Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 232

Thread: Wallet full of $100 bills

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Posts
    1,273

    Re: Wallet full of $100 bills



    I just noticed that your 70-200 f/2.8 II option includes a 50mm f/1.4. On a crop body, this is my favorite fast prime for indoor portraits (I admit this is *very* personal). So this option definitely gets my vote.






  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    110

    Re: Wallet full of $100 bills



    John, if you are still undecided........i will gladly accept your $100 bills, all 33 of them as a donation for my 7D, 100f/2.8L macro fund. and right now, it doesnt matter if they are american or canadian $100 bills lol


    jim

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    763

    Re: Wallet full of $100 bills



    Quote Originally Posted by 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.


    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

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kenosha, WI
    Posts
    3,863

    Re: Wallet full of $100 bills



    Quote Originally Posted by bburns223


    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

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    298

    Re: Wallet full of $100 bills



    John,


    I'd go with 5DII+24-105f/4L.Havingboth FF and APS-C body will get more out your EF lenses in terms of focal length. Having 85mm, 100mm and 200mmwillactually cover 85mm, 100mm, 136mm,160mm, 200mm, and 320mm, depending on thebody you have it on, and that is a pretty impressive range in decent increments. If you like 135 f/2L (on APS-C equivalent to 216mm and f/around4), the 200mm 2.8L on FF should be even better. Also,using 2 bodiessimultaneously should significantlydecrease your lens swapping time. Just a few thoughts...


    I wouldthink aboutgetting the EF 50mm 1.4 down the road.


    Also, whathever your decision is, consider renting and trying what you are interested in.


    Good luck.


    Pete

  6. #16
    Senior Member Jarhead5811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Posts
    381

    Re: Wallet full of $100 bills



    <span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]<span><o>


    <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"]I'd keep saving and get a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt; mso-themecolor: text1;"]Canon EF 300mm f/2.8[/b]<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"] L<span style="color: #000000;"] IS USM[/b]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"]!!!<u1></u1><o></o>


    <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"]...but given the options you presented I'dtake #3 <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"] L<span style="color: #222222;"] IS II USM[/b] &amp; <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt;"]Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM.[/b]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt;"]<o></o>


    <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"](I liked the red "<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #ff0000; font-size: 11pt;"]L[/b]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 11pt;"]"s so much I stole 'em!!!)<u1></u1><o></o>









    </o>


    T3i, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 L, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, 430ex (x2), 580ex
    13.3" MacBook Pro (late '11 model) w/8GB Ram & 1TB HD, Aperture 3 & Photoshop Elements 9

  7. #17
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,716

    Re: Wallet full of $100 bills



    Quote Originally Posted by wickerprints
    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 don't have any aversion to gaps or overlaps in focal lengths. If I did, I'd be looking at the EF 28-300mm lens, instead! What I do have an aversion to is missing shots because of a need to change lenses when a particular lens doesn't have the right coverage for what I'm shooting.


    Quote Originally Posted by wickerprints
    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.

    LOL - too late! I sold my 300mm f/4L IS and bought the 100-400mm instead, precisely for the reason above. Most of my shots were at f/5.6 anyway, and I missed some because I was too close, and more because I was a little to far. An extra 8 oz. on a 3 pound lens isn't that much, I think, and I find myself much happier with the zoom range when out on a hike. If my goal was to shoot birds in flight, and only birds in flight, the 100-400mm would be the wrong lens and I'd have the 400mm f/5.6L. But my interests are more varied. The prime was a nice lens, but I was hampered by it's lack of versatility for what I was shooting. It helped that I bought the 300mm prime used (Craigslist), and at such a good price that I actually made $150 when I sold it. [:#]
    <div>
    Quote Originally Posted by wickerprints
    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?
    </div>
    <div></div>
    <div></div>


    It's notreally about 'covering' the gap - it's about getting from wider than that to tighter than that quickly and without changing lenses.





    To your other points, yes, I have a 430EX II with a diffuser and I pretty much always bounce it indoors, and our ceilings are white. I get shots with that and the 17-55mm that I really like. But, sometimes I prefer the ambience of natural indoor light.
    <div></div>
    <div></div>
    <div></div>



    <div>I'd also like to future-proof myself to the extent possible - I have a two year old girl, and she's already doing ballet, gymsters, music classes, etc. - recitals, gymnastics, etc., are very likely coming soon (much sooner that I'd like, actually!). Thus the f/2.8 zoom or the even faster primes.</div>



    <div>
    Quote Originally Posted by bburns223
    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).
    </div>



    <div>The EF 24-105mm for outdoor general use - outside, I almost always have room to back up, so I can forego the 17-24mm range. But I often find I want to get tighter framing quicker than my feet will allow, and 55mm isn't enough on the long end. But, I don't want to give up the wide end, and the 100mm Macro, which Denise points out is a very useful lens, has shown me that I don't need longer than that for 'everyday' use. An example would be standing a short way away from my wife and daughter, taking a shot of my wife watching our daughter doing something adorable, then zooming in for a close up of my daughter. Unless my goal is outdoor portraits, I'd be at f/4 or narrower anyway, and if my goal was portraits, I'd be using the 85mm f/1.8, probably, with an ND filter if necessary for a shallow DOF.</div>



    <div>The EF 35mm f/1.4L would be for low light, indoor family shots with ambient light. The 50mm f/1.4 is a cheaper substitute for that, and I'm a bit concerned that it's too close to the 85mm f/1.8, which I absolutely love for indoor portraits (and outdoor ones, too!). But, the 85mm is too long for group shots indoors, and 30mm seems like a good 'compromise' length. 50mm is 'normal' for a reason.</div>



    <div>The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II would be for outdoor use for now, until those indoor events like gymnastics start cropping up. It would provide a high-quality, faster zoom with weather sealing (compared to the 100-400mm) (good for low-light winter days), and with a the 1.4x II Extender, an f/4 ~100-300mm weather-sealed zoom with excellent IQ. I'd still want the extra reach of the 100-400mm on a brightly lit day, though. My reasons for considering the f/4 IS version boil down to cost (getting other lenses concurrently) and the size/weight of the f/2.8 version. It's a compromise, and frankly I suspect that if I get the f/4 now, I'll find myself wanting the f/2.8 down the line. I don't know that I agree with Wickerprints' suggestion that I'd have no use for the 200mm f/2.8 prime if I has the 70-200mm zoom. On an outing where pictures weren't the primary reason, I could see tossing the 200mm prime in the bag just in case I needed something long - at half the size and weight of the 70-200 zoom, that would work (I've done it already). The 70-200 f/2.8 and 100-400mm aren't lenses to 'bring along in case' - I (and everyone else) will know they're there.</div>



    <div>The 135mm f/2L, honestly, I just want it. It's not at the top of my list, so it's one of those that would likely be an opportunistic Craigslist purchase rather than ordering a new one.</div>



    <div>One more very minor point in favor of the 24-105 + 35L - it puts off a choice of a different kind. Right now, I can probably find a way to fit those two additional lenses into my Flipside 400AW, and carry all my lenses on my back. There's no way that's going to work with two big, white zoom lenses...</div>



    <div>Wickerprints, I think you summed it up nicely:</div>



    <div>
    Quote Originally Posted by wickerprints
    the choice of lens mainly comes down to type of photography, but optical quality cannot be ignored
    </div>



    <div>So, to take that to its logical extension, if I want good optical quality, and I'm going to engage in a wide variety of types of photography (casual memories, portraits, landscapes, travel, animals, birds, flowers, macro, etc.), then I'm going to need a wide variety of lenses. Right?</div>

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    758

    Re: Wallet full of $100 bills



    I'll sell 100-400mm and 200mm2.8 and get 300mm2.8, I also think you might need a second body, 35mm1,4L is nice but you already have 17-55mm, I guess you don't use your 85mm 1.8 a lot, but I'll still keep it since it's so sharp and inexpensive. just my 2 cents.



  9. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    29

    Re: Wallet full of $100 bills



    Quote Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
    The 135mm f/2L, honestly, I just want it

    I want to laugh at a clear case of the L disease but I have to admit I also want this lens badly for no reason other than its awesome



  10. #20
    Senior Member bob williams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Central New Mexico
    Posts
    1,983

    Re: Wallet full of $100 bills



    Quote Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
    One of my concerns about the 70-200 2.8 II is the size/weight - not for going on a hike, but say, for pics at the playground, where I often need to let the camera/lens dangle from my neck with both hands free to lift the little one onto a slide, etc.

    John, If you do decide on the 70-200 II, one of the black rapid straps would solve your problems regarding keeping your hands available for "quick toddler grabs". I use mine with a 100-400 and it works great and is very comfortable.


    I also like your #4 Line up. The 24-104 is ideal for outdoor walkaround on a crop body--I have one and love it. The 135L provides that beautiful bokeh and outstanding IQ for those special and artistic moments and the 50 gives you the low-light ability when needed.----But.......It would be very hard for me to pass up the 70-200 II if I was in your position [:S].


    Good luck,


    Bob
    Bob

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •