Author | Thread |
|
10/02/2007 03:34:06 PM · #1 |
What it all boils down to is this.
I am currently going through a wedding I shot last week and everytime I get to a picture taken with either my 70-200 f2.8 or my 85mm prime I get this awful pain, kind of like needles stabbing me in the eyes. I have now decided that the images taken with these lenses are just far too sharp and thus should be sold with a warning on the box.. anyone else experienced this with these lenses?
:)
Message edited by author 2007-10-02 15:34:18. |
|
|
10/02/2007 03:38:18 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Simms: What it all boils down to is this.
I am currently going through a wedding I shot last week and everytime I get to a picture taken with either my 70-200 f2.8 or my 85mm prime I get this awful pain, kind of like needles stabbing me in the eyes. I have now decided that the images taken with these lenses are just far too sharp and thus should be sold with a warning on the box.. anyone else experienced this with these lenses?
:) |
It wouldn't benefit your lawsuit to keep using the two prime lenses so I will volunteer to hold onto them for you for a really long time ;) |
|
|
10/02/2007 03:39:12 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by EyeTrap: Originally posted by Simms: What it all boils down to is this.
I am currently going through a wedding I shot last week and everytime I get to a picture taken with either my 70-200 f2.8 or my 85mm prime I get this awful pain, kind of like needles stabbing me in the eyes. I have now decided that the images taken with these lenses are just far too sharp and thus should be sold with a warning on the box.. anyone else experienced this with these lenses?
:) |
It wouldn't benefit your lawsuit to keep using the two prime lenses so I will volunteer to hold onto them for you for a really long time ;) |
thanks man, thats really sweet of you :)
|
|
|
10/02/2007 03:41:39 PM · #4 |
If we sue them, can we buy new really sharp glass with the money?
|
|
|
10/02/2007 03:41:43 PM · #5 |
well i'm going to sue them for all the crappy photos my camera takes cause i know it CANT possibly be me.
Originally posted by Simms: What it all boils down to is this.
I am currently going through a wedding I shot last week and everytime I get to a picture taken with either my 70-200 f2.8 or my 85mm prime I get this awful pain, kind of like needles stabbing me in the eyes. I have now decided that the images taken with these lenses are just far too sharp and thus should be sold with a warning on the box.. anyone else experienced this with these lenses?
:) |
|
|
|
10/02/2007 03:43:49 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Chinabun: well i'm going to sue them for all the crappy photos my camera takes cause i know it CANT possibly be me.
|
LOL, I'll email this one across to my lawyer. |
|
|
10/02/2007 03:44:32 PM · #7 |
I have the 70-200 F4L and the 85 1.8. I am constantly amazed at the sharpness of these 2 lenses.
The 17-40 F4L is no slouch either. |
|
|
10/02/2007 03:45:07 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Chinabun: well i'm going to sue them for all the crappy photos my camera takes cause i know it CANT possibly be me.
|
I'm gonna sue you for being too sexy... you hurt my ego :-P
|
|
|
10/02/2007 04:15:57 PM · #9 |
I think I will sue Canon due to "Spinner syndrome"
Defined as: Putting 4x the money into accessories than the body cost.
at least my wheels keep turning while I'm sitting still.> |
|
|
10/02/2007 04:50:29 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Simms: Originally posted by Chinabun: well i'm going to sue them for all the crappy photos my camera takes cause i know it CANT possibly be me.
|
LOL, I'll email this one across to my lawyer. |
I look forward to receiving details. My fees are very reasonable.
|
|
|
10/02/2007 05:17:05 PM · #11 |
I would reply to this but my 70-200 f2.8 IS USM has taken both my eyes out.
Little bit impressed with that lens, not bad at all. |
|
|
10/02/2007 05:21:04 PM · #12 |
I say Class action suit......I have both of those lenses and agree, wicked.
Wanted to add that my lawsuit will be naming the Canon EF 100mm f|2.8 also, great for portraits. Sexy sharp.
|
|
|
10/02/2007 05:37:11 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by JeffDay: Canon EF 100mm f|2.8 also, great for portraits. Sexy sharp. |
Some reviews I read about that one said it was almost too sharp for portraits ;-)
|
|
|
10/02/2007 05:48:22 PM · #14 |
Raises hand, I'm also getting unrealistic results with my new (Yeah baby) 100-400mm L beast. Can I join... There is far too much detail on the 400mm end to be legal. |
|
|
10/02/2007 06:01:27 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by awpollard: Raises hand, I'm also getting unrealistic results with my new (Yeah baby) 100-400mm L beast. Can I join... There is far too much detail on the 400mm end to be legal. |
you're in brother! |
|
|
10/02/2007 06:01:51 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever: Originally posted by JeffDay: Canon EF 100mm f|2.8 also, great for portraits. Sexy sharp. |
Some reviews I read about that one said it was almost too sharp for portraits ;-) |
Yup, I usually have to soften the results from the camera. It's painful for most subjects, even without any sharpening and even with a hard AA filter in cameras.
|
|
|
10/02/2007 07:09:40 PM · #17 |
With my lenses, I couldn't even enter the soft focus III challenge, I tried, but all were too sharp. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 01:31:02 PM EDT.