It's taken some convincing for me, but one of my naturalist photographer mentors got such great results I couldn't ignore it. I haven't become a MILC user yet, but I like MFT and think it will be my first entry into that world, when the day comes.
I'm curious about not yet available down under. In Australia do they hit you with an import tax if your were to order the lens on amazon? It seems like an odd practice to me on the one hand. On the other hand camera shops have become a thing of the past in my area. There is only one place I have seen were you can buy a new lens, and even then it is just Canon and Nikon, and only the high volume lenses. The EF 40/2.8, and EF 85/1.8 are examples. Basically low cost zooms, and entry level primes. Still, the two I mentioned are ones I'd like to have. They might just get me if I happen by with some extra bucks!
Panasonic lenses are much cheaper here in Oz ...
Our revenues are now down 80% from the peak in 2013 thus we have to go for the cheapest option - not the fastest one. If we were a normal business we would have closed down already ...
Why are revenues down by such a large margin ?
Well, the industry is down 50%, the adblocker rate is at 50% plus some home grown issues (Nikon dormant for 2y, old portal). I am somewhat surprised that thing are down THAT much but it is how it is.
04-30-2017, 09:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-30-2017, 09:37 PM by Arthur Macmillan.)
Back to the 12-100mm. If I remember, I think Tamron came up with the first 10x zoom lens for a DSLR. The 18-200mm. I got one, and I eventually sold it because I wanted to buy some other lens, but it wasn't that bad. Still, don't the laws on lens snobbery exist anymore? Can you really call a 10x zoom a PRO lens? It makes me wonder if they aren't really packing these tiny MFT lenses with super technology that just might not be doable on much larger FF lenses do to their large size. If a 10x zoom has PRO quality that is saying something. I think Canon has released a really large zoom x factor "L- lens", but I sort of ignored it. I figured it was just a fad.
OK, this is the lens:
<p class="">EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
<p class="">This is interesting to me only in the fact that Canon should not call this kind of lens L, should they? See! I'm a lens snob and I'm not really even a good photographer. I just like taking pictures! (I have access to Tamron's 28-300 Piezo Drive VC, but haven't really used it much. It is compact, I will give them that!)
<p class="">To tell the truth I don't even think the
<p class="">Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS
<p class="">Should be an "L-lens" because of the variable aperture.
<p class="">On the other hand
<p class="">Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS II
<p class="">Most definitely deserves L status. You have to have some exceptions. A lens with this zoom range has size constraints. I don't the the 70-300 is long enough, I mean, it's non-L variants have the same demographics! I've heard it is better than it's numbers suggest (meaning its review numbers), but it seems like a hard sell to me!
As I understand it, lens design keeps getting better plus improved software corrections can make a 10x zoom incredibly good apparently (pending Klaus' upcoming review). Better than ever before at least.
Pro quality adds build quality, focusing ability, stabilization, weather sealing etc - not necessarily just the aperture or zoom range.
Pro lenses need the ability to separate the subject. This f8 FF equivalent lens does not have that. For the rest it appears to be pretty good.
Impressed - especially at the wide end.
Excessive RAW distortions at 12mm though (as usual).