Wallet full of $100 bills

[bob williams]

I looked at the BlackRapid system a while back - it looks very appealing and comfortable, but I was reluctant to go that route because of the inconvenience of swapping out the FastenR-2 for the QR plates on the body or tripod foot

Absolutely right, I had a similar problem as well. When I bought my RRS tripod head, I also bought the RRS camera plate---My plate (7D)had a threaded hole in it that accepetd the d-ring swivel on the black rapid strap----works great, and I don't have to remove my camera plate.----Just a thought.


Bob

[neuroanatomist]

Hey wait. Do I know you? You're not Professor Tucker, are you?

Not last time I checked, no. [:P]

It's my favorite lens. I think you'll like it.

I do like the 70-200 II!! [] It's really a fantastic and fantastically sharp lens - from my limited testing, it's at least as sharp as the 200mm f/2.8L prime!


Here's a shot of a cooperative kestral from my walk around a local Audubon preserve last weekend (~50% crop):


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/Kestral_2D00_Crop.jpg[/img]


EOS 7D, EF70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM @ 200mm, f/4, 1/320 s, ISO 250

If you do decide on the 70-200 II, one of theblack rapid strapswould solve your problems regarding keeping your hands available for "quick toddler grabs".

That same walk around the nature preserve, trying to manage gripped 7D+70-200 and toddler, convinced me that the Canon neck strap was not the way to go. Thanks again for this great recommendation, Bob. I picked up a BlackRapid RS-4 on Tuesday and used it yesterday on a family outing - it's excellent!
<div>--John</div>

[Jon Ruyle]

I spent many years teaching medical students, and I often told them, "Your first instinct is usually right."

Hey wait. Do I know you? You're not Professor Tucker, are you?

Not last time I checked, no. [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

It's just that I took an anatomy class at UC Davis, and Professor Tucker repeatedly said the same thing. Maybe it's an anatomist thing.

I do like the 70-200 II!! [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img] It's really a fantastic and fantastically sharp lens - from my limited testing, it's at least as sharp as the 200mm f/2.8L prime!

I'm enjoying mine as well. And my wife has onlychastisedme a few times for spending all that money. Easily worth it. ]

[Brendan7]

John, could you first tell us why you're looking at each lens (i.e why you're getting it, what each lens does that your current one don't).

[Keith B]

...around 33 of them, to be exact. [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]


Hi All,


That $3300 cash is
just itching to be converted into lenses...


Initially, I was planning on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and a carbon fiber monopod, and
putting the remainder toward the future purchase of a fast prime - 35L, 50 or
50L, 85L or 135L).

I say don't second guess and get the 70-200 2.8 ISII and save for the 35L.

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks to everyone for your suggestions! Keep them coming, if anyone has more to add!

I say don't second guess and get the 70-200 2.8 ISII and save for the 35L.

This is where I'm leaning right now. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and a CF monopod for now. Still not certain on the 35mm f/1.4L vs. 50mm f/1.4 - but, if I get the 70-200 II and wait until I've got enough set aside for the 35L, I can decide at that point (35L or 50 1.4 and ... ?). Also, the 35mm f/1.4L is getting a bit long in the tooth (though not as long as the 50mm f/1.4!). All of the under-100mm EF L primes have been updated to a MkII version in the last 4 years, except the 35L. That, combined with rumors of an update to the 50mm f/1.4 (I'd certainly prefer ring USM in that lens), suggest I may want to wait on the purchase of a fast 'normal' prime anyway. In the meantime, I'll shoot for a few indoor sessions with my 17-55mm set to 35mm, and a few sessions with it set to 50mm, and see which I prefer from a focal length perspective.

I forgot to ask,if allowed? What is your fiscal secret? Dipping in to the retirement fund? Stocks,bonds, or poor man taxes(lottery), or plain old work and save?

Dip into the retirement fund, goodness no - that gets 6% of my income off the top, every month (with company matching on top of that!). I'm not quite 40 yet, but if and when I do retire, I want to be able to continue traveling, buying lenses, etc.! Mostly, it's consulting that I do 'on the side' - for example, after a 30 minute consulting call this afternoon, I'll be another $100 closer to that 35L (or whatever). []

The EF 24-105/4L IS is not going to give you anything significantly better than what you already have.

I got to thinking about my upcoming trip to China, and imagining what I'd do when faced with choosing between the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 and an EF 24-105mm f/4L. I decided that if I was going to take the 24-105mm, I'd also need to take the EF-S 10-22mm for the wide end, and since I'd also be bringing a longer lens (100-400mm or 70-200mm), that would be three lenses instead of just 2. With the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I'd have f/2.8 coverage from 17-200mm with IS and excellent IQ across the range (and I could find room for the 1.4x II to go to 280mm f/4).



<div>

A 70-200 seems like a lens you would definitely enjoy. 2.8 though isn't really necesary since you've already got fast lenses in this focal range. f4 would do great for most of the time and when you think you really need f2.8 you can always switch....But if you're afraid that you might miss the 2.8 aperture you shouldn't do it.

I am afraid I'd miss the extra stop. I think if I went for the f/4 IS, I'd find it hard to justify getting the f/2.8 down the line, even if I really wanted that extra stop. I'd rather have the versatility from the outset, even with the size/weight penalty.

A 50mm fast prime is a nice addition, I just ordered the sigma 50mm 1.4 myself.

Nice! Let us know how it works out for you.
</div>

[Sheiky]

I am afraid I'd miss the extra stop. I think if I went for the f/4 IS, I'd find it hard to justify getting the f/2.8 down the line, even if I really wanted that extra stop. I'd rather have the versatility from the outset, even with the size/weight penalty.

Then you really shouldn't buy the f4 version. That's my advice. Point is that the 2.8 is has a really big weight/size penalty and if it is also for spontaneous photos of your wife and kid, it might let you down in some occasions. On the other hand the f4 has it's negatives as well. But if you strongly feel like needing the f2.8 you should go for that. In fact you know big lenses and how they handle so it's shouldn't be to hard to decide. a 100-400 at 100mm is pretty much as big/heavy as the 70-200 2.8 so if you're happy with that lens for those conditions, you're just fine.

A 50mm fast prime is a nice addition, I just ordered the sigma 50mm 1.4 myself.

Nice! Let us know how it works out for you.

I'll certainly do that! I was really having a hard time to decide to go sigma or not. Most reviews are kinda old and price was a big negative. Nowadays sigma and canon cost about the same and I just want the best quality. Hopefully the AF isn't as bad as Bryan experienced. If so I can just bring it back. Anyway I'm looking forward to it!


Thanks [Y]


And let us know what you've decided when you do!

[wickerprints]

The EF 24-105/4L IS is not going to give you anything significantly better than what you already have. While it is "weather-sealed," it is really nowhere as robust as you may be led to believe, due to the extending zoom design. It is not impervious to dust. It is also a relatively slow f/4, which in my experience has been its greatest limitation in terms of being able to control DOF.


I think it is a very common fallacy to assume one needs to have a continuous focal length range from ultrawide to super-telephoto. That's not a very good criterion by which one should select lenses.


I belong to the school of thought that the choice of lens mainly comes down to type of photography, but optical quality cannot be ignored. Yes, you have a gap from 55mm to 85mm. But honestly, is that range so important to cover? What kind of photography are you doing such that those focal lengths are absolutely required?


If you buy the EF 70-200/2.8L IS II, sell the EF 200/2.8L. You won't have any use for it. In fact, you could also sell off the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS. In its place you could get the 300/4L IS, which is much lighter and a full stop faster. Normally I'd recommend the 300/2.8L IS but I don't think you're going to carry that around much.


Do you own any Speedlites? If you don't, get one. Indoor family photography can be incredibly good if you simply learn how to diffuse your flash. Bounce it and you can get wonderful results. With the 7D, you can even make it an optical slave thanks to the pop-up flash. Don't rely on fast glass--it's not like you're taking indoor concert/event shots, or gymnastics, where flash is not an option and the 85/1.2L, 135/2L, 200/2L are the lenses of choice. You could get the 35/1.4L, which will be a lovely lens, but the problem is that it's not cost-effective--by using it on a 7D, you are not taking advantage of the primary reason why the lens exists (and costs as much as it does). The fast wide-to-normal lenses are really all meant for 35mm sensors.

[Brendan7]

The EF 24-105/4L IS is not going to give you anything significantly better than what you already have. While it is "weather-sealed," it is really nowhere as robust as you may be led to believe, due to the extending zoom design. It is not impervious to dust. It is also a relatively slow f/4, which in my experience has been its greatest limitation in terms of being able to control DOF.


I think it is a very common fallacy to assume one needs to have a continuous focal length range from ultrawide to super-telephoto. That's not a very good criterion by which one should select lenses.


I belong to the school of thought that the choice of lens mainly comes down to type of photography, but optical quality cannot be ignored. Yes, you have a gap from 55mm to 85mm. But honestly, is that range so important to cover? What kind of photography are you doing such that those focal lengths are absolutely required?


If you buy the EF 70-200/2.8L IS II, sell the EF 200/2.8L. You won't have any use for it. In fact, you could also sell off the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS. In its place you could get the 300/4L IS, which is much lighter and a full stop faster. Normally I'd recommend the 300/2.8L IS but I don't think you're going to carry that around much.


Do you own any Speedlites? If you don't, get one. Indoor family photography can be incredibly good if you simply learn how to diffuse your flash. Bounce it and you can get wonderful results. With the 7D, you can even make it an optical slave thanks to the pop-up flash. Don't rely on fast glass--it's not like you're taking indoor concert/event shots, or gymnastics, where flash is not an option and the 85/1.2L, 135/2L, 200/2L are the lenses of choice. You could get the 35/1.4L, which will be a lovely lens, but the problem is that it's not cost-effective--by using it on a 7D, you are not taking advantage of the primary reason why the lens exists (and costs as much as it does). The fast wide-to-normal lenses are really all meant for 35mm sensors.

I tried to answer John's post but I found that wicker said everything I wanted to say much more eloquently. I second everything in wicker's post. 100%.


Denise, those shots of your dogs running are really fantastic. Try to avoid shadows, use fill flash but do not overexpose...


brendan

[ddt0725]

Denise, those shots of your dogs running are really fantastic. Try to avoid shadows, use fill flash but do not overexpose...

Thanks Brendan. These are some of my first shots of them outside with this camera without snow on the ground and the sun shining! One minute they are in the shade of the fence and in a blink they are in direct sunlight. As soon as I adjust settings, white dog is gone and black dog is running at me which calls for more adjusting ...challenging but fun! []

Denise