![]() El firmware es un programa informático que establece la lógica de más bajo nivel que controla los circuitos electrónicos de un dispositivo de cualquier tipo. Canon 7. 0- 3. 00 f. L IS Review (Vs. 7. ![]() L IS)The Canon 7. L IS was announced in September 2. November. There already exists two 7. Canon lineup but neither of them have ever been showered with praise. The previous 7. DO IS lens was incredibly small due to its difractive optics design, but image quality suffered and it never sold in large numbers. The 7. It turns out there’s a code to unlock Shin Akuma in Ultra Street Fighter II. Revealed by Capcom at this year’s SDCC, you can play as the character’s demon form. A threat analyst at the cybersecurity firm Mandiant has been hacked and the attackers are claiming to have lurked on his computer for a year, collecting his login. Canon EOS 6D Mark II Preview: It's MISSING 4K! Of all the things for a modern day camera to have, this camera doesn't have it. I kind of get why they would. IS (non- L) is a more budget oriented lens (approx. I heard a lot of people cry “Oh my god a variable aperture L lens, what are Canon thinking?!” when this one was announced. But they seem to have forgotten that one of Canon’s most popular zooms has always been the 1. DO lens was only not designated an L lens because it bore the green ring of the DO system instead. So this is nothing new, and clearly Canon thought there was a desire for such a lens. Things like this are not designed without some considerable consideration. Now I’ve had some shooting time with the lens I’ll delve into who it’s aimed at a little further down the page. IN STOCK @ B& H NOW! HEREThis is all you get, NO tripod collar! Build and design. Make no mistake, this feels like a tank of a lens! At just over 1. KG it is 3. 00g heavier than the 7. L IS. Given it’s shorter physical length it feels about as dense as a 7. IS. Built quality is fantastic and on a par with the 7. L IS II that I reviewed before. It feels much more solid in the hand than my 7. L IS does and the zoom mechanism is silky smooth with a nice amount of resistance to it. This is not a cheap lens (more on that in bit too…) so you would hope for a good build but its great when you first impression is WOW. This is one of the nicest feeling lenses from Canon yet. It comes with a lens hood which continues with the new textured style we have seen on the 1. IS Macro and the 7. L IS II and it also comes with the usual lens pouch. Noticeable in it’s absence though is a tripod collar and frankly I think this is unforgivable. This is a $1. Canon! What are you thinking ? Now you want people to go out and spend $2. The similarly priced 1. From a design point of view there are two notable things. Firstly the lens extends considerably when zoomed, not like the 7. Apart from making the lens look rather odd when zoomed to 3. I don’t have any particular problem with this element of the design because it undoubtedly contributes to the compact nature of the lens. The second thing that struck me though was that the zoom ring and focus ring are reversed in positioning compared to just about every other lens I have used. The zoom ring is at the front, and focus ring closer to the camera body. The result is that the focus ring is right where you want to rest your hand when supporting the lens. It is all too easy to acidentaly move the focus ring and you always find yourself reaching awkwardly forwards for the zoom ring when you need it. I can’t imagine what made Canon arrange things like this, it only took me a matter of seconds to see the shortcomings of this and this seems to be a common gripe from other users too. I would genuinely like to hear the logic behind it so if anyone from Canon wants to let us know in the comments below… I’m all ears. Having a tripod foot to hang onto instead would be preferable but you don’t get one of those either unless you pay extra. No room for using teleconverters here…Looks like a strange optical system but you can hardly fault the results. Compared too…. I think most people are going to be looking at the 7. L IS when considering alternatives to this 7. I listened to one review of this lens today when the reviewer constantly mentioned the 7. IS but I think that is not the right lens to put this one up against. People buy an f. If you need either of those things then a variable aperture lens like this is NOT the lens for you. Belittling this lens for not having f. HUGE lens and for an entirely different purpose. However if you are considering the 7. IS, then you are already conceding that you do not necessarily need that wider aperture, in which case this could be a worthy alternative. It is a little heavier and physically a little fatter, but it is also shorter. They both take 6. Though the 7. 0- 2. IS is $4. 00 cheaper, it offers far less reach and if you want to extent your 7. X teleconverter that will set you back about $4. Another option would be to use a 3. I have compared both the 3. L IS and the 3. 00 f. L IS in the past. The 3. As you can see from my photo below, the 3. L IS is in a league of it’s own…! Personally I got rid of my 7. IS and traded it for an f. IS because I rarely used it below f. When I need wide apertures I have prime lenses for that. There’s not really any point considering the 7. DO as competition either, this new lens seems to be the final nail in that one’s coffin. It never performed well, has old IS technology and at $1. Because this lens is priced out of reach of most amateur photographers there is also no point weighing up the pros and cons of the much cheaper zoom lenses in the same focal range. Before I even tested it I knew this would far out perform those lenses because Canon would not charge this price unless they really believed people would pay for the quality it produces. I’m guessing 9. There might be some people that consider the 1. The 1. 00- 4. 00 is physically larger and heavier but offers a longer reach for the same price. I haven’t ever used this lens though but it is a much older design and constantly the subject of new lens rumors. It probably is due an update sometime soon but its still a hot seller for Canon, mostly for people who want to get into shooting wildlife and can’t afford the big white prime lenses. For wildlife and bird shooting you need every mm of reach so 4. The 1. 00mm Macro (see my review) in the image below is purely for size comparison, but also interesting to note the difference in construction between the two. The new macro lens is also one of Canon’s newer designs and actually one of the lightest weight L lenses they make, with the primary construction material being a high grade engineering polycarbonate. Tough as nails but it doesn’t inspire confidence because it feels a bit cheap in the hand. I’m glad to see Canon didn’t attempt to make this 7. Canon 1. 00mm f. 2. L IS Macro , Canon 7. L IS , Canon 7. 0- 2. L ISThe other way to get to 3. Canon 7. 0- 3. 00 f. L IS , Canon 3. 00mm f. L ISAperture range. This is how the aperture changes along with the focal length. ISTesting compared to the 7. L ISAll the usual things apply to my testing. I used a $5 bill as my test subject and set the camera on a tripod with a cable release and mirror lockup. I used liveview to focus manually at 1. Instead of just showing the 7. I figured I might as well put it up against a know and trusted quantity, my 7. L IS which I regard very highly. All the 1. I didn’t perform any corner sharpness tests simply because there were already so many permutations I figured you’d all get bored and not look at them anyway! I did perform all the tests at 7. I used a 1. 4 TC to achieve a 2. Plenty to consider, take it for what you will obviously there is always jpeg compression and human error to take into account but I think it gives a pretty good idea what’s going on. Analysis of testing. UPDATE : More full sized images from this lens now posted on FLICKR to study and download HERE7. Wide open at f. 4 the 7. IS. From f. 5. 6 onwards they are on par with each other and above f. To my eye the 7. 0- 3. Diffraction issues kick in a little later at this focal length. Both lenses produce extremely sharp images. Again I believe the 7. Both are very very sharp though. Both lenses appear to be nearly identical across the range. Notably good for performance with a TC on the 7. UPDATE full sized samples at 3. FLCKR appear to be much better than the above test would suggest.)3. Click to go to full sized image via flickr. Lens tests are easy to get misled by. There is no substitute to real world usage. Take a look at this image at 3. HEREI urge you to click the image above and check out the full sized version! Now this is pretty interesting! The 7. I love my 7. 0- 2. IS and I was never expecting this lens to be sharper! Very impressive. Even at 7. Results are less impressive at 3. Unexpected that, especially considering the stellar performance at shorter lengths. Its worth noting though that its not so much the 7. VERY good with the 1.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2017
Categories |