massimo_foti

<p>There aren't that many gap anymore, sure some good quality f/4 zooms that sit between the kit and the pro lenses would be nice to have. Rectilinear primes below 12mm are still neglected, an 8mm or 10mm primes, even if f/2.8 is something I could buy.</p>

<p>Could it be related to the anti-flicker capabilities in 7D mk II?<br />http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2014/eos7dmkii_antiflicker.shtml<br />http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=13866<br> I don't have direct experience with 7D Mk II, so I am just guessing here.</p>

<p>The 70-300 IS (the non-L version) seems like a good candidate, very good value for money. It's image quality is pretty good, I would expect it to be significantly better than the 75-300. Autofocus isn't blazing fast but decent. Here you can see a set of pictures I took with this lens during an airshow a few years ago:<br /><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/massimofoti/albums/72157624452960833">https://www.flickr.com/photos/massimofoti/albums/72157624452960833</a><br /> <br />Tamron 70-300 is another alternative, cheaper, with comparable image quality, but I am afraid autofocus speed would be even worst. I don't have first hand experience with it so I am based my comments on reviews and forum's posts.</p> <p>Hope it may help</p>

<p>Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 is heavy, bulky and can't handle screw-in filters. Apart from that, it delivers superior image quality at any aperture. It's great value for money and worth considering.<br> Canon 17-40 needs to be stopped down to get the best out of it, that's why I am not a big fan of it.</p>

<p>Another review here:<br /><a href="http://www.lenstip.com/432.1-Lens_review-Tamron_15-30_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD.html">http://www.lenstip.com/432.1-Lens_review-Tamron_15-30_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD.html</a></p>

<p>You can't get exact numbers, the amount of stops you will get depend on too many factors. <br /><br />I own a 5D Mark III with the 24-105 and I use an EM-1 as well. Based on my own personal experience I find the EM-1's stabilization 1-2 stops more effective, but, again, there is no way to properly measure it.<br /> <br />Here you can see a few shots I took handheld, with full EXIF:<br /><br /> <a href=" /><a href=" /><a href=" /><a href=" /><a href=" /> <br />Hope it may help</p>

<p>Performances at high ISO are critical for me. So I guess I will stick with my 5DIII and wait for what will be available next.</p>

<p>I own and like Tokina 16-28, maybe you can find a used copy within your budget. It's heavy and bulky, but delivers great image quality.</p>

<p>You have many options, a 6D with a 16-35 f/4.0 would be great for landscapes. A 24 mm f/2.8 IS would be another great lens (cheaper indeed).</p>

<blockquote> <p>Still love the push/pull zoom more than twist zoom...</p> </blockquote> <p>I tend to agree with you, but I am afraid we are a minority :-(<br />Looks like the design has a lot in common with the 70-300 L<br /><br />I think we should also expect state of the art AF and IS. Hopefully performances with 1.4 extender will be good too.</p>

<p>Yes, price will be 'slightly heavier' too, it will start at $2199<br> Some additional info here:<br />http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0288511554/canon-ef-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6l-is-ii-usm-becomes-reality</p>

<p>After a very long wait, it's finally here:<br> http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e02480d957ad</p>

<blockquote> <p>Hi Gerry, the biggest issue I have with Olympus is the incomprehensible menu system. It doesn’t need to be anywhere near as complicated, I think, and I am not sure how ‘regular’ i.e. non-nerdy people get on with it. I haven’t had to refer to a camera manual as much as this one since I had my first DSLR back in the dark ages!</p> </blockquote> <p>So true! :-)</p>

<p>Forcing the camera to use PDAF sounds interesting. I already tried the most obvious choices, like disabling face detection, but never went as far as you did.<br> I will give it a try one of these days. Thanks for the tips.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Your camera body will determine which lens you need</p> </blockquote> <p>Not on a Canon camera, we are on a Canon forum and the original poster explicitly mentioned the Canon version of the lens.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I have an E-M1 and I am confused about your statement about continuous being useless as I have had very good results</p> </blockquote> <p>Chris I am afraid we have dramatically different expectations, when I talk about fast moving subjects I mean ice-hockey or the like. I love my E-M1, but I believe it can't compare even to my old Canon 450D.<br> Are you using the E-M1 for sports or birds?</p>

<p>On Canon the new coating on version II is supposed to improve flares handling, still I believe you may save some money and stick to version I. You will not regret anyway, Tokina 11-16 is a wonderful lens</p>

<blockquote> <p>I am not looking for it to catch up to top end Nikon, just to work - as it stands now, continuous AF is basically useless.</p> </blockquote> <p>I would not expect it to become usable anytime soon.<br> If you would like to go lighter you could consider a Nikon D7100. </p>

<p>I've read the lens's firmaware has been updated. Newer lenses should ship with the new firmware, earlier ones should be send for service.<br> You may take a look at FM forum:<br />http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1296983<br> Please note I don't have first-hand experience with the lens, I am just reporting what I've read elsewhere.<br />Hope it will help</p>

<p>Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 is indeed an amazing lens, it delivers image quality up to the best primes (I use it together with Oly 12 mm and 17 mm). It's one of those rare zooms, like Canon 70-200 2.8 II, 24-70 2.8 II or Nikon 14-24 2.8 that do that. Of course, it's still "just" f/2.8 and since the OP mentioned "fast", I ruled it out.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Unlike Massimo I can't say I have personally had any issues with slow AF even in low light.</p> </blockquote> <p>Different people have different expectations. Micro 4/3 is a "second" system for me, I use Canon 5D Mk III and 7D too, so I tend to be somewhat picky when it comes to AF speed :-)</p>

<p>I can only provide input on Oly 17 mm f/1.8. I've been quite happy about it, it's the kind of lens that made me choose Micro 4/3, fast, good AF (even in low-light), small and very light weight. Image quality has been good for me, better than what I would expect after reading the reviews, but it's worth saying I usually don't do landscape and don't care about corners.<br> I quickly tried Panasonic 20 mm, definitely a sharp lens, but I wasn't happy about its AF (slow and a bit noisy, especially poor in low-light), at least on E-M1. I heard it performs better on Panasonic's bodies.<br> <br />I can't comment on other lenses since I don't have direct experience. Hope it will help.</p>

<p>I think Kenneth already summarized the various options available on the market.</p>

<p>Plenty of questions... I would not comment on the "L lens only" and "go full frame" topics, they are already pretty well covered elsewhere.<br> In my experience Canon 15-85 is really a great lens, and many reviews confirm this. I am surprised you fund it lacking on the wide end. Maybe you've got a bad copy?<br> You can't mount the EF-M lenses on the 60D.<br> You should consider Canon 10-22 and Tokina 11-16, they are both great. I personally prefer the Tokina, since I like the constant 2.8 aperture and superior build quality. But the Canon is excellent too, it handles flares better and offer a wider range. Anyway, you can't go wrong with any of the two.</p>