|
review with 4.5pts optical verdict coming ...
|
|
07-14-2011, 02:05 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1310646345' post='10004']
While that lens is a legend, it can never achieve 4.5 optical rating on photozone! [/quote] Then the 1200mm f/5.6, lol.
07-14-2011, 02:36 PM
The Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro?
07-14-2011, 03:21 PM
the lensbaby?<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />
07-14-2011, 04:24 PM
[quote name='Bryan Conner' timestamp='1310656899' post='10007']
the lensbaby?<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> [/quote] I'd put that in the same bucket as the 50mm f/1.0, or even worse, since its point isn't to provide high optical quality... While the 1200mm is certainly legendary, even if they got one I'd suspect the testing might prove rather problematic... I am having some difficulty coming up with untested "legendary" lenses with AF...
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
07-14-2011, 05:08 PM
Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
 ' />
07-14-2011, 05:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2011, 05:32 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1310664090' post='10010']
It is white. [/quote] So... it is white, and not a Canon (not the 200mm f2/f1.8 L, 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II/f4 L IS USM are tested already and too new to be legends anyway, 100-400 L tested already too, 70-200mm f4 L USM is very nice but 4.5 stars and a legend?)? Or... the 300mm f2.8?
07-14-2011, 05:36 PM
Does anyone else make white lenses? Not necessarily currently... wasn't there some old Nikon whites? Minolta? Or is that possibly getting too old to be relevant today.
I would welcome a 100-400L retest on APS-C...
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
07-14-2011, 05:46 PM
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1310665003' post='10012']
wasn't there some old Nikon whites? [/quote] Well, light grey, not white. And only 3 of them: AF-S 70-200 VR I, AF-S 300/4 and AF-S 28-70/2.8 All tested already <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
07-14-2011, 05:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2011, 05:47 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1310665003' post='10012']
Does anyone else make white lenses? Not necessarily currently... wasn't there some old Nikon whites? Minolta? Or is that possibly getting too old to be relevant today. I would welcome a 100-400L retest on APS-C... [/quote] It has to be a bit old to be a kind of legend... As 400mm is the limit, there still might be another 400mm lens... like the 400mm f4 L DO IS USM. Nikon made a 70-200mm f2.8 VR in white, but that lens is hardly a legend, and it would be Markus to review it. Sony/Minolta's 70-80-200mm f2.8G lenses were white, and the 200mm f2.8 HS APO G too (and other 200, 300, 400, 500, 600mm teles) So uhmmm... is it the Canon 300mm f2.8 L IS USM? The Canon 400mm L IS DO USM? The Minolta 200mm f2.8 HS APO G? |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |
