[sourphish]

Originally Posted by khaye1

dammit...now you're gonna make me spend more money. I'll guess I'll wait and save up for some extra dough

It's worth it. What I do is...one less mod = one more lens! And the lens holds its value significantly better anyway.

[Weebl]

Originally Posted by dcstep

..... It's a wonderful lens, rivaling my 500mm in IQ.

....

IS makes such things easy.

Dave

Lies Dave, nothing beats the 300-600 telephotos. Those are as close to perfect as you can get from Canon.

I would personally get the IS F4 over the 2.8, the reasons being:
A) it is the sharpest of the 70-200s
B) Color and contrast might be best also
C) It is lighter and I carry enough as it is.
D) I rarely want to go anywhere near 2.8
E) Wildlife at 200 is going to require use of the IS, not always but will save some shots, especially at 100+ feet out.

No one can figure out if you need IS without really looking at what you shoot. My thought is IS on a UWA not neccessary, on 200mm and above a must if you can afford it.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Weebl

Lies Dave, nothing beats the 300-600 telephotos. Those are as close to perfect as you can get from Canon.

I would personally get the IS F4 over the 2.8, the reasons being:
A) it is the sharpest of the 70-200s
B) Color and contrast might be best also
C) It is lighter and I carry enough as it is.
D) I rarely want to go anywhere near 2.8
E) Wildlife at 200 is going to require use of the IS, not always but will save some shots, especially at 100+ feet out.

No one can figure out if you need IS without really looking at what you shoot. My thought is IS on a UWA not neccessary, on 200mm and above a must if you can afford it.

you don't include the 135 F2 in that list of primes that rock?

[Chewy734]

I'm pretty close to snagging the LaForet 3-day workshop videos talking about dSLR cinema, sharing his techniques, and teaching us the tricks of the trade. Let me know if you want me to post 'em.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

I'm pretty close to snagging the LaForet 3-day workshop videos talking about dSLR cinema, sharing his techniques, and teaching us the tricks of the trade. Let me know if you want me to post 'em.

I'd be curious.

i like to absorb as much info about cameras as i can.

[khaye1]

Thanks fellas...guess I'll wait for little bit longer and save up for the IS. Or sell my tokina 11-16 f2.8 to make up for the difference. I found that I barely use it. Besides, I might upgrade to a full frame when the 5dmkiii comes out...mkii prices should go down by then. So I might not need the tokina

[The1]

Originally Posted by khaye1

Thanks fellas...guess I'll wait for little bit longer and save up for the IS. Or sell my tokina 11-16 f2.8 to make up for the difference. I found that I barely use it. Besides, I might upgrade to a full frame when the 5dmkiii comes out...mkii prices should go down by then. So I might not need the tokina

it will be a choice you won't regret, and the proof will be when you switch the IS off for a few shots and look at those shots on the computer at home. they will just be a little on the soft side or sightly blurred and you'll be glad you made the jump.

[Weebl]

Originally Posted by The1

you don't include the 135 F2 in that list of primes that rock?

It is a very good lens and in the top of the line but going by IQ not the best. Only the 300 2.8,400 2.8,500 and 600 are the Canon IQ superstars. Which is why they cost a pretty more than a handful large.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Weebl

It is a very good lens and in the top of the line but going by IQ not the best. Only the 300 2.8,400 2.8,500 and 600 are the Canon IQ superstars. Which is why they cost a pretty more than a handful large.

good to know. a few pennies more then i'm willing to spend





today....

[Weebl]

More like a million pennies or when you get to 2 3/4 tons of them call B&H

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Weebl

It is a very good lens and in the top of the line but going by IQ not the best. Only the 300 2.8,400 2.8,500 and 600 are the Canon IQ superstars. Which is why they cost a pretty more than a handful large.

Agreed, but the 70-200mm (both f/4 and f/2.8) are amazing, particularly when you consider that they're zooms. Still, I admit, the 500's contrast and color really pops.

Dave

[Weebl]

Ever have an itch and it needed to be taken care of ASAP?
1600 ISO and +1 exposure comp. courtesy of Dave

[dcstep]

Perfect Kevin. With that strong back lighting the eye and feather detail would be non-existant without the +EV.

What is that goofy chick? Did you see adults around. Is that a hummer of some sort?

Dave

[Weebl]

Probably this years crop of Annas, it wouldn't look so terrible if it wasn't scratching. It poofed up to scratch itself, otherwise it would look normal. See the leg scratching? The other one is in the Evoke emotion thread.
Yesterday was play with the 300 day and I guess at least one Allens moved into the neighborhood. In 11 years I've only seen an Allens twice.

[The1]

is your lens the 300 F4? or 2.8?

[Weebl]

No baller lenses for me. Used F4 and loving it, I use it >50%

[The1]

Originally Posted by Weebl

No baller lenses for me. Used F4 and loving it, I use it >50%

it's definitely nice and crisp and giving great bokeh

[Weebl]

IQ is almost that of the 70-200s

[gary88]

This guy wishes me great success in life

[M_Six]

Canon 35mm f1.4 refurb available (for now) at $1,183.

[Weebl]

for all of 10 minutes

[sourphish]

I wish they had the 15% off sale on the refurbs like they did 2 or 3 weeks ago. I totally missed it by several hours. Would've bought the whole inventory! I wish; but definitely would've picked up a body and a few lenses...