PDA

View Full Version : L Glass w/ a Classy A**


efoto
Nov 6, 2005, 12:00 AM
Was browsing a few, uh hum, sites and came across this nice little snippet:

http://www.circlethought.com/forum_images/L glass_classy ass.jpg

Made me start to think if there are more existing pictures on this general idea...celebs/models with camera stuff. This may well be short lived, but if nothing else I just wanted to share a little Adriana with a camera :D

katie ta achoo
Nov 6, 2005, 12:06 AM
*gasp*
What a sweet Canon!

efoto
Nov 6, 2005, 12:08 AM
*gasp*
What a sweet Canon!

I thought they were referred to as "bombshells"

oh, the camera :p




I love my Lima :D

katie ta achoo
Nov 6, 2005, 12:23 AM
I love my Lima :D

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/1593/limabeans6tk.th.jpg (http://img226.imageshack.us/my.php?image=limabeans6tk.jpg)
?

:D

efoto
Nov 6, 2005, 12:28 AM
http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/1593/limabeans6tk.th.jpg (http://img226.imageshack.us/my.php?image=limabeans6tk.jpg)
?

:D

Yeah, those ones :rolleyes:

Adriana....then Lima ;)

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 6, 2005, 12:59 AM
*gasp*
What a sweet Canon!

Well that is what I noticed! :D :D :D LOL

mcarnes
Nov 6, 2005, 01:03 AM
300/2.8 and no lens hood. That girl needs to be spanked.

MacNoobie
Nov 6, 2005, 01:05 AM
Yum Yum.. god I love my 1D Mark IIn

http://tzzdc.deviantart.com/

Browse through and leave some comments :)

mcarnes
Nov 6, 2005, 01:18 AM
Alright, let's get this thread going...

http://all.snapsoid.com/580/~Camera_Girl.jpg

I'm starting to salivate, thanks a lot efoto! :p

http://www.mikedoughty.com/blog/archives/londonsuicide5.jpg

efoto
Nov 6, 2005, 01:26 AM
300/2.8 and no lens hood. That girl needs to be spanked.

I'll do it, if I must :rolleyes:

Is that a 300 f/2.8? I was trying to figure out which lens it was....sadly I don't have that much experience with large L-glass :(

I'm starting to salivate, thanks a lot efoto! :p

http://www.mikedoughty.com/blog/archives/londonsuicide5.jpg

You're quite welcome, it's what I'm here for :)

All you need to know is how to navigate websites in Russian ;) There are tons of open servers with model shoots floating around if you know where to look (sadly I do :o)



(I'm not seeing that image by the way, not even in a new tab)

bousozoku
Nov 6, 2005, 01:51 AM
Poor woman! I'd hate to be seen with a Canon camera in my hands, unless I was throwing it away. :p

mcarnes
Nov 6, 2005, 02:06 AM
Then theses are just for you bousozoku. Enjoy!

http://rkm7007.tripod.com/girl2.jpg

http://j-girl.axisz.jp/photo/photoexp2004/photoexpo04_nikon04.jpg

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 6, 2005, 02:23 AM
I'll do it, if I must :rolleyes:

Is that a 300 f/2.8? I was trying to figure out which lens it was....sadly I don't have that much experience with large L-glass :(

I think he was right. The only other lens that comes close is the 100-400L, but it is more straight through in the body, than tiered like this one.

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 6, 2005, 02:26 AM
Poor woman! I'd hate to be seen with a Canon camera in my hands, unless I was throwing it away. :p


Well after a long wait, you will soon have your D200. :)

Since I own some Canon glass already, I have big hopes for the PMA show and the "30D". Then we might just see just who the "daddy" is. :D

bousozoku
Nov 6, 2005, 02:26 AM
Then theses are just for you bousozoku. Enjoy!

http://rkm7007.tripod.com/girl2.jpg

http://j-girl.axisz.jp/photo/photoexp2004/photoexpo04_nikon04.jpg

10x zoom in a compact package? That's truly heaven! :)

Kawaii desu ne!

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 6, 2005, 02:27 AM
Then theses are just for you bousozoku. Enjoy!

http://rkm7007.tripod.com/girl2.jpg

http://j-girl.axisz.jp/photo/photoexp2004/photoexpo04_nikon04.jpg

Yeah, but just look at how puny her "equipment" is compared to the Canon image.
:D

Platform
Nov 6, 2005, 02:45 AM
Was browsing a few, uh hum, sites and came across this nice little snippet:

Made me start to think if there are more existing pictures on this general idea...celebs/models with camera stuff. This may well be short lived, but if nothing else I just wanted to share a little Adriana with a camera :D

Wooo.......:eek: :eek: :D

Abstract
Nov 6, 2005, 07:48 AM
The Nikon is smaller and cuter, but it has no figure.

I'd still do it though. I meant "use".....I'd still "use" the camera.

And then I'd use it again.

efoto
Nov 6, 2005, 09:08 AM
The Nikon is smaller and cuter, but it has no figure.

I'd still do it though. I meant "use".....I'd still "use" the camera.

And then I'd use it again.

Regardless of what camera system, seeing Adriana holding such a large and glorious lens like that is, well, inspiring :rolleyes:

Saddest part is she probably dropped it seconds after that image was taken. The little series on the street only shows her once holding the camera....and I think it's bigger than she is used too :p :D

""
Do you need help with that 'equipment' miss?
I think I can handle it, I'm nearly a pro ;)
Really, you seem to have quite the complete 'package'. I'm working later, care to watch me shoot? ( :eek: )
Sure, like that would be so totally cool!
(perved tone) Excellent.....excellent.........
""

devilot
Nov 6, 2005, 09:34 AM
Yeah, but just look at how puny her "equipment" is compared to the Canon image. :DYeah well, what do you expect? Most women (read; as in, there are not many supermodels in the world, period) who are thin aren't also blessed enough to have big ol' um... breastesses. :o Plus she's Asian and I think there are fewer Asians w/ the big ones... at least, prior to any alteration.

Mr. Anderson
Nov 6, 2005, 09:44 AM
Makes me wonder what sort of picture she's taking.....

and the little scarf she's wearing I'm sure comes in handy for stapping on that camera when she's not taking pics ;)

D

efoto
Nov 6, 2005, 10:11 AM
Yeah well, what do you expect? Most women (read; as in, there are not many supermodels in the world, period) who are thin aren't also blessed enough to have big ol' um... breastesses. :o Plus she's Asian and I think there are fewer Asians w/ the big ones... at least, prior to any alteration.

Brazilians are certainly the way to go, thin and busty. If I had the money to afford a supermodel, I'd go to Brazil :rolleyes:

Asians women are hot, I love them. It's not all about the breasts, there are so many other qualities....like....umm, like her bum, her hips, her eyes, hair, teeth, etc :D

Chundles
Nov 6, 2005, 10:22 AM
I've been looking at these photos all day and I still can't see the cameras. Is this like one of those "magic eye" things where you sort of have to cross your eyes in order to see the hidden image? Cause I can do those and it's not working.

whocares
Nov 6, 2005, 11:33 AM
I've been looking at these photos all day and I still can't see the cameras. Is this like one of those "magic eye" things where you sort of have to cross your eyes in order to see the hidden image? Cause I can do those and it's not working.


http://www.pinetreeline.org/fco2004/2004/2004-113.jpg


See the camera now? :p :p

2nyRiggz
Nov 6, 2005, 03:07 PM
yup thats the only thing i see in that picture..the chick in the 1st post is hott



Bless

plinkoman
Nov 6, 2005, 09:33 PM
wow, i just can't get over how beautiful Adriana is

Mike Teezie
Nov 7, 2005, 10:00 AM
I'll post a picture of my girlfriend holding my camera with my new 70-200mmL when it gets here.

efoto
Nov 7, 2005, 10:18 AM
I'll post a picture of my girlfriend holding my camera with my new 70-200mmL when it gets here.

I hate you for having ordered a 70-200 L lenses (and for having a girlfriend :rolleyes: ). Did you get the f/4, f/2.8, or the f/2.8 IS?

Regardless, I'm holding you to that picture, since you mentioned it.

efoto
Nov 7, 2005, 10:19 AM
[IMG]http://www.pinetreeline.org/fco2004/2004/2004-113.jpg[IMG]


See the camera now? :p :p

Why would you....how come....oh dammit all. The threads tainted, time to start over :rolleyes: :p

Mike Teezie
Nov 7, 2005, 01:01 PM
I hate you for having ordered a 70-200 L lenses (and for having a girlfriend :rolleyes: ). Did you get the f/4, f/2.8, or the f/2.8 IS?

Regardless, I'm holding you to that picture, since you mentioned it.

Since I'll mainly be shooting with this lens outside, I got the f/4.

I would have loved to get the 2.8, but it was $400 more than the 4. Seeing as I'm a college kid on a budget, it's a stretch for me to even own L Glass.

I'm also saving for my "walkaround lens" - the 24-70 f/2.8 L, which was another factor in not being able to go for the 2.8.

efoto
Nov 7, 2005, 01:23 PM
Since I'll mainly be shooting with this lens outside, I got the f/4.

I would have loved to get the 2.8, but it was $400 more than the 4. Seeing as I'm a college kid on a budget, it's a stretch for me to even own L Glass.

I'm also saving for my "walkaround lens" - the 24-70 f/2.8 L, which was another factor in not being able to go for the 2.8.

Understandable for sure. I'll be in the same boat as you shortly when I pony up for a new body and start drooling over L glass. It's a pain being in college and having no money :p Really makes me envious of those kids whose parents pay their way for education and they work....all profits and no expenses would be great right about now :o

CanadaRAM
Nov 7, 2005, 01:28 PM
Was browsing a few, uh hum, sites and came across this nice little snippet:
Made me start to think if there are more existing pictures on this general idea...celebs/models with camera stuff. This may well be short lived, but if nothing else I just wanted to share a little Adriana with a camera :D
What would Emmy say, with you consorting with "snippets" behind her back?

Dafke
Nov 7, 2005, 01:29 PM
Was browsing a few, uh hum, sites and came across this nice little snippet:

http://www.circlethought.com/forum_images/L glass_classy ass.jpg

Made me start to think if there are more existing pictures on this general idea...celebs/models with camera stuff. This may well be short lived, but if nothing else I just wanted to share a little Adriana with a camera :D

hmm, can't see the pic, is it removed, the thread makes me curious! can you post it again?

efoto
Nov 7, 2005, 02:17 PM
What would Emmy say, with you consorting with "snippets" behind her back?

Wait, what!? Ohh, her....umm, well see this thing happened....and umm....
*packs shop and runs*

I still love (you) Emmy :rolleyes:

this was just a hot chick with a camera that spawned a rhyming title, I couldn't resist :p

efoto
Nov 7, 2005, 02:18 PM
hmm, can't see the pic, is it removed, the thread makes me curious! can you post it again?

Are you serious? It shows up in your post....and the other posts, and....

Perhaps try reloading the page or clearing your browser's cache :confused:

Dafke
Nov 7, 2005, 03:09 PM
Are you serious? It shows up in your post....and the other posts, and....

Perhaps try reloading the page or clearing your browser's cache :confused:

serious, can't see it, tried several browsers, emptied cache, but it doesn't show.
safari is letting me know that "http://www.circlethought.com/forum_images/L%20glass_classy%20ass.jpg" doesn't exists.

efoto
Nov 7, 2005, 03:49 PM
serious, can't see it, tried several browsers, emptied cache, but it doesn't show.
safari is letting me know that "http://www.circlethought.com/forum_images/L%20glass_classy%20ass.jpg" doesn't exists.

Not sure what to tell you. Anyone else having issues seeing the image?

jsw
Nov 7, 2005, 03:53 PM
Not sure what to tell you. Anyone else having issues seeing the image?
I see it....

Dafke
Nov 7, 2005, 04:05 PM
Not sure what to tell you. Anyone else having issues seeing the image?

this is odd...
do i need to turn of my porn-filter?

jsw
Nov 7, 2005, 04:07 PM
Better?

http://formymac.com/MR/L glass_classy ass.jpg

Dafke
Nov 7, 2005, 04:15 PM
Better?

http://formymac.com/MR/L glass_classy ass.jpg

nice...

thank you, was worth waiting, now i understand why everybody was so enthousiastic.
too bad my girlfriend saw me looking at the picture. i told her it was all about the lens, but she she didn't believe me...

Mike Teezie
Nov 7, 2005, 08:53 PM
I still don't know how I feel about the grayish white color Canon chooses for some of the L lenses.

Other than the "hey, look at me! I've got an expensive lens!" factor, is there a point?

The 24-70L I want is black thank goodness. Even black, the 70-200L would have been garish enough due to it's size (especially with a lens hood) but they had to go and paint the sucker white.

Mike Teezie
Nov 7, 2005, 08:58 PM
Understandable for sure. I'll be in the same boat as you shortly when I pony up for a new body and start drooling over L glass. It's a pain being in college and having no money :p Really makes me envious of those kids whose parents pay their way for education and they work....all profits and no expenses would be great right about now :o

Definitely. We gots the skillz, the desire to shoot, but have.....no money.

I'm reading up a ton on portraits. I hope to sort of delve into that a little, because the market for it where I am is pretty big. I'm practicing a ton on friends and family in the meantime.

Hopefully with a nice web presence with great galleries I can drum up some business to help pay for....drumroll please....more camera kit.

efoto
Nov 7, 2005, 09:20 PM
Better?
<img snipped>

What did you do differently? I vaguely remember having some issues like this in some early img posts here at MR, but then I guess they sort of went away.

I upload it, change permissions on the file to 755 (including the folders it lies in) and then bang, it seems to work....not sure why some people have troubles :confused:

efoto
Nov 7, 2005, 09:23 PM
I still don't know how I feel about the grayish white color Canon chooses for some of the L lenses.

Other than the "hey, look at me! I've got an expensive lens!" factor, is there a point?

The 24-70L I want is black thank goodness. Even black, the 70-200L would have been garish enough due to it's size (especially with a lens hood) but they had to go and paint the sucker white.

I kind of like the white color, the transition from a black body to a white lens....I think it looks neat. They certainly broke the mold a while back, everyone knows what a white lens means, even if they aren't into photography at all. When you see pictures of the picture-takers at sporting events it's always a crowd of massive white lenses :p

The red ring is what the real shooters look for, that's where the L is at ;)....white just makes that stand out, or negates your requirement to look for it because you know white means L too. Oh well, it's how it is and I still want one :D

Edit: From this (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx) site:
"Many in the Canon L lens series are white in color. According to Canon, this reduces heat gain when a lens is used in bright, direct sunlight. White reflects more light than black - thus, less heat gain. The white lenses look great (my opinion of course), but attract attention."

Definitely. We gots the skillz, the desire to shoot, but have.....no money.

I'm reading up a ton on portraits. I hope to sort of delve into that a little, because the market for it where I am is pretty big. I'm practicing a ton on friends and family in the meantime.

Hopefully with a nice web presence with great galleries I can drum up some business to help pay for....drumroll please....more camera kit.

What lens are you planning on using for portraits? I hear a lot of people using an 85 prime, a few others fitting it in on a zoom 35-105 or 28-135 (or whatever those #s are). Do you already have a lens you are using for portraits specifically?

Mike Teezie
Nov 8, 2005, 11:04 AM
Right now, I'm using the 50mm f/1.4 for portraits. I love it. $70!!!

I looked at that 28-135mm, but I'm just going to wait until I can get the 24-70L.

So with my 70-200, I'll have L glass that covers 24-200 focal length range.

Mike Teezie
Nov 8, 2005, 11:10 AM
BTW - I think someone should go for an Adriana 'tar:

Sogo
Nov 8, 2005, 11:19 AM
I would, but but but...I don't have an avatar yet. oh well, back to posting I go.

Sdashiki
Nov 8, 2005, 11:38 AM
anyone else think that girl has no idea how to use that camera?

efoto
Nov 8, 2005, 01:22 PM
Right now, I'm using the 50mm f/1.4 for portraits. I love it. $70!!!

I looked at that 28-135mm, but I'm just going to wait until I can get the 24-70L.

So with my 70-200, I'll have L glass that covers 24-200 focal length range.

Last I looked the 50 f/1.4 was $300+, you talking about the f/1.8 or you mix up your prices? :confused:

I went the opposite road as you, starting with 24-70 and hopefully attaining the 70-200 in the not-so-distant-yet-not-so-far-away future :rolleyes: :D Pair that with a 1.4x tele-converter and you have 24-280 focal L range (effectively 38.4-448 with then 1.6x FOV). Pretty sweet, I know that's my goal....

Mike Teezie
Nov 8, 2005, 04:28 PM
Last I looked the 50 f/1.4 was $300+, you talking about the f/1.8 or you mix up your prices? :confused:

I went the opposite road as you, starting with 24-70 and hopefully attaining the 70-200 in the not-so-distant-yet-not-so-far-away future :rolleyes: :D Pair that with a 1.4x tele-converter and you have 24-280 focal L range (effectively 38.4-448 with then 1.6x FOV). Pretty sweet, I know that's my goal....

I'm an idiot - I meant the f/1.8.

I was going to ask you how you liked the 24-70. Is it odd getting used to it being sort of "reversed" in that the lens is longest at it's shortest focal length?

Got any images you care to share that you've snapped?

I'm in the same boat - cutting silly expenses where I can, just so I can get closer to that 24-70......

efoto
Nov 8, 2005, 04:56 PM
I'm an idiot - I meant the f/1.8.

I was going to ask you how you liked the 24-70. Is it odd getting used to it being sort of "reversed" in that the lens is longest at it's shortest focal length?

Got any images you care to share that you've snapped?

I'm in the same boat - cutting silly expenses where I can, just so I can get closer to that 24-70......

I figured you meant the f/1.8, had me scared I missed a fabulous deal on the f/1.4 at $80 :eek:

The hardest thing for me getting used to is that Canon is reversed from Nikon in zoom. Canons are (at least this 24-70 is :p) counter-clockwise to telephoto, clockwise to wide which is opposite all the Nikon stuff I had. Are all their lenses like this? This particular lens going out for 24 and in for 70 doesn't make a lick of difference to me, just a bit funny, especially when you are trying to take a picture of someone and they tell you to zoom out because they don't want a face-splat picture and you tell them you are zoomed out, the lens goes out when it's wide :rolleyes: :D

I haven't even uploaded any to my computer yet, today was the first day I was able to test-shoot the camera and the lens. I can throw some up once I get a few more things figured out.

Mike Teezie
Nov 8, 2005, 05:54 PM
I only have my 18-55mm kit lens besides the prime, and it is the same as your 24-70 - counter-clockwise to telephoto.

Can't wait to see those shots you took....

whocares
Nov 8, 2005, 06:16 PM
I kind of like the white color, the transition from a black body to a white lens....I think it looks neat. They certainly broke the mold a while back, everyone knows what a white lens means, even if they aren't into photography at all. When you see pictures of the picture-takers at sporting events it's always a crowd of massive white lenses :p

Not quite so true, Nikon has also started offering white telephoto lenses... :o

The red ring is what the real shooters look for, that's where the L is at ;)....white just makes that stand out, or negates your requirement to look for it because you know white means L too. Oh well, it's how it is and I still want one :D

What the real shooters look for are the golden rings for ED glass ;)

[Beware: lame cheap bragging ahead :p]
I sure love the golden ring on my AF Nikkor 300 1:2.8 :D :D
Don't care for the weight though...
(it's old, worn and focuses slow, but as all Nikon 300/2.8 it's optically brilliant)

mkrishnan
Nov 8, 2005, 06:31 PM
this is odd...
do i need to turn of my porn-filter?

In order to see this image? No, probably not. But as a general principle? Yes, most definitely!

:eek: :p :D

LimeiBook86
Nov 8, 2005, 07:50 PM
I hate you for having ordered a 70-200 L lenses (and for having a girlfriend :rolleyes: )
That makes two of us then! Hahaha, I'm stuck with a HP PhotoSmart 435 (3mp)...*sigh*, I might get a new camera soon....but, then I want a new intel Mac......or that perdy girl in that picture :D decisions... decisions...:rolleyes: :p

Mike Teezie
Nov 8, 2005, 08:48 PM
I told my girlfriend about this thread today. She laughed and said she would pose with the camera/lens.

Now I have to start thinking about what this shot needs to look like.....

MattG
Nov 8, 2005, 09:10 PM
That makes two of us then! Hahaha, I'm stuck with a HP PhotoSmart 435 (3mp)...*sigh*, I might get a new camera soon....but, then I want a new intel Mac......or that perdy girl in that picture :D decisions... decisions...:rolleyes: :p

Make that three of us ;)

I'm going to sell my 28-135 IS lens...not happy with it. I think I'm going to spend the extra buckage and go with an "L" of some sort; not sure which yet.

efoto
Nov 8, 2005, 11:13 PM
I told my girlfriend about this thread today. She laughed and said she would pose with the camera/lens.

Now I have to start thinking about what this shot needs to look like.....

I think we all know what it needs to look like....it's pretty obvious it needs to be better than the first post ;) If it's necessary that you email it to me instead of posting it, that's fine, I'll PM my address :rolleyes: :D

Make that three of us ;)

I'm going to sell my 28-135 IS lens...not happy with it. I think I'm going to spend the extra buckage and go with an "L" of some sort; not sure which yet.

The f/4 L's are quite nice, much more cost effective than the f/2.8's but obviously brighter and faster ;). I almost purchased the 17-40 L but the focal length was just a bit too short in my opinion. The 70-200 f/4 L gets awesome reviews in every way in comparison to the f/2.8 (IS) versions, so that's always an option too. L is definitely sweet, I love the build quality of this 24-70 L, feels plain awesome but f/2.8 is freakin' huge!!! :eek: 77mm filters, doesn't even fit into the bag I had before due to diameter :)/:(

Mike Teezie
Nov 10, 2005, 01:27 AM
Make that three of us ;)

I'm going to sell my 28-135 IS lens...not happy with it. I think I'm going to spend the extra buckage and go with an "L" of some sort; not sure which yet.

What weren't you happy about, if you don't mind me asking?

MacNoobie
Nov 10, 2005, 04:43 AM
I think we all know what it needs to look like....it's pretty obvious it needs to be better than the first post ;) If it's necessary that you email it to me instead of posting it, that's fine, I'll PM my address :rolleyes: :D



The f/4 L's are quite nice, much more cost effective than the f/2.8's but obviously brighter and faster ;). I almost purchased the 17-40 L but the focal length was just a bit too short in my opinion. The 70-200 f/4 L gets awesome reviews in every way in comparison to the f/2.8 (IS) versions, so that's always an option too. L is definitely sweet, I love the build quality of this 24-70 L, feels plain awesome but f/2.8 is freakin' huge!!! :eek: 77mm filters, doesn't even fit into the bag I had before due to diameter :)/:(

I love you efoto!!
A girl that knows her photography equipment = gold :D

Anyways I love my 24-70 L and the f/2.8 is nice but sheesh the lens is rather large and beefy as is, cant imagine trying to shove some 77mm filters into my bag or case with the limited room both have now trying to squeeze a Mk II n and the lens in. I must admit I have been looking for some extra reach and I've almost settled down for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS to give me some extra reach over the 24-70. I'm debating between a 28-300L a 70-200L and a 100-400L at this point to give me some reach over the 70mm and maybe to avoid frequent lens swapping.

Have fun!
MacNoobie

efoto
Nov 10, 2005, 06:46 AM
I love you efoto!!
A girl that knows her photography equipment = gold :D

Anyways I love my 24-70 L and the f/2.8 is nice but sheesh the lens is rather large and beefy as is, cant imagine trying to shove some 77mm filters into my bag or case with the limited room both have now trying to squeeze a Mk II n and the lens in. I must admit I have been looking for some extra reach and I've almost settled down for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS to give me some extra reach over the 24-70. I'm debating between a 28-300L a 70-200L and a 100-400L at this point to give me some reach over the 70mm and maybe to avoid frequent lens swapping.

Have fun!
MacNoobie

HAHAHA ROFL :p :D....I'm hot :rolleyes: I'm an outty-genital (man)! The 'tar strikes again! Muhuhaha ;)

Look at the 70-200 f/2.8 (IS) and a 1.4x tele-converter, gives awesome reach for the times you want but not the added size and cost of a much larger lens (300/400/500 prime). In addition, the 1.4x tc only losses one stop, effectively making it a f/4 (IS) which is pretty sweet considering your new focal length (98-280 before 1.6x FOVCF from camera). Although if you think you're going to have the tele-converter on there all the time, you may as well at the 100-400 to save you some swapping.

I love the 24-70 thus far, but I'm somewhat financially stuck at the moment, so despite my mass wanting for that 70-200, I'll have to wait for a little while.

iGary
Nov 10, 2005, 06:55 AM
Make that three of us ;)

I'm going to sell my 28-135 IS lens...not happy with it. I think I'm going to spend the extra buckage and go with an "L" of some sort; not sure which yet.

It's a great lens for aerial photography with the range and IS, just not so great with regular stuff, IMO.

My 24-70L sucks ass for aerials. Awesome for tripod landscape, creative and product shots, though.

Moxiemike
Nov 10, 2005, 07:21 AM
Yeah, but just look at how puny her "equipment" is compared to the Canon image.
:D

i'm with you there. she's too thin.

in my country, bone is for the dog. meat is for the man.

efoto
Nov 10, 2005, 08:22 AM
i'm with you there. she's too thin.

in my country, bone is for the dog. meat is for the man.

Haha, what a spin Mike, I love it. :D

Moxiemike
Nov 10, 2005, 08:24 AM
Haha, what a spin Mike, I love it. :D


it's true.

rail thin = hurts like h-e-double hockey sticks.

Especially when... ah nevermind.

efoto
Nov 10, 2005, 08:32 AM
it's true.

rail thin = hurts like h-e-double hockey sticks.

Especially when... ah nevermind.

Oh man, this thread is getting closed :p

It turns out there aren't many hotties holding nice glass (back OT) that I could find. I found a few around/near camera equipment, but most of those shots were quite old and not worth sharing.

This isn't 'L glass' but it's certainly an 'a**', though I'm not convinced of the aforementioned a**'s class:

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/6/canon_maria_sharapova.jpg

If you watch your tennis, you know who that is ;)

Moxiemike
Nov 10, 2005, 08:35 AM
Oh man, this thread is getting closed :p

It turns out there aren't many hotties holding nice glass (back OT) that I could find. I found a few around/near camera equipment, but most of those shots were quite old and not worth sharing.

This isn't 'L glass' but it's certainly an 'a**', though I'm not convinced of the aforementioned a**'s class:

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/6/canon_maria_sharapova.jpg

If you watch your tennis, you know who that is ;)

there's a few female pj's in my town who are as beautiful as they are talented. it's always fun working the crowds and chattering with 'em. :)

they know their ****.

MacNoobie
Nov 10, 2005, 02:25 PM
HAHAHA ROFL :p :D....I'm hot :rolleyes: I'm an outty-genital (man)! The 'tar strikes again! Muhuhaha ;)

Look at the 70-200 f/2.8 (IS) and a 1.4x tele-converter, gives awesome reach for the times you want but not the added size and cost of a much larger lens (300/400/500 prime). In addition, the 1.4x tc only losses one stop, effectively making it a f/4 (IS) which is pretty sweet considering your new focal length (98-280 before 1.6x FOVCF from camera). Although if you think you're going to have the tele-converter on there all the time, you may as well at the 100-400 to save you some swapping.

I love the 24-70 thus far, but I'm somewhat financially stuck at the moment, so despite my mass wanting for that 70-200, I'll have to wait for a little while.

LMAO I've been following the thread for a while and figured I'd chime in at ohh ~4 am when I'm tired. :cool:

I wouldn’t mind the 70-200 just for the fast f/2.8 aperture but I know when I get a 1.4x converter it brings it down to f/4 so that’s still pretty good but kind of defeats the purpose of having the fast aperture. I might have to find out when my dads friend gets back here and try out his 100-400 L and see how dark it is because I liked the lens but the view finder on his 20D was small it was hard to do any decent photos in doors and get em sharp. I might invest in a prime like a 50mm or 135mm for portraits and things like that but a long zoom lens is a priority to get closer to wild life and things like that. I went ahead and got a first time dSLR (1D Mk II n) with a 1.3x crop factor so the lens end up being 36-260 without the 1.4x converter and ~76-540 with, pretty good for loosing a stop with the 1.4x tc at that focal length and still having IS. I could go with a 100-400 and have it 130-520 and that’s what half a stop worse then the 70-200 combo.

I must say I'm a sucker for beautiful women though, mostly the girl next-door types as oppose to the makeup'd models I commonly see. Anna kournikova is no exception, that’s a ohhhh sooooo nice photo of her I like the shot. The Nikon girl aside from the token Nikon yellow has nice skin tone, the girl with the Canon and niiice L glass from the OP is nice but too makeup'd on.

BTW efoto who's the girl in the Avatar shes nice!

Moxiemike
Nov 10, 2005, 02:42 PM
I must say I'm a sucker for beautiful women though, mostly the girl next-door types as oppose to the makeup'd models I commonly see. Anna kournikova is no exception, that’s a ohhhh sooooo nice photo of her I like the shot. The Nikon girl aside from the token Nikon yellow has nice skin tone, the girl with the Canon and niiice L glass from the OP is nice but too makeup'd on.

BTW efoto who's the girl in the Avatar shes nice!

the canon girl looks too plasticky and while the nikon girl is cute i hear she's noisy as all get out.

Moxiemike
Nov 10, 2005, 02:44 PM
Poor woman! I'd hate to be seen with a Canon camera in my hands, unless I was throwing it away. :p

i totally missed this quote. hilarious.

Moxiemike
Nov 10, 2005, 02:47 PM
It's a great lens for aerial photography with the range and IS, just not so great with regular stuff, IMO.

My 24-70L sucks ass for aerials. Awesome for tripod landscape, creative and product shots, though.


shouldn't you be using a t/s lens for product shots? shame on you if you aren't. ;)

MacNoobie
Nov 10, 2005, 03:01 PM
the canon girl looks too plasticky and while the nikon girl is cute i hear she's noisy as all get out.

I agree, like I said I ABSOLUTELY HATE models that have a plasticy or hollow look to em, too much make up on em anyways. The Nikon girl just has nice skin especially on her stomach, very natural and nice, the Canon girl is attractive dont get me wrong but just the makeup is caked on and the way shes holding the camera seems like she's either never held a camera before or she's never held a Canon that large before.

Moxiemike
Nov 10, 2005, 03:27 PM
I agree, like I said I ABSOLUTELY HATE models that have a plasticy or hollow look to em, too much make up on em anyways. The Nikon girl just has nice skin especially on her stomach, very natural and nice, the Canon girl is attractive dont get me wrong but just the makeup is caked on and the way shes holding the camera seems like she's either never held a camera before or she's never held a Canon that large before.


i was saying that more to do the ol' comparison between nikon and canon camerasssss.

haha

that said, have you ever been to a PMA or fotokina show? they're ALL about scantily clad bimb...weereee... i mean women hawking the latest digitoys

MattG
Nov 10, 2005, 03:33 PM
What weren't you happy about, if you don't mind me asking?

It's just not as sharp as I had hoped it would be. I get very mixed results from it, I guess depending on the focal length being used. The 24-70L I used to have (back when I used a Canon 35mm SLR) was tack sharp, but also 2x the price.

devilot
Nov 10, 2005, 06:06 PM
BTW efoto who's the girl in the Avatar shes nice!Emmy Rossum? Most recently seen in the Phantom of the Opera.

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 10, 2005, 08:41 PM
Make that three of us ;)

I'm going to sell my 28-135 IS lens...not happy with it. I think I'm going to spend the extra buckage and go with an "L" of some sort; not sure which yet.

Surprised that you are disappointed with this lens. I have one and am very happy with it.

Though if you want something better you might look to the 24-105L IS.

The f/4 L's are quite nice, much more cost effective than the f/2.8's but obviously brighter and faster ;). I almost purchased the 17-40 L but the focal length was just a bit too short in my opinion. The 70-200 f/4 L gets awesome reviews in every way in comparison to the f/2.8 (IS) versions, so that's always an option too. L is definitely sweet, I love the build quality of this 24-70 L, feels plain awesome but f/2.8 is freakin' huge!!! :eek: 77mm filters, doesn't even fit into the bag I had before due to diameter :)/:(

I love my 17-40L. It is a great street shooter lens IMO. 2.8 lenses are great for DOF control. In fact rumors are that we may see some exciting lenses announced by all makers come February at PMA. Digital specific 17-55's and 55-200's with 2.8 apertures. Something for everyones budget (within reason of course).

i'm with you there. she's too thin.

in my country, bone is for the dog. meat is for the man.

Oh, you were talking about the girl. I was talking about her camera. :)

that said, have you ever been to a PMA or fotokina show? they're ALL about scantily clad bimb...weereee... i mean women hawking the latest digitoys

Never been to one of these photo shows. But a previous employer sent me to trade shows since I am Gay, and he felt that I would be better able to get past the "beautiful" bodies and come back with the right gear at the right prices.

You should have seen the look on one sales guy's face when he tried to win me over saying that the model was going to be at a private party for those that signed purchase orders that day. I said fine, but asked if her brother was going to be there too? :D

A bit OT, but I have had a few comments from my female customers that complain that when there are photo shoots held by companies, they fail to recognize that women are now empowered with the business purchase decisions too.

It's just not as sharp as I had hoped it would be. I get very mixed results from it, I guess depending on the focal length being used. The 24-70L I used to have (back when I used a Canon 35mm SLR) was tack sharp, but also 2x the price.

And there lies the rub.

So far in my Canon stable I have the following in no particular order:

From Canon; the 17-40L, the 28-135IS, a 28/2.8, a 50/1.8 mkI, and the 75-300IS (an OK performer IMO).

From others; a Tokina 12-24 (VERY sharp and very distortion free), a Tamron 28-70/2.8 (also VERY sharp), and a Zenitar 16mm fisheye (back when I was using a Rebel Ti mostly).

I am at a crossroads moment. I have a Rebel XT and a 10D. The 10D never made me happy for the lack of AF confirmation speed. Never had any backfocus issues. The Xt has been a winner for me so far for the way I shoot.

Been tempted by the new 5D. I miss knowing how the perspective of the lenses work on the 35mm format, and the DOF of those lenses under 35mm format. And their look. Those that have done LF shooting will understand more of what I mean.

So I am thinking of selling off the 10D (more than thinking actually). Converting the XT to IR by irdigital.net. Buying the 5D. Keeping the 12-24 for the XT. Keeping the 17-40L, the 28-70/2.8, and the 16, 28, and 50 for the 5D. And adding the either the 70-200IS or the 70-300DO. Haven't decided on what to do with the 28-135IS so far. I agree with iGary that it is a great lens for aerials and the such because of the IS.

The other option I face is adding a 20D or waiting for the 30D early next year (just speculation, given the age of the 20D by Feb 2006 and the announcement of the D200) given some of the glass I already own. But it is so tempting to go FF.:D

efoto
Nov 10, 2005, 09:18 PM
Lets see here, where to start....

I must say I'm a sucker for beautiful women though, mostly the girl next-door types as oppose to the makeup'd models I commonly see. Anna kournikova is no exception, thatís a ohhhh sooooo nice photo of her I like the shot. The Nikon girl aside from the token Nikon yellow has nice skin tone, the girl with the Canon and niiice L glass from the OP is nice but too makeup'd on.

BTW efoto who's the girl in the Avatar shes nice!

Anna Kournikova is no exception, but that isn't her in photo....you must not watch your tennis :p That is Maria Sharapova, my Russian beauty ;) As far as Ms. Canon vs. Ms. Nikon....Ms. Canon is Adriana Lima, a VS Angel as well as world-renowned supermodel, basically requiring her to look 'dolled up'. She does have a lot of makeup on in this particular picture, there are others of her that I prefer more though, less makeup along with less articles :D

The woman in my 'tar, as devilot pointed out, is indeed Emmy Rossum who was most recently seen in Phantom of the Opera and also starred in such "hits" as The Day After Tomorrow :rolleyes:

Could someone briefly explain to me the differences between the 1dmkII, smkII, mkIIn? Just sentence or two, I don't want a debate just what they are....they're out of my price range so I haven't read all of their reviews but I figure some of you know.

efoto
Nov 10, 2005, 09:54 PM
Surprised that you are disappointed with this lens. I have one and am very happy with it.

Though if you want something better you might look to the 24-105L IS.

That is an f/4 right? I guess with IS that makes it much more effective....if only they had put IS on the 70-200 f/4, that would be sweet for a lower price-point than the f/2.8 IS.

I love my 17-40L. It is a great street shooter lens IMO. 2.8 lenses are great for DOF control. In fact rumors are that we may see some exciting lenses announced by all makers come February at PMA. Digital specific 17-55's and 55-200's with 2.8 apertures. Something for everyones budget (within reason of course).

I'm hyped to have a 2.8, I honestly never thought I would be in a situation to have such nice equipment like I do now. I often pickup hobbies and buy quality sh** from day one, but this time (photography) I did a decent amount of film work on my mother's old film body before actually buying stuff.

It would be sweet to get some great new lenses at PMA. I have to say I'm hoping that they don't update the 20D too far on PMA, or if they do it costs at least one arm more so that I can still sleep soundly at night.

And there lies the rub.
So far in my Canon stable I have the following in no particular order:
From Canon; the 17-40L, the 28-135IS, a 28/2.8, a 50/1.8 mkI, and the 75-300IS (an OK performer IMO).
From others; a Tokina 12-24 (VERY sharp and very distortion free), a Tamron 28-70/2.8 (also VERY sharp), and a Zenitar 16mm fisheye (back when I was using a Rebel Ti mostly).
<snip>
The other option I face is adding a 20D or waiting for the 30D early next year (just speculation, given the age of the 20D by Feb 2006 and the announcement of the D200) given some of the glass I already own. But it is so tempting to go FF.:D

Part of me wishes the 24-70 was a 20-70 for some added wide angle, probably just as much as I would personally need to get (considering the 20 f2.8), although then it would probably sacrifice something to do that, who knows.
So that Tokina 12-24 works well for you?
From what I have heard from a Canon 'insider' is that the rebuttal camera to the D200 will indeed announce at PMA in Feb and be available late March/April. Also, this new contender will more than likely be priced slightly above the D200 price point, similar to the gap between the 20D and D70s. With the D200 body around $1800, look for the '30D' to be priced between $2000 and $2200 US. So regardless of the fact that I'm sure the successor to the 20D will improve some features, count on a higher price which should still continue to make the 20D a value at its price for its features.

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 10, 2005, 10:23 PM
That is an f/4 right? I guess with IS that makes it much more effective....if only they had put IS on the 70-200 f/4, that would be sweet for a lower price-point than the f/2.8 IS.

The new 24-105L is an F4.0.

And I agree a 70-200L IS at f/4 would be a killer, but not likley to happen for business reasons.

It would be sweet to get some great new lenses at PMA. I have to say I'm hoping that they don't update the 20D too far on PMA, or if they do it costs at least one arm more so that I can still sleep soundly at night.

After the D200, you can bet the farm on a "killer" 30D IMO. On the lens front, you can look forward to more IMo from Nikon, Canon, Sigma, and Tamron to address the big sales from this Xmas on the DSLR front.

So that Tokina 12-24 works well for you?

Very well! Super sharp and well corrected. The only lens better IMO is the Tamron 11-18! The shorter range and slower aperture of the Tamron allows it beat the pants off all others IMO. I went with the Tokina becuase it is a close second to the Tamron, and I wanted the extra range it offered over the Tamron.

From what I have heard from a Canon 'insider' is that the rebuttal camera to the D200 will indeed announce at PMA in Feb and be available late March/April. Also, this new contender will more than likely be priced slightly above the D200 price point, similar to the gap between the 20D and D70s. With the D200 body around $1800, look for the '30D' to be priced between $2000 and $2200 US. So regardless of the fact that I'm sure the successor to the 20D will improve some features, count on a higher price which should still continue to make the 20D a value at its price for its features.

Well the D200 is $1699US. Anything higher than $100-200US over that might kill the 30D IMO given the current line-ups from both.

Anything that Canon offers up next will have to have at least 5fps (maybe going to 6fps). Offer an EOS 1/3 build quality with weather stripping. IMO it will have to be a 12mp at least. In order to get the $200-2200US pricing it would have to be a 1.3x field of view factor sensor. But that would leave out those that have the EF-S lenses, and given the US love of lawyers - I don't see that happening.

homerjward
Nov 10, 2005, 10:28 PM
Lets see here, where to start....



Anna Kournikova is no exception, but that isn't her in photo....you must not watch your tennis :p That is Maria Sharapova, my Russian beauty ;) As far as Ms. Canon vs. Ms. Nikon....Ms. Canon is Adriana Lima, a VS Angel as well as world-renowned supermodel, basically requiring her to look 'dolled up'. She does have a lot of makeup on in this particular picture, there are others of her that I prefer more though, less makeup along with less articles :D

The woman in my 'tar, as devilot pointed out, is indeed Emmy Rossum who was most recently seen in Phantom of the Opera and also starred in such "hits" as The Day After Tomorrow :rolleyes:

Could someone briefly explain to me the differences between the 1dmkII, smkII, mkIIn? Just sentence or two, I don't want a debate just what they are....they're out of my price range so I haven't read all of their reviews but I figure some of you know.
1dsmkII has a 16mp full-frame sensor and 4fps shooting rate, along with other stuff. 1dmkII has an 8.2mp CCD (unlike the CMOS in the ds) and 8fps shooting. the 1dmkIIn is basically a 1dmkII with a bigger lcd (2.5") and some more advanced card features (simultaneous RAW and jpeg to separate cards, etc.)

Moxiemike
Nov 11, 2005, 08:07 AM
The new 24-105L is an F4.0.

And I agree a 70-200L IS at f/4 would be a killer, but not likley to happen for business reasons.



After the D200, you can bet the farm on a "killer" 30D IMO. On the lens front, you can look forward to more IMo from Nikon, Canon, Sigma, and Tamron to address the big sales from this Xmas on the DSLR front.



Very well! Super sharp and well corrected. The only lens better IMO is the Tamron 11-18! The shorter range and slower aperture of the Tamron allows it beat the pants off all others IMO. I went with the Tokina becuase it is a close second to the Tamron, and I wanted the extra range it offered over the Tamron.



Well the D200 is $1699US. Anything higher than $100-200US over that might kill the 30D IMO given the current line-ups from both.

Anything that Canon offers up next will have to have at least 5fps (maybe going to 6fps). Offer an EOS 1/3 build quality with weather stripping. IMO it will have to be a 12mp at least. In order to get the $200-2200US pricing it would have to be a 1.3x field of view factor sensor. But that would leave out those that have the EF-S lenses, and given the US love of lawyers - I don't see that happening.

Canon is gonna have a tough time upgrading the 20d when you consider how new the 5d is and how close the D200 comes to both the 20d and the 5d in terms of price (the former) and specs (the latter).

If they underspec it, it'll be seen as a failure compared to the D200 but do they really wanna undermine sales of the 5d?

I think that what will happen is: 30d @ 10mp. $1199. 5d drops to $1999. original rebel discountinued. XT drops to $799. I don't think there's much else they can really do. It's a tight fit for both in that "tweener" market.

I hope the Canon 17-55, if they make one, is great. Having had my nikon 17-55 for almost a year, it makes me not even notice i'm using a crop sensor anymore. It's sharp. Contrasty. Has INCREDIBLE color, producing lovely saturated tones, and is FAST.

I showed a non-camera guy my D2h with 17-55 and has him focus in low-light (my living room) and he was amazed at how fast it focused, from a completely OOF blurry VF to a lovely, tack sharp image in the VF.

And it's all the 17-55. Hopefully Canon will make one as good as the Nikon. There's really no flaw in this lens. It made me reconsider my Sigma purchases, thinking "i should just buy the top-end nikon stuff. it's that good"

Chip-- did you know that the Tokina 12-24 f4 is pretty much the same as the Nikon 12-24 f4 but without the SWM motor??? I guess nikon lisenced the design to them, as they did the n80 to Fuji. That tokina is a killer lens at half the price of the nikon with exactly the same specs. And you canon folks don't need a lens mount converter to use that great Nikkor now. ;)

efoto
Nov 11, 2005, 08:11 AM
And I agree a 70-200L IS at f/4 would be a killer, but not likley to happen for business reasons.
Agreed, but here's to wishing :o

Very well! Super sharp and well corrected. The only lens better IMO is the Tamron 11-18! The shorter range and slower aperture of the Tamron allows it beat the pants off all others IMO. I went with the Tokina becuase it is a close second to the Tamron, and I wanted the extra range it offered over the Tamron.
How does a slower aperture help it out? I figured it they had made that lens 2.8 then you can always stop to 4/5.6/22 whatever, but how does it being 4.5-5.6 help it over the Tokina's straight 4?

Well the D200 is $1699US. Anything higher than $100-200US over that might kill the 30D IMO given the current line-ups from both.

Anything that Canon offers up next will have to have at least 5fps (maybe going to 6fps). Offer an EOS 1/3 build quality with weather stripping. IMO it will have to be a 12mp at least. In order to get the $200-2200US pricing it would have to be a 1.3x field of view factor sensor. But that would leave out those that have the EF-S lenses, and given the US love of lawyers - I don't see that happening.

I must have had an older/rumor price of $1800, I see it's being listed at $1700 now ($1699 :p). I still think that it wouldn't be too outrageous to expect the Canon competitor to come out $200 above that, listing at $1900. I agree with your points about the included features, as well as probably not going to the 1.3x sensor due to negation of EF-S lens users. I know FF uses EF, does 1.3 use EF solely as well?

1dsmkII has a 16mp full-frame sensor and 4fps shooting rate, along with other stuff. 1dmkII has an 8.2mp CCD (unlike the CMOS in the ds) and 8fps shooting. the 1dmkIIn is basically a 1dmkII with a bigger lcd (2.5") and some more advanced card features (simultaneous RAW and jpeg to separate cards, etc.)

So essentially the 1dsmkII is a 5D on steroids, the 1dmkII is a fast-shooter, and the 1dmkIIn has more user-oriented features than the 1dmkII? Does that essentially sum them up? Are the 1dmkII/n models 1.3x or FF?

Moxiemike
Nov 11, 2005, 08:16 AM
Agreed, but here's to wishing :o


How does a slower aperture help it out? I figured it they had made that lens 2.8 then you can always stop to 4/5.6/22 whatever, but how does it being 4.5-5.6 help it over the Tokina's straight 4?


A 2.8 aperture, by design limits, is usually not too sharp until you hit f5. And because of the lower aperture, you start to get diffraction at the high aps like f16, f22, et. al. Some 2.8's don't go past f16.

An f4 they can make smaller in diameter, to better tolerances, and get sharp ap's from wide open (which might still be soft) all the way to f22 with less diffraction than a 2.8.

Some lenses pick a larger aperture based on application, the 12-24 being a prime example. You don't need a big 2.8 on that lens, as it's easier to handhold anyway, and mostly used for landscapey stuff. I don't miss 2.8 on my 12-24 and it's my only piece of glass that's that slow.

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 11, 2005, 09:22 AM
Canon is gonna have a tough time upgrading the 20d when you consider how new the 5d is and how close the D200 comes to both the 20d and the 5d in terms of price (the former) and specs (the latter).

IMO the 5D is a different beast. FF sensor and only 3fps without the weather sealing gaskets.

If they underspec it, it'll be seen as a failure compared to the D200 but do they really wanna undermine sales of the 5d?

Again the 5D is a different beast. A 20D replacement will have to have compatibility IMO with the EF-S mount and a 1.6x field of view factor in order to be compatible with digital specific lenses.

I think that what will happen is: 30d @ 10mp. $1199. 5d drops to $1999. original rebel discountinued. XT drops to $799. I don't think there's much else they can really do. It's a tight fit for both in that "tweener" market.

IMO we will see the 30D closer to the D200 in terms of specs and price. The original Rebel is basically gone already. The XT also gets an up grade to better match the current D70s. A new DRebel KISS to meet the D50. Unless there is a big leap in the quantity of FF CMOS chips that Canon can produce, the best reduction in price IMO is to go to $2700 to $3000 by the middle of next year.

I hope the Canon 17-55, if they make one, is great. Having had my nikon 17-55 for almost a year, it makes me not even notice i'm using a crop sensor anymore. It's sharp. Contrasty. Has INCREDIBLE color, producing lovely saturated tones, and is FAST.

It should match up well to Nikons offering.

Chip-- did you know that the Tokina 12-24 f4 is pretty much the same as the Nikon 12-24 f4 but without the SWM motor??? I guess nikon lisenced the design to them, as they did the n80 to Fuji. That tokina is a killer lens at half the price of the nikon with exactly the same specs. And you canon folks don't need a lens mount converter to use that great Nikkor now. ;)

Pretty much thought so, but did not look at the element count or groupings to find out for sure. But I love your spin on the topic.:) More likely that Nikon OEM'd the lens from Tokina with the provision that Nikon had exclusive use of the lens for x number of months, or till Tokina felt that there was enough critical mass to make it worth their efforts to produce in other mounts.

I can't believe that Nikon would license a lens design that could kill their own sales, or to drive others from the Nikon mount bodies.

How does a slower aperture help it out? I figured it they had made that lens 2.8 then you can always stop to 4/5.6/22 whatever, but how does it being 4.5-5.6 help it over the Tokina's straight 4?

With extreme lens designs, getting the most from them requires compromises to get the best from a design. In particular if you are trying to compete at a particular price level.

That is why it is the slowest in the group of similar lens IMO. And also offering only a 1.6x zoom ratio, compared to 2x or better offered by others.

I must have had an older/rumor price of $1800, I see it's being listed at $1700 now ($1699 :p). I still think that it wouldn't be too outrageous to expect the Canon competitor to come out $200 above that, listing at $1900. I agree with your points about the included features, as well as probably not going to the 1.3x sensor due to negation of EF-S lens users. I know FF uses EF, does 1.3 use EF solely as well?

The 1.3x sensor so far is a EF mount only. But given the HS crop mode on the D2X, it is possible that Canon may offer the same sort of feature on a 30D. Mount an EF-s lens on the 30D and it goes into a 1.6x crop mode automatically.

So essentially the 1dsmkII is a 5D on steroids, the 1dmkII is a fast-shooter, and the 1dmkIIn has more user-oriented features than the 1dmkII? Does that essentially sum them up? Are the 1dmkII/n models 1.3x or FF?

Pretty well sums it up. The 1D's are 1.3x and the 1DS's are FF.

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 11, 2005, 09:26 AM
A 2.8 aperture, by design limits, is usually not too sharp until you hit f5. And because of the lower aperture, you start to get diffraction at the high aps like f16, f22, et. al. Some 2.8's don't go past f16.

An f4 they can make smaller in diameter, to better tolerances, and get sharp ap's from wide open (which might still be soft) all the way to f22 with less diffraction than a 2.8.

Some lenses pick a larger aperture based on application, the 12-24 being a prime example. You don't need a big 2.8 on that lens, as it's easier to handhold anyway, and mostly used for landscapey stuff. I don't miss 2.8 on my 12-24 and it's my only piece of glass that's that slow.


Good points, but there is a need and desire for fast ultra wides. Otherwise you would not see 16-35 and 17-35's with 2.8's for the pros.

Moxiemike
Nov 11, 2005, 09:34 AM
Good points, but there is a need and desire for fast ultra wides. Otherwise you would not see 16-35 and 17-35's with 2.8's for the pros.


for sure. and i'd love to have a 12-24 f2.8. but i don't mind the f4 for it's applications. kept it smaller, and of course, cheaper.

Which leads me to show you:

http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/scene/05/index.htm

12-24 developed by nikon. the DESIGN was liscensed off, not the actual lens manufacturing. So it's a different lens that is the same.

BakedBeans
Nov 11, 2005, 10:23 AM
So essentially the 1dsmkII is a 5D on steroids

Yes and no, it has some good features, the FF sensor is a good thing and so is the 12.x million pixels, but there is a lot to the 1ds2 that isnt obviously apparent. I never really was THAT impressed with the 5d. But the way i see it the baby 1d2 is the 20d and the baby 1ds2 is the 5 d

Canon aim at an audience and look to have provided to the non pro side of that too.Basically, the way i see it they have aimed at certain types of photography, the 1ds2 is aimed at studio pros/portrait/glamour and landscape (with its fullframe and high megapixels) and the 1d2n is aimed at photojounalists and sports shooters, although this isnt as cut and dry as im making out (because you can use either for either)

the 1dmkII is a fast-shooter, and the 1dmkIIn has more user-oriented features than the 1dmkII?

Very fast, the 1d2n is the same as the 1d2 but with a few extras (they are not really that different, just canons version of a Mac speed bump)

efoto
Nov 11, 2005, 12:15 PM
So there are apparently some taboo questions being posted....posts and members are vanishing faster than lube on a pornstar :rolleyes:

Regardless of the 'attacks' :p of late, I'd love to see some sample images from a 1dsmkII. I honestly have never seen any other than from dpreview and those are quite, well, dpreview. I'm not bashing your work or anything ;), I just want to see some examples because that camera is a serious contender for a future purchase by me.

Thanks in advance, I look forward to seeing some stuff.

MattG
Nov 11, 2005, 02:52 PM
Well all this lens talk made me want to buy a new one :)

After reading pretty good reviews, I went with the new Canon 10-22mm EF-S for my Rebel XT. Next on the list is the 70-200mm f/4 "L".

efoto
Nov 11, 2005, 03:24 PM
I'm debating between the 135 f2L and the 200 f2.8L right now to finish out my triple rebate. The 135 costs more but is f2 so that's understandable. They would would theoretically be overlapped in the future with the 70-200 f2.8 (possibly IS), but the 135 would still be f2 so that is better I suppose. I'm not exactly sure what to do, although the price point on the 200 is easier on the already-depleted wallet.

MacNoobie
Nov 11, 2005, 03:49 PM
Lets see here, where to start....
Anna Kournikova is no exception, but that isn't her in photo....you must not watch your tennis :p That is Maria Sharapova, my Russian beauty ;) As far as Ms. Canon vs. Ms. Nikon....Ms. Canon is Adriana Lima, a VS Angel as well as world-renowned supermodel, basically requiring her to look 'dolled up'. She does have a lot of makeup on in this particular picture, there are others of her that I prefer more though, less makeup along with less articles :D

I'll admit I donít watch a lot of tennis it bores me to death just like golf and football and baseball, hockey I can tolerate but the other sports I donít have the heart for. I'm not even a hockey buff either I just canít tolerate any sports and when I hear my friends talking about football I feel like they're all speaking Chinese. I did learn something though and who's the pretty face in the photo and even if I donít watch tennis a whole lot I've come to associate tennis with Anna so that probably explains my blatant answer. Miss Adriana Lima sounds familiar and yes she does look nice with the Canon in her hands :D and hopefully next time with a little less articles :)

MacNoobie
Nov 11, 2005, 04:01 PM
1dsmkII has a 16mp full-frame sensor and 4fps shooting rate, along with other stuff. 1dmkII has an 8.2mp CCD (unlike the CMOS in the ds) and 8fps shooting. the 1dmkIIn is basically a 1dmkII with a bigger lcd (2.5") and some more advanced card features (simultaneous RAW and jpeg to separate cards, etc.)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the 1D Mark II has a CMOS sensor, I doubt I've seen a CCD in an Digital EOS in a long time.

Anyways the way it goes is this:

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II
Resolution: 16.7 MegaPixel CMOS Sensor
Sensor size: 36mm x 24mm (Full 35mm frame)
Focal Length Multiplier: 1.0x
Frame Rate: 4.0 FPS
JPEG: up to ~32 images
RAW: up to ~11 images
LCD Size: 2.0"

Canon EOS-5D
Resolution: 12.8 MegaPixel CMOS Sensor
Sensor size: 36mm x 24mm (Full 35mm frame)
Focal Length Multiplier: 1.0x
Frame Rate: 3 FPS
JPEG: up to ~60 images
RAW: up to ~17 images
LCD Size: 2.5"
Supports Picture Styles

Canon 1D Mark II (N)
Resolution: 8.2 MegaPixel CMOS Sensor
Sensor size: 28.7mm x 19.1mm
Focal Length Multiplier: 1.3x
Frame Rate: ~8.5 FPS
JPEG: up to ~40 images
RAW: up to ~20 images
LCD Size for: Mark II: 2.0", Mark II N 2.5"
(Mark II N Supports Picture Styles and simultaneous writing to both CF and SD cards)

MacNoobie
Nov 11, 2005, 04:15 PM
So essentially the 1dsmkII is a 5D on steroids, the 1dmkII is a fast-shooter, and the 1dmkIIn has more user-oriented features than the 1dmkII? Does that essentially sum them up? Are the 1dmkII/n models 1.3x or FF?

The 1Ds Mark II isn’t so much the 5D on steroids, sure its got a higher mega pixel count then the 5D but the craze from Canon seems to be picture styles on the 5D and 1D Mark II N which are just a set of in-camera parameters that adjust sharpness/contrast/saturation and a load of other things behind the scenes. That and the 1Ds Mark II is a pro body, weather sealed, fast AF body. The 1D Mark II(N) is definitely the sports shooters camera though I don’t shoot very much sports with it, you loose roughly half the resolution and roughly half the price and gain a higher fps, same weather sealed body, good resolution, same fast AF as the 1Ds Mark II etc etc. The 5D is positioned to push the benefits of full frame sensors in a compact and therefore light weight body that doesn’t have a 1D series body (weather sealing, fast AF, high fps, etc etc) rating.

MacNoobie
Nov 11, 2005, 04:20 PM
So there are apparently some taboo questions being posted....posts and members are vanishing faster than lube on a pornstar :rolleyes:

Regardless of the 'attacks' :p of late, I'd love to see some sample images from a 1dsmkII. I honestly have never seen any other than from dpreview and those are quite, well, dpreview. I'm not bashing your work or anything ;), I just want to see some examples because that camera is a serious contender for a future purchase by me.

Thanks in advance, I look forward to seeing some stuff.

I've got some galleries up on deviantART for now with the Mark II N

http://tzzdc.deviantart.com/gallery

I donít have any full size 8.2MP shots from the Mk II N at the moment and the only ones I do show off photos at ISO 1600 because someone at dpreview asked for them at that rating.

http://www.usnet1.net/blog/DPP07D50B0B0E1429.jpg
http://www.usnet1.net/blog/DPP07D50B0B0E1836.jpg

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 11, 2005, 09:41 PM
Canon aim at an audience and look to have provided to the non pro side of that too.Basically, the way i see it they have aimed at certain types of photography, the 1ds2 is aimed at studio pros/portrait/glamour and landscape (with its fullframe and high megapixels) and the 1d2n is aimed at photojounalists and sports shooters, although this isnt as cut and dry as im making out (because you can use either for either)

I also think that the 1DmkII is also aimed at 35mm photographers that want the best that their 35mm lenses can give (at least with the ultra wides and wide angle lenses); but want to be as close to focal length perspective that 35mm offers but in digital. Without suffering in the edges.

Very fast, the 1d2n is the same as the 1d2 but with a few extras (they are not really that different, just canons version of a Mac speed bump)

Well put. Canon seems to be hung up on Picture Styles. So don't count out a 1DSmkIIn come February.


So there are apparently some taboo questions being posted....posts and members are vanishing faster than lube on a pornstar :rolleyes:

Regardless of the 'attacks' :p of late, I'd love to see some sample images from a 1dsmkII. I honestly have never seen any other than from dpreview and those are quite, well, dpreview. I'm not bashing your work or anything ;), I just want to see some examples because that camera is a serious contender for a future purchase by me.

Thanks in advance, I look forward to seeing some stuff.

Damn, I go to work and miss all the fun.

Best thing to find a place that you can rent the 1DS from and do your own shooting with it.

I hope to borrow our 5d from work and shoot it side by side with film with my 17-40L.

I'm debating between the 135 f2L and the 200 f2.8L right now to finish out my triple rebate. The 135 costs more but is f2 so that's understandable. They would would theoretically be overlapped in the future with the 70-200 f2.8 (possibly IS), but the 135 would still be f2 so that is better I suppose. I'm not exactly sure what to do, although the price point on the 200 is easier on the already-depleted wallet.

Depends on your need for the sharpest lens and your need for speed. The 135 would be a 210mm field of view, and the 200 would be a 320mm field of view.

I guess in a perfect world we all would have the 14/2.8, 20/2.8, 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2.0, and the 200/2.8 on our 1.6x bodies.

But we could also try to live with the 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, and the 70-220/2.8IS. :D

I think that one of the reasons I am drawn to the 5D is the 24TS lens. Had a 35PC Nikkor for my N70 that saw some use, not as much as I thought - but having it was great.

The 1Ds Mark II isnít so much the 5D on steroids, sure its got a higher mega pixel count then the 5D but the craze from Canon seems to be picture styles on the 5D and 1D Mark II N which are just a set of in-camera parameters that adjust sharpness/contrast/saturation and a load of other things behind the scenes.

For some reason that I fail to see right now, Picture Styles is omething that Canon is pushing for their high end cameras so far. So I would not be surprised to see an update to the 1DS with it too.

That and the 1Ds Mark II is a pro body, weather sealed, fast AF body. The 1D Mark II(N) is definitely the sports shooters camera though I donít shoot very much sports with it, you loose roughly half the resolution and roughly half the price and gain a higher fps, same weather sealed body, good resolution, same fast AF as the 1Ds Mark II etc etc. The 5D is positioned to push the benefits of full frame sensors in a compact and therefore light weight body that doesnít have a 1D series body (weather sealing, fast AF, high fps, etc etc) rating.

The 1D and 1DS cameras also feature the 45 point AF system, if that is a real selling point. Keep in mind this is from a Canon shooter.

IMO the 5D was a gamble on Canon's part betting on the features of the D200. Nikon surprised many by (at least with the paper specs) having a body that met the standards of the F100. Canon may have lost, only in gaining some sales for the 1D and 1DS in the short run.

The D200 wins some credit in offering an expanded bracketing range that makes PS CS2's HDR function usable.

Mike Teezie
Nov 12, 2005, 09:18 PM
Wow, this thread has really exploded.

To compliment my 70-200 f/4L, I think I'm going to get the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. I've been reading reviews and they are all pretty dang positive for that lens.

Not to mention it won't break the bank.

After that, nice tripod.

Lacero
Nov 12, 2005, 09:32 PM
Where are the photos? I've only counted 2 worthy to be in this thread.

For a Picture Gallery thread, this thread suX0rz! Of course, the Lima pic alone is worth the price of admission.

Need more pics!

LimeiBook86
Nov 13, 2005, 12:48 AM
Where are the photos? I've only counted 2 worthy to be in this thread.

For a Picture Gallery thread, this thread suX0rz! Of course, the Lima pic alone is worth the price of admission.

Need more pics!
Yeah we do, haha, this thread is just a bunch of guys looking for more pictures haha :p :rolleyes:

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 13, 2005, 08:12 AM
To compliment my 70-200 f/4L, I think I'm going to get the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. I've been reading reviews and they are all pretty dang positive for that lens.

Not to mention it won't break the bank.

After that, nice tripod.

I will say that the 28-70 Tamron is a great performer! Love mine on my XT.

Mike Teezie
Nov 13, 2005, 11:36 AM
I will say that the 28-70 Tamron is a great performer! Love mine on my XT.

Chip, do you have any shots you took with the Tamron 28-70 I could see?

I've seen a few arounnd the web, but none have been that great.

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 13, 2005, 06:17 PM
Chip, do you have any shots you took with the Tamron 28-70 I could see?

I've seen a few arounnd the web, but none have been that great.

Here are a couple of links:

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1588194

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1589277


BTW, photosig.com is an awesome site! You can search for images by many categories, including specific lenses!

efoto
Nov 13, 2005, 06:51 PM
Where are the photos? I've only counted 2 worthy to be in this thread.

For a Picture Gallery thread, this thread suX0rz! Of course, the Lima pic alone is worth the price of admission.

Need more pics!

I just needed something to show off that Adriana photo....sadly everyone else has been too lazy to go find pictures of 'classy a**' with cameras....you lazy bastards you. I have found some other interesting pictures while looking for lady/camera pics, but they aren't allowed to be posted me thinks :p

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 13, 2005, 08:03 PM
I just needed something to show off that Adriana photo....sadly everyone else has been too lazy to go find pictures of 'classy a**' with cameras....you lazy bastards you.

I could have but it would probably gotten me banned, or offended the Str8's here....
:D

efoto
Nov 13, 2005, 09:55 PM
I could have but it would probably gotten me banned, or offended the Str8's here....
:D

I was going to write "everyone else has been too lazy to go find pictures of hot chicks with cameras" but instead I wrote "everyone else has been too lazy to go find pictures of 'classy a**' with cameras" because I didn't want to offend the 'bent's here.... ;)

bents = gay if you couldn't figure that out....it was a loose connection I'll admit :rolleyes:

Mr. Anderson
Nov 13, 2005, 10:07 PM
Chip, do you have any shots you took with the Tamron 28-70 I could see?

I've seen a few arounnd the web, but none have been that great.


I have this lens for my 20D and absolutely love it - I find I end up using it for more shots than any of my other lenses :D

D

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 13, 2005, 10:24 PM
I have this lens for my 20D and absolutely love it - I find I end up using it for more shots than any of my other lenses :D

D

I am more of a wide angle shooter, but this lens has found a home for me. It appears that if I stay with the 1.6x factor from Canon, my three lenses to carry with with me mostly will be the Tokina 12-24, the Tamron 28-70, and the Canon 70-300DO IS (on my short list):D

efoto
Nov 13, 2005, 10:42 PM
This is a little OT, but I'm hijacking my own thread....so whatever.

This is a 100% crop from a photo taken earlier today and a family event inside a church.

Stuff:
Canon 20D
24-70 f/2.8L

Shot at:
38 mm
f/2.8
1/80
ISO 800

Take a look at the noise, what do you guys think? Is it normal? high/low? This is zero PP, just opened in PSCS2 and then cropped and exported to a jpeg at 12 to attempt to maintain quality. Thanks, just trying to get a feeling for what to expect from my new stuff.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=34727&d=1131943334

efoto
Nov 13, 2005, 10:53 PM
Another, shot a little different. I never really experimented or pushed my D70 like I have my 20D early today (low-light, indoor stuff) so I'm not even sure what the noise on it looks like....but this seems pretty noisy. Is this what is to be expected, am I overreacting about this noise? (100% crop as the other example)

Shot at:
70 mm
f/2.8
1/640
ISO 1600

Maybe with that shutter I could have been able to drop to ISO 800 and lower my shutter a bit, but I didn't so whatever....I'm still learning a lot. Just curious to see what you all think of this.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=34730&stc=1&d=1131943929

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 13, 2005, 10:56 PM
In the end we have pixel peeping going on. The issue is more of how these look in print. I you want smoothness, then use NeatImage or Noise Image to give you the most from these images....

efoto
Nov 14, 2005, 06:25 AM
In the end we have pixel peeping going on. The issue is more of how these look in print. I you want smoothness, then use NeatImage or Noise Image to give you the most from these images....

I realize I can reduce the noise if I wanted to....I was more curious to know if these seemed like reasonable noise levels given the shooting parameters. Like I said, I haven't 'pushed' a camera like this before so this is the most noise I have seen before. I have looked at some other images I took at ISO 100/200 and those a pretty much spotless.

I just want to know if these seem normal. They are the native 3504x2336 (8.2MP) so I know that if they are squished into a 4x6 or 5x7 they will probably look fine. I don't really have a feel for this type of stuff much though, just looking for opinions I suppose.

Mr. Anderson
Nov 14, 2005, 07:23 AM
You're going to be a little soft at 2.8, so maybe take the same shot at 4.0 and 8 and see the difference (other than depth of field) and get more light so you have a faster shutter speed.

Chip - I have the Tokina 12-28 too and love it :D

D

iGary
Nov 14, 2005, 07:33 AM
I realize I can reduce the noise if I wanted to....I was more curious to know if these seemed like reasonable noise levels given the shooting parameters. Like I said, I haven't 'pushed' a camera like this before so this is the most noise I have seen before. I have looked at some other images I took at ISO 100/200 and those a pretty much spotless.

I just want to know if these seem normal. They are the native 3504x2336 (8.2MP) so I know that if they are squished into a 4x6 or 5x7 they will probably look fine. I don't really have a feel for this type of stuff much though, just looking for opinions I suppose.

800 and 1600 ISO...:o

efoto
Nov 14, 2005, 08:55 AM
800 and 1600 ISO...:o

I realize they're not going to be spotless, not by any means. I was wondering if this is normal amounts of noise given those shooting parameters. I haven't shot such high ISO before....I just want to know if this looks as you would expect given the settings.

I think they look alright, the ISO 1600 obviously looking worse but still usable at smaller print sizes.

Garcia
Nov 14, 2005, 09:14 AM
I realize they're not going to be spotless, not by any means. I was wondering if this is normal amounts of noise given those shooting parameters. I haven't shot such high ISO before....I just want to know if this looks as you would expect given the settings.

I think they look alright, the ISO 1600 obviously looking worse but still usable at smaller print sizes.


No, they are not normal, they are much better than normal. At 100% crop thats really quite acceptable, especially at IOS 800

Mike Teezie
Nov 14, 2005, 10:06 AM
No, they are not normal, they are much better than normal. At 100% crop thats really quite acceptable, especially at IOS 800

I was going to say, that looks pretty dang clean efoto.

A few nights back I snapped a few frames inside my comuter rooom at night with just a desk lamp on at ISO 800 & 1600, and got a little bit more noise than that.

But the room was considerably darker, and I was using the kit lens at f/3.5.

Shots look good to me!

Lacero
Nov 15, 2005, 12:58 AM
http://infostore.org/info/87133/lima.jpg

DarkNetworks
Nov 15, 2005, 05:29 AM
http://infostore.org/info/87133/lima.jpg

now thats wat we call classy...

efoto
Nov 15, 2005, 06:42 AM
No, they are not normal, they are much better than normal. At 100% crop thats really quite acceptable, especially at IOS 800I was going to say, that looks pretty dang clean efoto.

A few nights back I snapped a few frames inside my comuter rooom at night with just a desk lamp on at ISO 800 & 1600, and got a little bit more noise than that.

But the room was considerably darker, and I was using the kit lens at f/3.5.

Shots look good to me!

Okay, sweet. Like I said, I simply haven't pushed a camera like that before at such high ISO so I wasn't sure what to expect. I looked at a few trial shots from some reviews, but those can be hard to trust sometimes because of the setups. Thanks for the comments, makes me feel a bit better ;)

efoto
Nov 15, 2005, 06:43 AM
http://infostore.org/info/87133/lima.jpg

This is what, the third on-topic post for the entire thread?? :rolleyes:

You never disappoint Lacero, well done, damn fine job :eek: *drool* :D

MattG
Nov 20, 2005, 09:03 AM
No, they are not normal, they are much better than normal. At 100% crop thats really quite acceptable, especially at IOS 800

Agreed...that looks pretty damned good for 800 ISO.