chlamchowder: The Nikon AF-S 200-400/4 VR II is $6750, and the TC-14E is $500. Together, they would cost $7520.So, the question is, is the convenience of having the teleconverter built in worth $4480?
where as the Nikon add-on teleconverter will degrade the image a bit due to it being an afterthought piece, there is no image degradation in Canon's built-in version. It was engineered to operate with it's teleconverter without compromise.
It's a specialty lens, for the time when a photographer is shooting in a snowstorm, sandstorm, hostile environment, etc and attaching the teleconverter is out of the question.
But i do agree, it's too pricey.
wow, that's very nice for that high of an ISO
Mssimo: Added the Canon.
Nikon 35mm F1.4G vs Canon 35mm f1.4L vs Sigma 35mm F1.4
Elements 10 vs 11 vs 13Groups 7 vs 9 vs 11Filter 67mm vs 72mm vs 77mmWeight 600g vs 580g vs 665gSpecial Elements (one aspherical) vs (1 aspherical) vs(1 FLD and 4 SLD elements)Price $1620 vs $1329 vs $899 (current amazon price)
Canon stops down to F22, sigma and nikon go to F16.Canon has 8 Blades, Sigma and nikon have 9
Canon has red ring, nikon has gold ring, sigma has no rings.
Sigma has a 67mm filter thread
samfan: So does the 35/1.4 replace the 30/1.4? Guess I should get the old version quickly then. Sigma has a weird habit of upgrading great oddball lenses to crappier mainstream versions (usually from EX to OS).
The new 35 1.4 is made for full frame sensors. 30 1.4 is crop only.
not sure what all the complaint is about, but given the price point to sensor size, lens compatibility, accessories, image quality, etc...no other camera comes close. And all this at a small package.
I myself probably won't buy it (my 5d3 does me wonders) but i can see this heading in a potentially great direction.
these are decent samples but don't do any justice to the 5D3. my experience with it has been a great deal of joy. I still can't believe how clean high iso images look.