Miscellaneous Photography Thread
#141
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 4,801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rx7twinturboboy
in macro with my new 60mm lens. Camera is a Nikon D50.
Enjoy, and as always...comments are appreciated.
Enjoy, and as always...comments are appreciated.
#142
VERTEX Army CEO
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 7,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gr?
pocketed the difference and used it towards a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS.
#143
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GTNPU Z
So I was looking into that lens as well but without the IS. Does the IS really make that big of a difference? I've seen some awesome pictures & read great reviews on the non IS version. Just trying to see if the extra 500-600 is worth it. I was doing some more research & it seems I can get a lot more range capability if I purchased the 70-200 f/2.8L + 50mm f/1.4 & just use my kit lens for the wide-angle shots. Thoughts?
But, if you shoot mostly outdoor stuff where the lighting is sufficient, there is no need for IS. Also, if you use a good body (ie 1D MKII) where the high ISO performance is solid, you can turn up the ISO to ~ 1600 or 3200 and still be able to stop the action. The 70-200 f/2.8L non IS is actually sharper and faster than the IS version.
Depending on what you shoot, you might want to spend the $500-600 on the 17-40 f/4.0L lens for your wide angle shots. Tamron is releasing the 17-50 f/2.8 (or 55, I forget) in the US within the next few weeks.
#145
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: new orleans
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GTNPU Z
So I was looking into that lens as well but without the IS. Does the IS really make that big of a difference? I've seen some awesome pictures & read great reviews on the non IS version. Just trying to see if the extra 500-600 is worth it. I was doing some more research & it seems I can get a lot more range capability if I purchased the 70-200 f/2.8L + 50mm f/1.4 & just use my kit lens for the wide-angle shots. Thoughts?
I am happy enough with it that I am about to pick up the 24-105 IS L which Canon offers as a medium range lens! I think that says enough about it.
#146
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: new orleans
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incidentally...if you want a Canon 17-40L, I am about to sell mine. It has taken most if not all of the photographs I have posted here, both of exotic cars and of my own. It is an excellent lens!
#147
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by syf0n
I disagree with "gr?". IS is worth every penny even outdoors, especially with cars! I continuously use my 100-400 IS L for motion tracks (pan) of cars at track events. It is only by such technology that smooth, blur free motion tracks would consistently be possible.
I am happy enough with it that I am about to pick up the 24-105 IS L which Canon offers as a medium range lens! I think that says enough about it.
I am happy enough with it that I am about to pick up the 24-105 IS L which Canon offers as a medium range lens! I think that says enough about it.
#150
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Posts: 4,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Guys .... I am about 2 steps away from joining the club here
I've got my eyes set on
1) Canon 350D
2) Nikon D50
With either camera, I will be starting out with the Sigma 30/1.4
Now .... looking and researching and thinking ... I'd eventually want a telephoto lens, something like a 100/2 or an 85/1.8 or so ... and it appears that Canon is easier to get lenses for. Knowing me and my "hobbies", I'll get carried away with this and won't be happy ending up "waiting" for a Nikon mount lens to be released. So .. I have about 99% convinced myself to head in the Canon direction ....
can anyone say anything bad about the D-Reb? A friend uses one and loves it, and I have no real experience, other than playing around in the stores with a Nikon ...
Price ... it's a $50 wash either way ... so the better camera will get the nod from me.
Input is much appreciated
Thanks guys,
Jim
I've got my eyes set on
1) Canon 350D
2) Nikon D50
With either camera, I will be starting out with the Sigma 30/1.4
Now .... looking and researching and thinking ... I'd eventually want a telephoto lens, something like a 100/2 or an 85/1.8 or so ... and it appears that Canon is easier to get lenses for. Knowing me and my "hobbies", I'll get carried away with this and won't be happy ending up "waiting" for a Nikon mount lens to be released. So .. I have about 99% convinced myself to head in the Canon direction ....
can anyone say anything bad about the D-Reb? A friend uses one and loves it, and I have no real experience, other than playing around in the stores with a Nikon ...
Price ... it's a $50 wash either way ... so the better camera will get the nod from me.
Input is much appreciated
Thanks guys,
Jim
#151
VERTEX Army CEO
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 7,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Jim,
I pretty much just started myself & got the XT. The only thing I feel that some folks may not like is the size. For me I think it's fine but for others, they may think it's a bit small/cramped for a DSLR especially if you plan on using larger telephoto lenses. You can add the battery grip to increase the size in those situations for better handling but it still may feel cramped if you have big fingers/hands.
For the price of what you get though, it handles like a champ. I love mine.
Good luck!
I pretty much just started myself & got the XT. The only thing I feel that some folks may not like is the size. For me I think it's fine but for others, they may think it's a bit small/cramped for a DSLR especially if you plan on using larger telephoto lenses. You can add the battery grip to increase the size in those situations for better handling but it still may feel cramped if you have big fingers/hands.
For the price of what you get though, it handles like a champ. I love mine.
Good luck!
#152
VERTEX Army CEO
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 7,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, here are my front runners before I pull the trigger:
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L = Approx. $700
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L = Approx. $1200
Which one would you choose & why? Obviously the 17-40mm is the more affordable one but if you had to line these up side-by-side, which one will provide you with the best overall performance & picture quality? TIA.
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L = Approx. $700
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L = Approx. $1200
Which one would you choose & why? Obviously the 17-40mm is the more affordable one but if you had to line these up side-by-side, which one will provide you with the best overall performance & picture quality? TIA.
#153
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Posts: 4,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the Sigma 24-70EX .... from what I read and look at with my super-newbie-untrained eyes .... it is near every bit as good as the Canon at half the cost.
Why not stick with what you have right now and work on your skills? That is my plan ... grab a prime .... prove to myself (and others) I am good at this ... and "earn" my other lenses.
If you got the cash ... go for it though
Why not stick with what you have right now and work on your skills? That is my plan ... grab a prime .... prove to myself (and others) I am good at this ... and "earn" my other lenses.
If you got the cash ... go for it though
#154
350Z-holic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: teh interwebnets
Posts: 17,685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GTNPU Z
Okay, here are my front runners before I pull the trigger:
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L = Approx. $700
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L = Approx. $1200
Which one would you choose & why? Obviously the 17-40mm is the more affordable one but if you had to line these up side-by-side, which one will provide you with the best overall performance & picture quality? TIA.
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L = Approx. $700
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L = Approx. $1200
Which one would you choose & why? Obviously the 17-40mm is the more affordable one but if you had to line these up side-by-side, which one will provide you with the best overall performance & picture quality? TIA.
#155
VERTEX Army CEO
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 7,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JimRHIT
What about the Sigma 24-70EX .... from what I read and look at with my super-newbie-untrained eyes .... it is near every bit as good as the Canon at half the cost.
Why not stick with what you have right now and work on your skills? That is my plan ... grab a prime .... prove to myself (and others) I am good at this ... and "earn" my other lenses.
If you got the cash ... go for it though
Why not stick with what you have right now and work on your skills? That is my plan ... grab a prime .... prove to myself (and others) I am good at this ... and "earn" my other lenses.
If you got the cash ... go for it though
Originally Posted by yobri
If I had the money, I would've gotten the 24-70mm as a general lens, but I went with the 17-40mm as my first L lens instead. Got it for $528 (from Dell after combined coupon discounts).
#156
350Z-holic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: teh interwebnets
Posts: 17,685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GTNPU Z
So as an owner, what are some pros & cons of that lens? Obviously it takes great pics from just looking at syf0n's work. So my real question is...if they both cost the same, which one would you have gotten? Why?
I would have gotten the 24-70mm over the 17-40mm if I was in a better financial position b/c of the reviews (in favor of the 24-70mm) that I have read and gotten from a couple of photog boards.
I do think I've found my desired niche, that is, I now know that I am a fan of macro (close-up) shots. So a good macro lens is what I am thinking about next...