[M_Six]

What's the deal with the apartment pics? The couch is blue in the first two and purple in the third. Her hair is much redder in the third as well. Is the WB on the camera way off? Outside pics need some WB adjustment, too, but that could be due to whatever lighting was in use.

[Weebl]

Mark,
Lighting was from the TV, so the WB would be changing. It was a high ISO test.

[panicos81]

^^^correct. Light was from the tv so it changed from whatever it was showing at the moment.
as for the girlfriend, one time she woke up and asked what i was doing, i told her i^m checking the light!!! i didnt lie

non apartment pics i changed the white balance because it was that ugly heavy yellow tungsten light. it looked ok on the camera screen, on the computer they look kind of green

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by panicos81

^^^correct. Light was from the tv so it changed from whatever it was showing at the moment.
as for the girlfriend, one time she woke up and asked what i was doing, i told her i^m checking the light!!! i didnt lie

you're playing with fire, my friend.

[The1]

That's the only way to live

[MaximusJ]

[DARK_M3]

Looking for a bit of advice on selling one of my lenses for 1 or possibly 2 different lenses...

Let me forward that by saying that I will be and have been shooting more stationary subjects (cars, headshots, portraits, product) and not so much moving or sports type photos anymore. It's not to say that I won't shoot that stuff but my main focus will be on the automotive and product catagories moving forward. With that in mind, I am considering selling this glass:

My EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM




And purchasing this glass:
EF 135mm f/2L USM



Because boy oh boy do I love that thing! My question is, what other lens should I add to the mix? I'm thinking of a telephoto zoom like perhaps the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM. (I could get both for the price of my 28-300) Should I just get the one and bank the remaining cash? Perhaps something else altogether as lenses go?

I already have:
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (my all around walk around lens)
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (my awesome macro for fine detail/product work)
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (my fun wide angle)
Also have a Tamron 18-200 f3.5-6.3 that's my wifes but I could snag if need be for whatever.

I really love the 28-300 but I think I would love a faster bit of prime glass even moreso. Thoughts?

[DARK_M3]

A peek in my bag so you can see what I'm currently working with...

[dcstep]

Nice kit.

[DARK_M3]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Nice kit.

Thanks. Regarding the above question however... ?? What should I do man!

[Chewy734]

nice gear!

The 135mm f/2L is an amazing lens... one of the best that Canon makes. If you see yourself using that focal length, I highly recommend it (I wish I had one).

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is an awesome lens. If it isn't the Mark II version, then I recommend stepping down to the 70-200mm f/4L IS, assuming you don't need the f/2.8 aperture. It's one of my favorite lenses and it's significantly lighter than the f/2.8s, and much cheaper. Whichever you decide on, make sure you get the IS version... it makes handheld shooting much easier.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by DARK_M3

Thanks. Regarding the above question however... ?? What should I do man!

I'm partial to the 70-200mm Ls, either the f/2.8 and the f/4, which I own.

Your three bodies are showing their age and you're missing out on the high-ISO performance of the last two generations. I'd institute a long range plan to buy a 5D MkIII. I'd sell the two oldest bodies and buy the f/4 70-200mm to save some money and take advantage of the high-ISO performance of the MkIII.

Seeing your investment in fast primes, I suspect you'll find my suggestion uncomfortable, to up the ISO performance of you body and go with a slower lens. When I bought my 5D MkII in late 2008 it changed my whole perspective towards fast primes vs. slower zooms.

It's only money...

Dave

[vachss]

Originally Posted by DARK_M3

A peek in my bag so you can see what I'm currently working with...

Yow, 3 bodies. I thought I was going overboard when I carried around 2. I guess if you're on assignment and need absolute reliability....

[DARK_M3]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

nice gear!

The 135mm f/2L is an amazing lens... one of the best that Canon makes. If you see yourself using that focal length, I highly recommend it (I wish I had one).

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is an awesome lens. If it isn't the Mark II version, then I recommend stepping down to the 70-200mm f/4L IS, assuming you don't need the f/2.8 aperture. It's one of my favorite lenses and it's significantly lighter than the f/2.8s, and much cheaper. Whichever you decide on, make sure you get the IS version... it makes handheld shooting much easier.

I thought about the f/4L IS. My only concern is that since I use a 50D as opposed to say, the 5D MkIII, will it be a wise choice given the limited ISO performance as noted by dcstep? In other words, will I need the faster f/2.8 mated up with my current bodies?

It would be nice to save the money by getting the f/4L IS and putting the extra money towards a new body fund. I'm thinking 5D MkIII or 7D. But that might be a ways off.

Originally Posted by dcstep

I'm partial to the 70-200mm Ls, either the f/2.8 and the f/4, which I own.

Your three bodies are showing their age and you're missing out on the high-ISO performance of the last two generations. I'd institute a long range plan to buy a 5D MkIII. I'd sell the two oldest bodies and buy the f/4 70-200mm to save some money and take advantage of the high-ISO performance of the MkIII.

Seeing your investment in fast primes, I suspect you'll find my suggestion uncomfortable, to up the ISO performance of you body and go with a slower lens. When I bought my 5D MkII in late 2008 it changed my whole perspective towards fast primes vs. slower zooms.

It's only money...

Dave

Agreed on the bodies showing their age. I understand completely about going with the slower zoom and mating it up to the faster body in the future. It's not such an uncomfortable idea as my primes will work just that much better with more up to date body. I guess the f/4 70-200 just makes better long term sense in my case.

Originally Posted by vachss

Yow, 3 bodies. I thought I was going overboard when I carried around 2. I guess if you're on assignment and need absolute reliability....

Overkill yes. Truth be told I gave that 20D to my wife along with the Tamron 18-200 to shoot around with. So those are actually currently blank spots in the bag. I like the idea of having a secondary body just in case but honestly, the 50D is pretty reliable and I don't really shoot photojournalism so I really don't need the extra hardware.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by DARK_M3

I thought about the f/4L IS. My only concern is that since I use a 50D as opposed to say, the 5D MkIII, will it be a wise choice given the limited ISO performance as noted by dcstep? In other words, will I need the faster f/2.8 mated up with my current bodies?

The f/4L IS worked fine on my 20D. It works great on the 5D2, and of course the 5D3. Is the f/2.8 better? I think the Mark II version of it might be by a hare. But, it costs and weighs twice as much. All my lenses, except the 50mm f/1.8, were f/4 when I used the 20D.

You don't need a f/2.8 with better bodies. You need f/2.8 if you're shooting in low-light a lot, or if you need something fast. For example, f/2.8 might be useful for weddings, but not necessary if shooting landscapes during the day.

In regards to telephoto zooms, the 70-200mm f/4L IS is probably the best bang for the buck.

[DARK_M3]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

The f/4L IS worked fine on my 20D. It works great on the 5D2, and of course the 5D3. Is the f/2.8 better? I think the Mark II version of it might be by a hare. But, it costs and weighs twice as much. All my lenses, except the 50mm f/1.8, were f/4 when I used the 20D.

You don't need a f/2.8 with better bodies. You need f/2.8 if you're shooting in low-light a lot, or if you need something fast. For example, f/2.8 might be useful for weddings, but not necessary if shooting landscapes during the day.

In regards to telephoto zooms, the 70-200mm f/4L IS is probably the best bang for the buck.

Understood. And I stay FAR AWAY from shooting weddings anymore!! haha.

Well then perhaps I should just go ahead and stick with my 28-300 for the added versatility (originally why I bought that lens)? Maybe try to sell that 30D and put the money towards a 50mm? The prices vary so wildly on the 3 different 50mm's it's really crazy.

[DARK_M3]

Seems like the 5D mkIII is a good choice for a variety of things including higher ISO shooting with sharp focus whereas the 1D MkIV is geared more towards sports/action?

Also can anyone give a comparison of the 7D vs. 5D mkIII?

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by DARK_M3

Seems like the 5D mkIII is a good choice for a variety of things including higher ISO shooting with sharp focus whereas the 1D MkIV is geared more towards sports/action?

Also can anyone give a comparison of the 7D vs. 5D mkIII?

In short, the 5D3 is better than the 7D in every way, except in 3 things:

1. Slightly less frames per second (8 fps on the 7D, versus 6 fps).
2. Full-frame. This is better in many ways, unless you want the extra reach provided by the 1.6x crop factor on the 7D. In other words, it's much cheaper to buy a 7D and a 300mm lens than a 5D3 with a 500mm lens. Additionally, the 7D has higher pixel resolution with its smaller sized APS-C sensor.
3. Price. At nearly triple the price of the 7D, the 5D3 is not priced competitively, imo.

Hopefully, I'm not missing anything here...

[DARK_M3]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

In short, the 5D3 is better than the 7D in every way, except in 3 things:

1. Slightly less frames per second (8 fps on the 7D, versus 6 fps).
2. Full-frame. This is better in many ways, unless you want the extra reach provided by the 1.6x crop factor on the 7D. In other words, it's much cheaper to buy a 7D and a 300mm lens than a 5D3 with a 500mm lens. Additionally, the 7D has higher pixel resolution with its smaller sized APS-C sensor.
3. Price. At nearly triple the price of the 7D, the 5D3 is not priced competitively, imo.

Hopefully, I'm not missing anything here...

I was completely unaware of the fact that the 7D wasn't a full frame sensor.

[TL]

sup guys, been busy with my own photo website, timothyluc.com

Please take a look and let me know what you guys think?

[The1]

Site looks great tim. Very clean and easy to navigate.

Good job.

[spanner1751]

If there are any micro four thirds folks here, Amazon has a good deal on the Panasonic 45-200mm for $199.

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-45-2...5847720&sr=8-1