/img] Sure it isn't "sharp" but sharp is a stupid reason to shop for something. There is a time and place for it, but it is akin to xmax on a sub. Tells very little of the story. You will also notice they didn't test the lenses at f11. That of course would make sense for sharpness, when opting for max bokeh sharp is somewhat irrelevant. Obviously need some semblance of it, but sharpness in a shot like that has as much potential to make it worse as it does to make it better.

Matt summarized the end, but the problem with the article is that it compares the wrong things. -DOF is related to the distance to the target. Long distance, long DOF. Getting a full body shot with a 50mm means you are long ways off. Not the ideal use of the lens. In that case the background is also disproportionately close minimizing bokeh. -The compared 1.2 to 1.4 to 1.8. Should compare 1.2 to 1.2, 1.4 to 1.4 and 1.8 to 1.8. Then they jump to F2 to compare. Almost all lenses are a bit soft shot wide open. Of course the further from center the softer they are (by definition wide open means you are using the whole spherical portion of the optic). Closing that optic down and getting closer to the center of it will ALWAYS sharpen it. That being said more curvature being exposed (1.2 most) will also always give you the best bokeh. -They forgot to worry about chromatic aberration (typically worse wide open) as this is also from the non-center of the lens. The 1.4 is much better than the 1.8 here -They also ignored lens flare. Often with in situ portraits there will be bright lights around you. The 1.4 deals with flare significantly better than the 1.8. -They also did this on a full frame. The 1.4 is completely different on a crop as much of the outer portion isn't used. The whole article is basically crap. Problem with a ton of them on the net. Almost like they expect their readers to not think. Drives me nuts.

It was a dumb test in many ways....will post more later, but would have told tou before thr 1.8 is rhe bang for the buck king....but i would still grab the 1.4

Means i posted the wrong lens. 40mm is the focal and 52mm is the screw on filter size

Sweet.

I would love to.

Ok, not really wide angles but when the subject takes up less of the actual picture.

Although at wide angles there is no bokeh, just light gathering. DOF is still huge at 24mm 2.8

I am going to go play with it before buying since I have the 17-55. I hate the 17-55 compared to the 1.4, but another 2.8 may not help. As a video lens though it may be worth it.

The joke is that it doubles in size with a filter and lens cap

Only a 2.8 so it only buys me the creativity of a prime in using it instead of a zoom. That and it is TEENY.

Shooting crop the 17-55 is near L quality and more useful as a wide as well. Personally if I were to do it over I would go 24/50/70-200. Probably going to add teh 24 to test it out. $150 new, lol. Supposedly wicked sharp and uber quiet for video.

135 prime or 70-200