Red-Ringed Tupperware Party with (ineffective) Tin Foil Hats

[saravrose]

hi all!!!... I suppose it would be just easier to be out with it.

I quit my job yesterday. I moved out of the mountains today. I'll be in San Diego by next week... yep, that's about it...

so.. how's everybody else doing?

[ibdb]

But. . .but. . .how are we going to see you in Seattle on the 31st if you're going to be in S.D.? :cry:

Hope everything's going well otherwise -- I'd say the jump from the snow to SD will be a bit of a shock. Heck, I just bought my wife a ticket to SD in May for a conference, and the thought she'll be able to be there while I have to stay here is shock enough.

[Woolburr]

hi all!!!... I suppose it would be just easier to be out with it.

I quit my job yesterday. I moved out of the mountains today. I'll be in San Diego by next week... yep, that's about it...

so.. how's everybody else doing?

I'm guessing this means things took a turn for the worse there when the other boss quit?

[Lightstream]

I am too tired and emotionally exhausted to catch up on the thread today so I will just give you a rundown of what happened....

Morning - first phone call comes. I almost destroy my laptop because the stupid power cord got in the way as I rushed to answer the phone. (one thing I MUST congratulate Apple on - the Magsafe power adapter). Postal service tells me the package has been confirmed as lost and I should start the claims process. Wow, how comforting. I knew it all along, really. I give them hell for losing the package. Hell I'm losing it myself.

I spend lunchtime grieving and plotting as to how I will eventually get that piece of glass JUST TO SPITE THEM. I will also take a local delivery. WHERE I COME FROM, THAT'S HOW WE DO THINGS. We pay cash and we PICK UP IN PERSON. It's a cultural thing.

I've come to the conclusion that what goes around comes around ONLY when you do something bad. For all the good I've sacrificed so much to do, NOTHING has come back to me. Just more sacrifices. Precious few have extended a hand in my time of need.

The 17-55 is not only about me, incidentally. It's about everybody else who will indirectly benefit from it as much as me. Just that they don't realize it. Yet *I* am the moron footing the bill. OK great but never mind.

I've decided that from now on it's going to be a hell of a lot more about me and me alone. I've never been selfish but now I think I'm gonna be after these incidents especially since there were precious few who rallied around me after the news broke (and for that support, I thank all of you...)

Policy will never be to ship international again except as an option of absolute last resort and only after a full risk analysis heavily weighted with the fact that my package may well never get here. I'll pay whatever ripoff price from whatever local dealers.. or wait till I get home, no matter how long the wait may take. Hell I'm gonna be waiting anyway.

Afternoon.. one more phone call comes. They say they've located it - some idiot f$#cker scanned the wrong barcode. Oh, sure. That is like saying "I stuck it into the wrong hole" when making out with the gf/wife/significant other. THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. OK, so they think they know where it is so I head on out on another goose chase.

Yes, I finally got it, however the damage has been done and the above policy decisions stand.

Thank god this is the last lens I need to complete my collection. I'm done. I really am done. But what a sh$#t way to finish off the collection.

[ibdb]

Hope it was just problems with the boss, and nothing family related.

[Woolburr]

You got your lens Kevin...that is a good thing...forget the hoops. Take some pictures and enjoy.

[ibdb]

...Yes, I finally got it...
OK - so it's not exactly a happy ending, but at least it was an end. I hope you are able to enjoy the lens.

The closest I've come to having a lost package involved UPS losing my house -- they delivered to my neighbors on Monday, yet couldn't find my house on Tuesday. By Wednesday, they had directions from me, but had put my lens on the wrong truck -- and they couldn't say for sure which was the right truck. Thursday, they'd found the right truck, but it was a new driver who hadn't received the directions I phoned in on Tuesday. The eventual delivery happened after 6:00pm on Friday. The lens felt a little heavier with all the baggage attached the first few days, but it got lighter pretty quickly, and I usually forget about the trial and tribulations (except for places like this).

[theflyingkiwi]

Posting fiend? I dunno abut that...the contingent from Boring post much quicker...

it's hard to believe that people from a place called boring say so much :lol: :lol:

[Lightstream]

You got your lens Kevin...that is a good thing...forget the hoops. Take some pictures and enjoy.

OK - so it's not exactly a happy ending, but at least it was an end. I hope you are able to enjoy the lens.


Thanks guys, at least it is still an ending and I am not out of pocket for the lens which I figured I was going to be.. I will definitely enjoy the lens but I'll never forget about these experiences. Maybe in time they will fade.

I still remember UPS almost losing my 100-400 the same way except they were actually able to find it in the next couple of hours.

Two experiences, two different companies, ONE common element that links both of them.. now all of them are going to be cut out of the loop forevermore.

[theflyingkiwi]

hi all!!!... I suppose it would be just easier to be out with it.

I quit my job yesterday. I moved out of the mountains today. I'll be in San Diego by next week... yep, that's about it...

so.. how's everybody else doing?

wow, no supprise tho. I hope everything goes well in SD.

[ibdb]

She still hasn't explained to me how she's supposed to get real dim sum in Seattle if she's unpacking in San Diego, though. . . ;-)

[Permagrin]

Wow, I leave for a few hours and the world is upside down.

Yoda has had a happy ending (though he'll probably appreciate it more tomorrow) for once.

Sari in the middle of moving...and I do think this means our getting to meet her in Seattle will be indefinitely postponed.

TD is blaming Puddle for various and sundry...then again, that's nothing new...

Alyssa has named the Boring Boys Thing 1 and Thing 2 (I LOVE IT Alyssa!!!!! :lol: )

John is planting unpleasant visions of speedos 'en masse in my brain before I fall back to sleep....

....busy night eh'?

[JSolie]

it's hard to believe that people from a place called boring say so much :lol: :lol:

Maybe they just need the outlet... :rolleyes:

LS, I'm glad you got you lens and that things worked out. That sure sounds like a frustrating way to do business. I remember the last time we moved, UPS couldn't find us, but did eventually. Fedex couldn't find us, and I had to pick up my shipment from their local facility. The trash pickup people couldn't find out street for a couple of weeks straight--now that was smelly. The funny thing about those who are not used to being selfish, when they get backed into a situation where they decide to look out for "Numero Uno," it usually sours on them and they eventually return to normal.

Is the lens the 17-55 f/2.8 IS? Or was it something else?

[Maureen Souza]

You're turning into a posting fiend John...we have corrupted you.;)

Hiya Mo...maybe you will have a tame night for a change!
You are here all the time Dan. Are you just cat napping in between?

I am training new folks tonight......

[Lightstream]

Ending it is, happy it is not - incidents like these take ALL the joy out of owning new glass. It's simply not worth the heartache.

In time it will fade, but the glass had better impress me.

[saravrose]

She still hasn't explained to me how she's supposed to get real dim sum in Seattle if she's unpacking in San Diego, though. . . ;-)

unless I change my mind Seattle is going to happen another time... I had great intentions though... and I tried dim sum in Seattle.. is it possible to get culture shock in a restaurant?... :o :o ..

And it was just problems with the boss. so, off I go on another adventure.. I quit yesterday and my aunt and I went back up with a uhaul today and moved my apartment in one day... had a couple of akward moments but nothing extreme and in general i've decided that rather than stay in Boise for the summer i'll go down to SD stay with some family work and get ready for Africa down there... ;) all will be well i'll be happier and get to maybe see my father (he is getting kinda old) and some other family and my bestfriend. I'm really excited and now that i'm home and my apartment is all done I just feel like I should GO!!...

sari

[ibdb]

Sari in the middle of moving...and I do think this means our getting to meet her in Seattle will be indefinitely postponed.
Speaking of -- do we need to write you a note to make sure you get out of jury duty early so you can be sure to visit the original Starbucks on Saturday? ;)

[Lightstream]

Maybe they just need the outlet... :rolleyes:

LS, I'm glad you got you lens and that things worked out. That sure sounds like a frustrating way to do business. I remember the last time we moved, UPS couldn't find us, but did eventually. Fedex couldn't find us, and I had to pick up my shipment from their local facility. The trash pickup people couldn't find out street for a couple of weeks straight--now that was smelly. The funny thing about those who are not used to being selfish, when they get backed into a situation where they decide to look out for "Numero Uno," it usually sours on them and they eventually return to normal.

Is the lens the 17-55 f/2.8 IS? Or was it something else?

Well I guess I'd better be getting used to it quickly then.. much as I hope things return to normal, I have my doubts at this time. Nothing is normal out here in a place we call Hell (yes, that name is real, and we have been using it for a long, long time). There are NO rewards for being kind.

Good guess on the lens. Wanted something fast and standard with IS. My first impression is that it's no L no matter what they decide to call it. My 24-105 is incredibly consistent all the way through. This lens is a bit weak at the 17mm end until stopped down to f/4.

[Permagrin]

Speaking of -- do we need to write you a note to make sure you get out of jury duty early so you can be sure to visit the original Starbucks on Saturday? ;)

I've visited them, just last October I think and March too ;) I doubt I'll have jury duty, at least I hope not. It's my last week next week...so I'm HOPING it's a no call. But we are busy that Sat. anyway but still planning on being at the NW Trek on Sunday...we'll just leave REALLY early to get there.

[ibdb]

Oh well -- I'll just have to have all the "Trekkies" wave in my direction as they head south off of the highway. I'll be shooting wildlife of a different sort that morning -- my middle son's fifth birthday party. ;)

Best of luck in SD, Sari. I still think it's a bit of an extreme move just to keep anybody at the Seattle meet from being able to take your picture, though. . . ;)

[JSolie]

Alyssa has named the Boring Boys Thing 1 and Thing 2 (I LOVE IT Alyssa!!!!! :lol: )

So, Alyssa has made a motion, and it looks like Permie has seconded the motion. Who can call a vote? ;)

John is planting unpleasant visions of speedos 'en masse in my brain before I fall back to sleep....

Hey, it grossed me out, too, thinking of it...:shock: http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t123/jsolie01/Smilies/puke.gif
It wasn't like Chris Farley in "Tommy Boy" with the "Fat guy in a little coat" scene...

[Permagrin]

Oh well -- I'll just have to have all the "Trekkies" wave in my direction as they head south off of the highway. I'll be shooting wildlife of a different sort that morning -- my middle son's fifth birthday party. ;)

Best of luck in SD, Sari. I still think it's a bit of an extreme move just to keep anybody at the Seattle meet from being able to take your picture, though. . . ;)

Well, if you have to miss the trek, that's an awful good excuse for missing it :D

(oooh, and I never thought of the no-photo angle...I'm sure the job quitting was a direct effect of the not wanting to go to Seattle :lol: :lol: )

Really though Sari, I'm glad you are happy and excited for your new adventure south. Best of luck to you!

[JSolie]

Well I guess I'd better be getting used to it quickly then.. much as I hope things return to normal, I have my doubts at this time. Nothing is normal out here in a place we call Hell (yes, that name is real, and we have been using it for a long, long time). There are NO rewards for being kind.

So, how long has your sojurn been in the nether regions of the planet? And I've heard you mention about returning from whence you came. Pity I can't conjure up some ruby slippers for you...

Good guess on the lens. Wanted something fast and standard with IS. My first impression is that it's no L no matter what they decide to call it. My 24-105 is incredibly consistent all the way through. This lens is a bit weak at the 17mm end until stopped down to f/4.

What camera body are you using it on? I'm curious, becuase if it's a 1.6 body, I can see why you wanted something wider than 24mm.

[saravrose]

Well, if you have to miss the trek, that's an awful good excuse for missing it :D

(oooh, and I never thought of the no-photo angle...I'm sure the job quitting was a direct effect of the not wanting to go to Seattle :lol: :lol: )

Really though Sari, I'm glad you are happy and excited for your new adventure south. Best of luck to you!

thanks. and I would have let y'all take my picture.... I would have just deleted them off of your cards before you left.... ;) ;) .. My mug will remain a mystery... :cool: .. atleast for now.

sari

[Lightstream]

So, how long has your sojurn been in the nether regions of the planet? And I've heard you mention about returning from whence you came. Pity I can't conjure up some ruby slippers for you...

What camera body are you using it on? I'm curious, becuase if it's a 1.6 body, I can see why you wanted something wider than 24mm.

9 months. Another 9 to go...

I have caught endless flak, started a fight on POTN, and sparked a heated email exchange last night for my decision to buy the 17-55 so you will excuse me if I keep it personal.. unless you can promise NOT to criticize me for this decision.

[Permagrin]

Yoda, really the people on RRTP are pretty nice in general. Most of us come here because everyone is so nice...so the chances of one of us criticising is very slim to none. We may have a different opinion but honestly that would be all it would be.

However if you don't feel comfortable sharing, that's entirely up to you.

I think I'll say g'night again everyone. Have fun and talk atcha tomorrow ;)

[tommykjensen]

9 months. Another 9 to go...

I have caught endless flak, started a fight on POTN, and sparked a heated email exchange last night for my decision to buy the 17-55 so you will excuse me if I keep it personal.. unless you can promise NOT to criticize me for this decision.

What ? Why would anybody give you grief for buying a specific lens? I don't understand that.

[JSolie]

9 months. Another 9 to go...

I certainly hope that the second half is better than the first.

I have caught endless flak, started a fight on POTN, and sparked a heated email exchange last night for my decision to buy the 17-55 so you will excuse me if I keep it personal.. unless you can promise NOT to criticize me for this decision.

Why would I criticize? You obviously had an itch that that lens could scratch (and I hope that it fills the need for which you bought it). I've thought about that lens as well...IS and f/2.8 are two things that I like. My 17-85 can't open up that wide, and I've been in plenty of situations where the fast glass would be very useful.

In fact, I've got something coming up on Wednesday that's going to be a bear to shoot--we're going to the Getty Villa in Malibu on a school field trip. No flashes, no tripods, and I'm not going to push it by taking my monopod. Alyssa's been practicing with the 50/f1.8 shooting wide open (yes, it can be soft at times), and we'll probably trade off the 85/f1.2L. I doubt I'll have my ISO below 800, but we'll see.

[Lightstream]

What ? Why would anybody give you grief for buying a specific lens? I don't understand that.

Well, there are lots of people who cannot, or will not see things differently from their own perspective. I'm also tremendously sore over certain questions that REALLY hit a nerve because of all the criticism I've endured.

Most aggravating of them all is "You have a 5D so there is no point in buying an EF-S lens that can't be used on it". Is that really anybody else's business except my own? It's my money (they aren't paying for it, nor taking the hit or the heartbreak when the package goes missing), it's my executive decision, and hell I'll buy a Nikon 18-200 VR AF-S DX if I want to, and be happy. I have made the journey through the entire Canon system on every crop factor.. I'm comfortable with my technology purchases and system planning.

(I have a 30D and every intention to use it)

I could point out so many examples of people who buy things that I see no point in, but I also feel it's their own right. If it makes them happy and it's their own money, then it's not my business nor my problem.

[Lightstream]

Why would I criticize? You obviously had an itch that that lens could scratch (and I hope that it fills the need for which you bought it). I've thought about that lens as well...IS and f/2.8 are two things that I like. My 17-85 can't open up that wide, and I've been in plenty of situations where the fast glass would be very useful.


Thanks, you've already given me a whole lot more respect than most who have heard of my decision has.

The standard zoom lens is the one that I use the most, so I have no problem doubling up on it. The 24-105 on 5D is a general purpose zoom with superb IQ, the 17-55 is my run-n-gun PJ/events shooting zoom that can handle lower light at a small expense in quality and megapixels. However at the events, I don't require absolute max IQ, but I do need more speed including 5fps and faster 2.8 WITH IS.

I just came to a realization the other day - yes I do use IS for stabilization and to enable me to handhold lower speeds than would be possible, but I've also discovered I actually have begun to play a whole lot of tricks using IS for effect and not just 'as was intended' by Canon. I feel IS is in its infancy and it has lots of creative potential, not just a matter of aperture or shutter speeds or sharp shots. It's added a whole new dimension to my shooting and I like it that way. The 24-70 wouldn't have given me that.

[JSolie]

Thanks, you've already given me a whole lot more respect than most who have heard of my decision has.

:oops: And that reminds me, I still haven't posted my lens question here yet...

I just came to a realization the other day - yes I do use IS for stabilization and to enable me to handhold lower speeds than would be possible, but I've also discovered I actually have begun to play a whole lot of tricks using IS for effect and not just 'as was intended' by Canon. I feel IS is in its infancy and it has lots of creative potential, not just a matter of aperture or shutter speeds or sharp shots. It's added a whole new dimension to my shooting and I like it that way. The 24-70 wouldn't have given me that.

Now you've piqued my curiosity...besides allowing for a longer shutter, what effect is there? I realize that IS doesn't stop motion...are you better able to pan your shots?

[Lightstream]

:oops: And that reminds me, I still haven't posted my lens question here yet...

Now you've piqued my curiosity...besides allowing for a longer shutter, what effect is there? I realize that IS doesn't stop motion...are you better able to pan your shots?


Go ahead, ask.. if I can help you I will.

IS permits a longer shutter, that's pretty much it. Where I start to get creative is in ultra-low-light. Recently I was on assignment in a nightclub (of all things - TOTALLY unexpected), and to be honest, after I got home and did the exposure value calculations, even a f/1.4L lens would not have helped. I went in with a 24-105 f/4L at ISO 3200, and I decided to turn the problem to my advantage playing with ultra-low shutter speeds combined with and without flash and with both over-and-under exposure comp. Must have broken every rule in the book that night including my own..... but the results were awesome. Not just me saying that either, I am honestly surprised at how well they were received when we went to print.


I shot as low as 1/4, blending flash and available light.. the best part is that so many of the shots look like there was no flash used. The subjects are sharp and so is the background...!

Flash freezes the subject, whereas the background doesn't move. Flash will not light the background (or it will overexpose the FG) but IS will. It enabled me to achieve the perfect balance of FG/BG lighting while not having to give up the zoom.

I had a 'control' for my experiment.. two other experienced shooters using non-stabilized gear (except for their battery grips to add stability) were not able to go as low as I was able to. We compared notes after the shoot.

[JSolie]

Go ahead, ask.. if I can help you I will.

It has to do with a telephoto, specifically the 70-300 lenses, and if the DO variant (while waaay more expensive) suffers from as many problems as I've read about. I've been thinking about overall lens length, and there have been times when I've taken my old noisy Minolta 7Hi (which does the equivalent of 28-200) because they won't question the lens length when my camera bag is inspected for contraband.

Hmm... that may not have come out as expected...it's getting pretty late... *yawn*

I shot as low as 1/4, blending flash and available light.. the best part is that so many of the shots look like there was no flash used. The subjects are sharp and so is the background...!

Flash freezes the subject, whereas the background doesn't move. Flash will not light the background (or it will overexpose the FG) but IS will. It enabled me to achieve the perfect balance of FG/BG lighting while not having to give up the zoom.

Interesting... I'll have to play around with this on my 17-85. I've messed around with taking pics with my flash with the shutter speed at around 1/40, but I haven't dropped it to 1/4. Were you shooting in AV mode?

[Lightstream]

I'm guessing you want a small telephoto - the DO is most likely the ticket. Fast ring USM, decent build, and good image stabilization.

I used to own the 70-300 IS (non-DO). Build quality is suspect but optical quality is superb. I was not very impressed with the DO, especially for the cost. I didn't really look towards a lens that I need to PP to extract the quality from since I shoot media style, which is geared for speed. Opinions vary and I can definitely respect that of the owners who chose to go the DO route.

In fact, I respect the DO a lot, because it needed to be done. However bear in mind this is a first-generation DO zoom (not first-gen DO ever, but the first zoom).. I'm waiting for Canon to release their second gen (no, I do not know how many more months or years we will be waiting). I bet the 2nd gen will be absolutely superb.. it will address a lot of the issues we've been looking at.

Yes, I was in Av, but sometimes M to override when the light gets tricky. I estimate 40% M. Many of the tricks I used could be done with the 17-85 as well. The one stop penalty is not as huge as it seems (vs the 24-105) and can be managed.

[Pete]

I've been playing around recently with edge mask sharpening techniques in CS2 and getting some darn good results out of it.

Basically, it goes like this:-

* Take a copy of the top layer of your shot
* Create a new channel, and paste the copy into it (you'll see it in greyscale)
* Select the new (Alpha) channel
* Run Filters->Stylize->Find Edges
* Open up levels and move both the left and right sliders in toward the middle. Moving the left slider increases the contrast of the edges, moving the right slider starts to fade out the fainter edges.
* Run a Gaussian blur (of about 2.0 px for full resolution images). This will increase the width of the edges (to give room for the resulting sharpening to work within), and also help to fade out any fainter edges.
* Run levels again to get rid of any other fainter lines and increase contrast in the major edges.
* (Optional) - use a white brush to paint out any resulting areas that you don't want sharpened
* Invert the channel mask (Selection->Inverse)
* Load the channel mask as a selection (Selection->Load Selection, or click on the little dotted circle at the bottom of the channel palette).
* Click back on the RGB channel and you should see speckles of marching ants covering the edges you've just masked
* Press Ctrl-H to hide the selection (it's still active though)
* Run USM with setting of roughly 250-500% for the amount, 1px for radius and 2 for the threshold (adjust settings to suit).

This method means you can use really severe sharpening on very targeted areas (highly defined edges), but keep it away from the more subtle areas (like bokeh areas or fine detail that'll look nasty if sharpened to excess). It also helps to cut down accentuating any noise.

I run this at full resolution and it gives very very good results to my mind. Subsequent resizing for web display doesn't seem to cause much in the way of detrimental effects.

Maybe I should knock up a tutorial.

[tommykjensen]

Maybe I should knock up a tutorial.

If you have the time then please do. It will be hard to find it in here ;)

[Pete]

Well, I got bored waiting for this bloated Access query to finish..!! I'll try and knock up a tutorial with screen-grabs later on. In the meantime though, does that appear to make general sense?

[tommykjensen]

I can't say for sure as I have not yet tried selective sharpening but it looks like processes I have skimmed before.

[Lightstream]

OK, preliminary report on the 17-55 f/2.8 (specially for Liza and timber).

Wide open f/2.8 at 17mm, little bit soft. 30mm, OK. 55mm, outstanding. BIG contrast with my 24-105 f/4L: wide open f/4 24mm, phenomenal. 50mm, phenomenal, 105mm, phenomenal. Maybe it was destiny that I got an unbelievable copy of the 24-105. I dunno; I think I did. However, FL for FL, this lens blows away the problem copy of the 24-70 I got straight out of the gate. No complaints here.

This lens is not an L, nor does it pretend to be except in the price tag department. Ask Canon about that one, not me. Really needs to be fed one extra stop down to f/4 for optimal quality, however stop-for-stop it appears to match my premium L zooms. At f/4 it is extremely good and I am very pleased with its resolving power - it rivals the 17-40 which I have always held in high regard. I would stop it down if I could, though. Experience with this lens appears to mirror my previous experience shooting two different copies during testing. I will probably use f/4-f/8 during daytime shoots. At f/4 it is already superb across the entire zoom range, close to if not mirroring my 24-105. Time will tell.

However, f/2.8 is still useful and still relevant. I expect to be using 55mm for field portraits, and it's superb wide open where it counts most. Like the bokeh I am getting, too. And when I shoot low light, sharpness is directly affected by the QUALITY of the light you are getting too, so the slight loss of resolving power is not going to hurt too much. But as I said this will never be an L.

I am not too concerned.. I think the 24-70L has a slight edge over this zoom in terms of wide open sharpness, but the 24-70 is so balky and so problematic that I am not willing to chance it again. I checked this zoom at multiple focal lengths and multiple distance ranges, it seems to be ok. For all the pain I went through, IT HAD BETTER BE.

(for others reading this review, bear in mind I am exceptionally picky. I am used to the 24-105 blowing the socks off anything within range, things like the 300/4 ISL at f/4.5, which competes favorably with the 60mm macro. My definition of 'sharp' is probably most people's definition of 'awesome'.)

Love the aperture. Being able to shoot 1/100 f/2.8 in my own pad after dark is quite something. I like it. I know I eschewed the 70-200/2.8 ISL in favor of the f/4 ISL version, however I have no regrets. I would prefer my 2.8 be a standard zoom, because of the amount of emphasis I place on a std zoom... I can run entire assignments on the strength of a standard zoom, and I have. Last 4 assignments were run with nothing but the 24-105 holding the line. NO other lens in my bag because I needed to be able to move fast. That lens is truly the One and to me, always will be.

IS is effective, and pretty much what I expect from lenses of this caliber. It'll let me play all my "IS tricks". I'm learning too.. discovering more and interesting ways to play with IS on new shoots. My recommendation is to see IS as a creative tool, not simply as something that helps you handhold. Some have commented on IS as "training wheels". Sorry folks, you are missing out. I have worked technology long enough to know that somewhere, some one, will find a way to stretch a new innovation to do things it was never imagined to be able to do. I am, in many ways, honored to be one of the few who have come to love IS technology for everything it is - and everything it was never imagined to be. Hey, first time for me. Never pushed computing/communications tech this way even though I do it as a day job. It's a nice feeling.... :)

Color seems to be pretty good. I haven't taken it out for a real world shoot but don't find I am missing much color. Anyway if I want high contrast, high saturation I can always kick that up in PS, if my Landscape style does not already do that for me.

Ring USM is fast.. I notice this lens may even be a hair faster than the 24-105 thanks to lighter elements. Focus throw is VERY short, and feels very light - might be the weight reduction in glass. However this is not a bad thing. This coupled with the f/2.8 enhanced precision sensors causes the 17-55 to SNAP into focus really quick even in marginal lighting. I like it. This is not something you can get from DC focus drive - the other day I was using someone's 400D with Tamron 17-50. No comments on optical quality (I did not review the shots on my 19" LCDs), but I did notice that even with f/2.8 enhanced sensors (the 400D center point has these), DC focus drive felt really lethargic. I don't deny some people are happy with the Tamron, but I have been spoiled. In a way this is bad, because it takes a $924 lens to keep me happy instead of a $400 lens.

Overall.. this is highly recommended. While not out-of-this-world-unbelievable (ie. 24-105/4 performance at 2.8 ), the 17-55 delivers an extremely credible performance. I would have no reservations deploying this as a primary zoom, however bear in mind that aperture may need one stop down to satisfy hardcore pixel peepers. Still I would have absolutely no reservations using f/2.8 in low-light situations calling for it.

Popup flash on 30D casts shadow until 28mm. Still suitable for forward fill from 28-55mm portrait lengths. (I have a 430EX and can use it better than most and I dare to say it and back it up - but the popup can be used as a backup of last resort).

[Pete]

Nice review Kevin. Glad you're happy with it. I agree though that it'll take some prising to get the 24-105 off my body...!

[Lightstream]

Thanks Pete.. I was so concerned that this would end in disaster. It's tough when there is $1K of your own hard earned money sitting on the wire out there.. it's not something you want to be told "It's lost you can start the claims process" at the start of the day.

I'm putting the 17-55 into production - have a few more events coming up Real Soon Now. Will report back on whether it can step into the shoes of the 24-105. I believe it most likely will, and add a f/2.8 dimension I have not had before.

[Mgdh]

Actually I learned that the first day of the school I went to for my Junior/Senior years of high school...

The office manager actually graduated with an IT degree @ the top of her class - WHOA! Very cool! .... in my IT class at school, we had one girl. In Riley's class at the same school I think there was 4-5 girls... So I know they exist, just very, very rare.

that's it, I'm definitely never going to Boring if girls are rare. Maybe that's why it's Boring? ;):lol:

Nice review Kevin. Glad you're happy with it. I agree though that it'll take some prising to get the 24-105 off my body...!

Either my mind is playing up or the converation in this thread is going downhill... ;):p

[Pete]

I'm putting the 17-55 into production - have a few more events coming up Real Soon Now. Will report back on whether it can step into the shoes of the 24-105. I believe it most likely will, and add a f/2.8 dimension I have not had before.

Yep, it's the speed of the f/2.8 I kind of miss, but now I have lots more leeway in the ISO stakes with the 5D, I don't miss it that much.

I just try not to think about how good f/2.8 would be on the 5D. For me, the three-horse race between the 50 f/1.4 24-105 and the 100-400 suit me great in pretty much all cicumstances I've thrown at them. The resolution and low noise of the 5D means that any shortfall I get in "reach" can be overcome with a bit of cropping.

[Lightstream]

I wouldn't recommend the 24-70 for the 5D. Photozone.de tested 4 copies to get a good one, I tested 2, owned one, and the headache it has caused is unbelievable.

Don't mean to burst your bubble but reach wise.. I actually like the 1.6X extender factor of the 30D. Tremendously useful for wildlife and airshows. Probably expect to use it for sports although I don't do many of those events and am probably not expected to in the near future (we don't seem to have any on the calendar). To get 1.6X on the 5D you are down to 5MP, vs 8MP on a native APS-C camera. 5fps is nice, too.

Then again if I could only choose one it would still be the 5D for overwhelming advantages such as ISO, dynamic range, and everything else. I'd willingly give up 2.8 and go right back to the 24-105. It still is the chosen one.. the 30D will take some of the workload off it though.

[Jon]

If somebody doesn't erase him before then...hehehe
Who'd ever dream of
user$ rm -r timbernet?
:{)#


I can't believe it was suggested that TPBM and RRTP get merged together!!
Never happen - the sheer mass would create a Black Hole, sucking all the rest of POTN, and perhaps the Internet as a whole, in after.

It has to do with a telephoto, specifically the 70-300 lenses, and if the DO variant (while waaay more expensive) suffers from as many problems as I've read about. I've been thinking about overall lens length, and there have been times when I've taken my old noisy Minolta 7Hi (which does the equivalent of 28-200) because they won't question the lens length when my camera bag is inspected for contraband.

IIRC Skip Souza's very fond of his. Maybe Mo will nudge him over this way to comment for you?

[Jon]

I wouldn't recommend the 24-70 for the 5D. Photozone.de tested 4 copies to get a good one, I tested 2, owned one, and the headache it has caused is unbelievable.

Don't mean to burst your bubble but reach wise.. I actually like the 1.6X extender factor of the 30D. Tremendously useful for wildlife and airshows. Probably expect to use it for sports although I don't do many of those events and am probably not expected to in the near future (we don't seem to have any on the calendar). To get 1.6X on the 5D you are down to 5MP, vs 8MP on a native APS-C camera. 5fps is nice, too.

Then again if I could only choose one it would still be the 5D for overwhelming advantages such as ISO, dynamic range, and everything else. I'd willingly give up 2.8 and go right back to the 24-105. It still is the chosen one.. the 30D will take some of the workload off it though.Gotta disagree on the 24-70/5D combo. That lens lives on mine. Only reason I have the 24-105 is for indoors where the 70-200 won't focus close enough and 70's not enough reach. If I could find a 77 m 0.25 diopter I wouldn't need it. Every time I go out with just the 24-105 I find myself needing more reach, so might as well just take the 24-70 and 70-200 since I need the latter anyhow.

And I'm busily debating the merits of the 500 f/4 vs. the 1D III as a next acquisition precisely because of the "extra reach" the 20D gives me vs. the AF out to f/8 from a 1-series.

[Lightstream]

Glad you found a good copy....but for me the 24-70 series of ANY manufacturer has been permanently banned from my gearlist.. it is not worth the heartache and the $$ loss for me. I nearly ended up lens-less thanks ot the damned 24-70L. If Canon had gotten me a good copy from the word go there would never have been the 17-55 incident.

[Lightstream]

B&H is a little wierd when it comes to email...

I wrote them a nice thank you note for their help, and they replied saying "your refund has already been issued". Then they quoted another email I'd sent to them which has nothing to do with the refund.....http://pix.lightrefineries.org/img/scratch.gif

Kinda strange..I HAVE received the refund, that's why I'm thanking them for their help..

[timbernet]

WoooHoo! Kevin got his glass, although the process was hell... Sounds like it will never take the place of your 24-105, but at least it is better than your 24-70.

Sari, wow ... gonna miss you in Seattle and the Trek - maybe on your trip down to SD you can stop in Salem and do a mini-meet with PermaPuddle and TD...

Mgdh: that school was actually in Gresham, population 90K+

Jon: Why not just do a deluser timbernet? ;-)

Jsolie and Asolie- I still haven't heard a good reason for "Thing 1" and "Thing 2" :-(

[thomascanty]

I can't believe it was suggested that TPBM and RRTP get merged together!!

You didn't really think I was serious, did you? :rolleyes:

I just thought it would be funny to watch people try to keep up and actually make sense of the thread... :lol:

All the stress has turned Lonnie delusional....bet he won't be the first in line for another meet...hehehehe

Another meet? I have to do this AGAIN?!?

[T.D.]

WoooHoo! Kevin got his glass, although the process was hell... Sounds like it will never take the place of your 24-105, but at least it is better than your 24-70.

Sari, wow ... gonna miss you in Seattle and the Trek - maybe on your trip down to SD you can stop in Salem and do a mini-meet with PermaPuddle and TD...

Mgdh: that school was actually in Gresham, population 90K+

Jon: Why not just do a deluser timbernet? ;-)

Jsolie and Asolie- I still haven't heard a good reason for "Thing 1" and "Thing 2" :-(

Remind me to buy you a map! That would be just slightly out of her way. :rolleyes:

[timbernet]

Remind me to buy you a map! That would be just slightly out of her way. :rolleyes:

Depends what way she goes... :-D Going down Idaho to Nevada to SD would be really boring - but Idaho, to the Gorge, down I5 - that could be fun...

[Pete]

Chaps...

I just started up the Randorama Photo Thread...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=292578

It should help save you cluttering up valuable chat space with all those photos...

[Permagrin]

Morning All,

I'm in a super good mood this morning and the only reason is that it's the first day in a long time that my mouth doesn't hurt! :D

Gotta disagree on the 24-70/5D combo. That lens lives on mine. Only reason I have the 24-105 is for indoors where the 70-200 won't focus close enough and 70's not enough reach. If I could find a 77 m 0.25 diopter I wouldn't need it. Every time I go out with just the 24-105 I find myself needing more reach, so might as well just take the 24-70 and 70-200 since I need the latter anyhow.

And I'm busily debating the merits of the 500 f/4 vs. the 1D III as a next acquisition precisely because of the "extra reach" the 20D gives me vs. the AF out to f/8 from a 1-series.

I love my 24-105/5D combo, that lens lives on my 5D. (used to have the 24-70 too but never used it once I got the 24-105) I think it's just a matter of preference...because they are both fine lenses.

That would be a TOUGH decision Jon. I was just sitting here thinking that a 500 f/4 would be a KILLER lens to have...(are you a birder? That's what I'd want it for...) I'd probably buy it and then buy a used MKIIN later when everyone sells and trades to the MKIII.

OT (if that can be said on this thread) but what I don't understand is why everyone (not here but on the forum in general) says f4 (and I'm quite serious here) is too slow for indoor shoots? I use it all the time indoors, w/horrid light & get great results...my mansion series is all w/that lens and I'm really pleased with the photos. I have nothing against 2.8, because I realize speed can be essential for fast action, but I wonder at the "almost dogma" of the "must have 2.8 for low light" around here...I think I've sold most (actually, I think all) of my 2.8 lenses in favor of their f4 couterparts...

Sari, wow ... gonna miss you in Seattle and the Trek - maybe on your trip down to SD you can stop in Salem and do a mini-meet with PermaPuddle and TD...



Sari, this is a great idea! You should just divert and drive to Oregon and then down to SD! Then we could meet you before you are a zillion miles away :)

[ibdb]

I'm in a super good mood this morning and the only reason is that it's the first day in a long time that my mouth doesn't hurt! :D
Glad to hear it. :mrgreen:

OT (if that can be said on this thread) but what I don't understand is why everyone (not here but on the forum in general) says f4 (and I'm quite serious here) is too slow for indoor shoots? I use it all the time indoors, w/horrid light & get great results...my mansion series is all w/that lens and I'm really pleased with the photos. I have nothing against 2.8, because I realize speed can be essential for fast action, but I wonder at the "almost dogma" of the "must have 2.8 for low light" around here...I think I've sold most (actually, I think all) of my 2.8 lenses in favor of their f4 couterparts...
I think you'll find you're preaching to the choir on this one in this thread. I was just reading a lens discussion where the original poster was encouraged to forget everything else when comparing telephoto zoom lenses except for two things -- maximum focal length and maximum aperture. Clearly there are a lot more elements than that I would use when considering whether any lens was the right lens for me, and I would be amazed if anyone else in this thread would disagree with me.

Yoda and I had a similar discussion a little while back where we considered the blasphemy that is fill flash (see my sig for my favorite quote from the discussion). Fast glass is nice, but it is not the end all be all.

If you have a 2.8 lens, but consistently find you need more depth of field than that to get the shots you want, does it really matter that it's a 2.8? I love my 85 1.8, and it does very well at its intended purpose for me -- shooting indoor sports from moderate range in poor lighting. I know I can get the shutter speed to freeze the action -- but at the cost of a depth of field that's not always ideal. For many other types of shooting, I'd venture to say that a deeper depth of field is probably more desireable. Those storytelling apertures (thanks to Peterson) are probably the most commonly used ones among the average user, and having a 2.8 isn't going to matter if that's what you're shooting.

[Jamie Holladay]

I thought you guys might enjoy THIS (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=551670992127427964&q=CANON&hl=en)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well, there are lots of people who cannot, or will not see things differently from their own perspective. I'm also tremendously sore over certain questions that REALLY hit a nerve because of all the criticism I've endured.

Most aggravating of them all is "You have a 5D so there is no point in buying an EF-S lens that can't be used on it". Is that really anybody else's business except my own? It's my money (they aren't paying for it, nor taking the hit or the heartbreak when the package goes missing), it's my executive decision, and hell I'll buy a Nikon 18-200 VR AF-S DX if I want to, and be happy. I have made the journey through the entire Canon system on every crop factor.. I'm comfortable with my technology purchases and system planning.

(I have a 30D and every intention to use it)

I could point out so many examples of people who buy things that I see no point in, but I also feel it's their own right. If it makes them happy and it's their own money, then it's not my business nor my problem.

There is a thread in the Chat forum titled "abandon hope, all ye who enter here"

This really should be posted above the entrance to the EF Lens forum! :lol:

Even as a Mod, I will admit that other than posting reviews, I tend to NOT discuss my own lens choices there.. I certainly never ask for opinions !! :)

On the other hand, I'd like to have you post that review in EF Lens forum and we could add a link in the sticky thread of reviews?

[neil_r]

I had to chuckle at the irony of my shooting on Saturday, Limiting myself to primes I went to Drusillas Park Zoo and proceeded to photograph many animals through both perspex and mesh grills of various gages. So in effect I had several K of $ or £ (89mm f/1.2 L and 50mm f/1.2 L) in lenses with garbage between them and the subject. (they still look sharp though)

[Woolburr]

The lens section of the forum has really turned into a cesspool of late. It has always harbored some folks that are more opinionated than educated...so anything that comes from there needs to be both tempered and sanitized to make it of any use to anyone.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Check out the 4 pages of "sharpest lens"...

Half the posts are arguing that the thread is useless or that peoples responses are wrong..?

It's like, "Dude, just post your impressions then leave it!"

[aussieskier]

Check out the 4 pages of "sharpest lens"...

Half the posts are arguing that the thread is useless or that peoples responses are wrong..?

It's like, "Dude, just post your impressions then leave it!"

How dare you expect so much of our little forum :rolleyes:

[tommykjensen]

Check out the 4 pages of "sharpest lens"...



What? Are you saying there are different opinions about which lens is sharpest ?

[Permagrin]

The lens section of the forum has really turned into a cesspool of late. It has always harbored some folks that are more opinionated than educated...so anything that comes from there needs to be both tempered and sanitized to make it of any use to anyone.

I think I'll nickname it the La Brea Lens pits :lol:

Check out the 4 pages of "sharpest lens"...

Half the posts are arguing that the thread is useless or that peoples responses are wrong..?

It's like, "Dude, just post your impressions then leave it!"

Preach it CDS!!! :) (I've been surprised of late to find out just how many cannot accept that people disagree with their opinions and thusly try to argue everyone "in LINE"...) :rolleyes:

[SuzyView]

I was just reading that thread. :);)

[SuzyView]

How am I suppose to give an opinion on the sharpest lens when I don't have them all to compare? Very interesting. But I think people just want to know if they are getting their money's worth. When we pay so much for our gear, it gets a little ridiculous.

[Pete]

Hmmm.. Glad I'm perfectly happy with the lenses I have and have no money to buy even more...!

[theflyingkiwi]

The lens section of the forum has really turned into a cesspool of late. It has always harbored some folks that are more opinionated than educated...so anything that comes from there needs to be both tempered and sanitized to make it of any use to anyone.

we should all go in there and update with each post (if it needs it or not) with the words pixel peeping :)

perhaps this is an over flow of people from other forums that got kicked out ?

[Pete]

Umm talking about sharp stuff...

I just knocked up a creative sharpening tutorial. Would any gentlefolk care to give it a look over before I got and do something daft like post it up in the Post Processing section?

Many thanks.

http://www.the-aperture.com/EdgeMaskSharpen.htm

[cfpackerfan]

I think I'll nickname it the La Brea Lens pits :lol:



ROFL!! perfect. :lol: :lol:

[SuzyView]

I find it a lot more useful to actually get my hands on a lens and try it out. That's why I like meeting all the POTN members in my area. It's so interesting to see what the gear can do. So, the lens forum is fine, but actually trying out the stuff is a lot more fun.

[Maureen Souza]

Hi everyone...just popping in for a second...gotta get ready for another night in the labor camp;)

Kevin: Sooooooo glad you got your lens!!!

[Lightstream]

WoooHoo! Kevin got his glass, although the process was hell... Sounds like it will never take the place of your 24-105, but at least it is better than your 24-70.


Actually I quite like it from first impression. It didn't QUITE absolutely floor me but the bar has been raised very high over the years. Time will tell in the field.

Morning All,

I'm in a super good mood this morning and the only reason is that it's the first day in a long time that my mouth doesn't hurt! :D

I love my 24-105/5D combo, that lens lives on my 5D. (used to have the 24-70 too but never used it once I got the 24-105) I think it's just a matter of preference...because they are both fine lenses.

That would be a TOUGH decision Jon. I was just sitting here thinking that a 500 f/4 would be a KILLER lens to have...(are you a birder? That's what I'd want it for...) I'd probably buy it and then buy a used MKIIN later when everyone sells and trades to the MKIII.

OT (if that can be said on this thread) but what I don't understand is why everyone (not here but on the forum in general) says f4 (and I'm quite serious here) is too slow for indoor shoots? I use it all the time indoors, w/horrid light & get great results...my mansion series is all w/that lens and I'm really pleased with the photos. I have nothing against 2.8, because I realize speed can be essential for fast action, but I wonder at the "almost dogma" of the "must have 2.8 for low light" around here...I think I've sold most (actually, I think all) of my 2.8 lenses in favor of their f4 couterparts...


Glad to hear the mouth pain is finally going away.. I can relate to 'pain' though of a different kind and its final resolution.. :)

Did I even dare to imagine I heard you mention the 500/4? More importantly, does puddle even dare to imagine he heard you mention the 500? ;)

Glad to hear it. :mrgreen:

I think you'll find you're preaching to the choir on this one in this thread. I was just reading a lens discussion where the original poster was encouraged to forget everything else when comparing telephoto zoom lenses except for two things -- maximum focal length and maximum aperture. Clearly there are a lot more elements than that I would use when considering whether any lens was the right lens for me, and I would be amazed if anyone else in this thread would disagree with me.

Yoda and I had a similar discussion a little while back where we considered the blasphemy that is fill flash (see my sig for my favorite quote from the discussion). Fast glass is nice, but it is not the end all be all.

If you have a 2.8 lens, but consistently find you need more depth of field than that to get the shots you want, does it really matter that it's a 2.8? I love my 85 1.8, and it does very well at its intended purpose for me -- shooting indoor sports from moderate range in poor lighting. I know I can get the shutter speed to freeze the action -- but at the cost of a depth of field that's not always ideal. For many other types of shooting, I'd venture to say that a deeper depth of field is probably more desireable. Those storytelling apertures (thanks to Peterson) are probably the most commonly used ones among the average user, and having a 2.8 isn't going to matter if that's what you're shooting.

Part of the reason of going with a 17-55 is that on APS-C (which is the only format it will fit, notwithstanding creative reengineering when I get bored, a la 60 macro and 17-85 which were made to mount on the 5D) is that thanks to the interrelationship of focal length and aperture and DOF, the 17-55 at equivalent FOV's yields slightly more DOF. If it sounds hard to understand, don't worry about it.

But basically, if I want a 28mm FOV of my subject, I would shoot the 17-55 at 17 (x1.6) and the 24-105 on 5D at 28 (x1.0). Let us say I am using wide open on both (f/2.8 and f/4 respectively).

Thanks to www.dofmaster.com and the physics of using a lens with a shorter FL, I actually get more DOF at 17x1.6 f/2.8 than 28x1.0 f/4. Which is nice. PJs often need more DOF, not less DOF. Portrait folks may need a little less DOF.

There is a thread in the Chat forum titled "abandon hope, all ye who enter here"

This really should be posted above the entrance to the EF Lens forum! :lol:

Even as a Mod, I will admit that other than posting reviews, I tend to NOT discuss my own lens choices there.. I certainly never ask for opinions !! :)

On the other hand, I'd like to have you post that review in EF Lens forum and we could add a link in the sticky thread of reviews?

Wow, my 17-55 review? I'd be honored.. let me know if that's the one you want (or the abandon hope, which is really MDJAK's ;) )

What? Are you saying there are different opinions about which lens is sharpest ?

HEY! Don't knock my 18-55 f/3.5-5.6! That's as aweosme as they come! :p

[Lightstream]

I find it a lot more useful to actually get my hands on a lens and try it out. That's why I like meeting all the POTN members in my area. It's so interesting to see what the gear can do. So, the lens forum is fine, but actually trying out the stuff is a lot more fun.

Agreed! Nothing beats field experience. In fact I can evaluate a lens in 24 hours (the 24-70 spent less time than that here!). Maybe I should rent.. that way I can make my conclusions before I jump.

Interestingly, the lens forum doesn't place much emphasis on field experience. Lots of it is based on hearsay. The best part comes when they think their hearsay can convince me, against all the weight of my own experience. Not really!

Hi everyone...just popping in for a second...gotta get ready for another night in the labor camp;)

Kevin: Sooooooo glad you got your lens!!!


Thanks Mo! :) :) :) Glad that journey is over!!

[Permagrin]

Evening all :)

Hey TD (and well, anyone who's interested), I finished processing the South Coast POTN trip...if you want any of the photos, they are here:

http://LC-images.smugmug.com/gallery/2599029/1/137510052

There are some people shots and flattie shots I haven't posted as well as a lot of "just shots". I thought I'd just post the link rather than flood the thread ;)

[timbernet]

Afternoon guys (and gals)!

[Lightstream]

PG.....is that Cap'n'Crunch wielding the Diffractive Optics of Awe? It looks so small and neat :)

http://lc-images.smugmug.com/photos/137488973-M.jpg

Drop JSolie a line.. he wants to talk about the DO. While I can vouch for the 70-300 IS conventional lens, I don't have the depth of experience with the DO that PP does.

[Lightstream]

Afternoon guys (and gals)!


Afternoon dude.. I recommend you pick up the 17-55 first because you have a crop camera. 24-105 can come later when you have 1.3x or FF. You might miss the wide end pretty bad.

In terms of system design, I'd bop off the Tamron 19-35.. way too short a zoom range and probably not that superb IQ. The 17-55 will pair wonderfully with your 70-200 and then you can go to fast primes and/or ultrawide.

I tend to choose zooms based on coverage. A 10-22 and 24-105 would theoretically cover my range (on a crop camera), but I cross the range from 17-24 so often that I'd destroy the lens mount changing lenses.

The other day someone asked if my 24-105 has lens creep. Well *NOW* it has slight creep (especially if worn on a shoulder and I bump it around when I walk) because I have put so much mileage on it..! However I'm not too worried, because mileage means I am getting the use out of the lens that I paid for, so I am happy. If ever needed, I'll pop by my Canon service center and get it checked out. I'm sure they can replace the worn rings and tighten it up if I need.

[timbernet]

Afternoon dude.. I recommend you pick up the 17-55 first because you have a crop camera. 24-105 can come later when you have 1.3x or FF. You might miss the wide end pretty bad.

In terms of system design, I'd bop off the Tamron 19-35.. way too short a zoom range and probably not that superb IQ. The 17-55 will pair wonderfully with your 70-200 and then you can go to fast primes and/or ultrawide.

Cool! I was thinking of dropping the Tokina 19-35 when getting a new Canon....

I am thinking I may not get the 10-22 and may just get a 17-55... 17 is 2mm wider than 19, and as I was looking through my photos 19 seems to be okay --- so 17mm would be good.

[Lightstream]

A couple of mm make a big difference at the wide end. Oops.. it's a Tokina, my bad. I keep seeing the other "T" around here ;)

Anyway try the 17-55 first. If it eliminates your need for a 10-22 then you've saved a substantial amount of $$. Don't worry about the overlap.

[Lightstream]

OK... good news and bad news...

Bad news first: I looked at the Tokina 19-35 quality samples and I am TOTALLY not impressed. It's probably a competitor to the 18-55. In fact I'd grade the 18-55 kit as better at f/8 and the zoom range is much nicer.

Good news: damn that Tokina is CHEAP..

Ugly news: 18-55 is cheaper and I'd rather have that...

Best news: It's not relevant for you now that you are choosing the 17-55/2.8. Trust me it will stomp all over the Tokina....YOU WILL be impressed. Feed it one extra stop and performance jumps up to awesome at f/4 but still offers the utility of f/2.8 if and when you need it.

[timbernet]

OK... good news and bad news...

Bad news first: I looked at the Tokina 19-35 quality samples and I am TOTALLY not impressed. It's probably a competitor to the 18-55. In fact I'd grade the 18-55 kit as better at f/8 and the zoom range is much nicer.

Good news: damn that Tokina is CHEAP..

Ugly news: 18-55 is cheaper and I'd rather have that...

Best news: It's not relevant for you now that you are choosing the 17-55/2.8. Trust me it will stomp all over the Tokina....YOU WILL be impressed. Feed it one extra stop and performance jumps up to awesome at f/4 but still offers the utility of f/2.8 if and when you need it.


Hahah - yea, it is not my favorite lens - but I do like it more than the kit lens...

[Lightstream]

I am one of the odd folks who took well to the 18-55.. enough to buy a second copy. :)

[timbernet]

I am one of the odd folks who took well to the 18-55.. enough to buy a second copy. :)

I bought my 20D as body only - Aussieskier offered his kit lens for $100 - and I got the Tokina for $150 I think... just looking at photos taken with it, it *looked* like a better lens... But it has some serious CA issues...

[Lightstream]

Cool, glad that worked out for you.

BTW, anybody using the 3rd party BG-E2 grips? I am considering getting one just to try. While I'm very content to shoot the 5D grip-less, the 30D feels a little unbalanced with the big lens on the front. EF-S lenses have their zoom ring far forward, which forces me to change the way I hold the camera, and I don't quite like the 'feel'. Plus the 30D has no finger hook, and there is a 2mm difference in the distance of the lens mount to where I grip it. The 5D has 2mm more, which does make a huge difference.

Till now I've been using the 30D with the big gun telephotos where it doesn't matter because I hold those rigs by their tripod collars, but the 17-55 is tipping the balance in favor.. maybe a grip might help. For $93 shipped I'm almost willing to suck it and see..

BTW, I have some experience with the grip, so I can somewhat guess where it may help me. The 1D gave me a grip whether I liked it or not :shock: :p

[timbernet]

Oh balderdash....

The title fairy hit me.... And for some reason they think I am easily amused... Whatever.

[timbernet]

Cool, glad that worked out for you.

BTW, anybody using the 3rd party BG-E2 grips? I am considering getting one just to try. While I'm very content to shoot the 5D grip-less, the 30D feels a little unbalanced with the big lens on the front. EF-S lenses have their zoom ring far forward, which forces me to change the way I hold the camera, and I don't quite like the 'feel'. Plus the 30D has no finger hook, and there is a 2mm difference in the distance of the lens mount to where I grip it. The 5D has 2mm more, which does make a huge difference.

Till now I've been using the 30D with the big gun telephotos where it doesn't matter because I hold those rigs by their tripod collars, but the 17-55 is tipping the balance in favor.. maybe a grip might help. For $93 shipped I'm almost willing to suck it and see..

Yea, I bought the Opteka (or whatever that brand is) - works like a charm. That plus two SterlingTek batteries for the price of the Canon grip w/o batteries...

[Lightstream]

Oh balderdash....

The title fairy hit me.... And for some reason they think I am easily amused... Whatever.


Congratulations http://pix.lightrefineries.org/img/crackup.gif

[Lightstream]

Does yours look like this, including the battery magazines?
http://cgi.ebay.com/Battery-Vertical-Grip-for-Canon-20D-30D-BGE2-BG-E2_W0QQitemZ200090606400QQcategoryZ50512QQrdZ1QQcm dZViewItem

I notice one easy way to identify the 3rd party grips is the way the batteries are loaded - very different from the Canon way. The BG-E2 has a rear door, the 3rd party grips have a side door, 1-series-style.

[timbernet]

Does yours look like this, including the battery magazines?
http://cgi.ebay.com/Battery-Vertical-Grip-for-Canon-20D-30D-BGE2-BG-E2_W0QQitemZ200090606400QQcategoryZ50512QQrdZ1QQcm dZViewItem

I notice one easy way to identify the 3rd party grips is the way the batteries are loaded - very different from the Canon way. The BG-E2 has a rear door, the 3rd party grips have a side door, 1-series-style.

Yes - that is what my grip looks like. I have no issues with how the battery loads though...

[Lightstream]

Excellent. I have no problems with the battery loading arrangement (was a 1D owner after all, what ticked me off was the stupid latch, not the orientation). Can your grip run with one battery? I'm looking at cutting weight especially since I do not need more than a single BP511 even on extended missions. I filled 5GB of CF on my 5D and the battery indicator didn't even blink.....!

[timbernet]

Excellent. I have no problems with the battery loading arrangement (was a 1D owner after all, what ticked me off was the stupid latch, not the orientation). Can your grip run with one battery? I'm looking at cutting weight especially since I do not need more than a single BP511 even on extended missions. I filled 5GB of CF on my 5D and the battery indicator didn't even blink.....!

I'll try it out when I get home - I have never tried...

[puddlepirate44]

PG.....is that Cap'n'Crunch wielding the Diffractive Optics of Awe? It looks so small and neat :)

http://lc-images.smugmug.com/photos/137488973-M.jpg

Yes, that is the notorious Green Ringed DO of Glory. I love that lens.

[SuzyView]

You guys look great! :)

[theflyingkiwi]

Oh balderdash....

The title fairy hit me.... And for some reason they think I am easily amused... Whatever.

haha, that what happens when you hang out with this lot.

[timbernet]

Excellent. I have no problems with the battery loading arrangement (was a 1D owner after all, what ticked me off was the stupid latch, not the orientation). Can your grip run with one battery? I'm looking at cutting weight especially since I do not need more than a single BP511 even on extended missions. I filled 5GB of CF on my 5D and the battery indicator didn't even blink.....!

Yes - it does work with one battery - although I don't notice it being any lighter..

[aussieskier]

HA.. HA HAHAHA Scott got hit by the title fairy.

[timbernet]

HA.. HA HAHAHA Scott got hit by the title fairy.

Watch it - your next!

[aussieskier]

Watch it - your next!
Right :rolleyes:.. I am invincible.. See the goal is to just make it look like you want a title REALLY bad... and then you will always get overlooked. Samething goes for being asked to sadie's dances :)... then you are free to go skiing without any guilt :lol:

[Lightstream]

Yes, that is the notorious Green Ringed DO of Glory. I love that lens.

And you almost ran off with that little tart of a 100-300L, it was the sexy red ring wasn't it? ;) but never mind, that is all in the past, I am sure the DO has forgiven you and you will live together forevermore happily ever after.. ;)

Yes - it does work with one battery - although I don't notice it being any lighter..


Excellent, thanks!! It may be time for me to sell out to the grip users.

[timbernet]

Excellent, thanks!! It may be time for me to sell out to the grip users.

No problem --- nothing wrong with selling out to grip users ;-) It makes my 20D look fancier than it really is...

[Lightstream]

No problem --- nothing wrong with selling out to grip users ;-) It makes my 20D look fancier than it really is...


:mrgreen:

For the longest time I've stayed away from the battery grips but it so happens that this particular combo, I feel, can benefit from it. I am still very unlikely to put a BG-E4 on the 5D and 24-105 because that combo balances so perfectly. There is really something intrinsic to be said about the 5D that you just cannot quantify in numbers until you've lived with one. I'm really surprised at how the couple of mm add up so fast, or how the tiny little finger hook makes so much difference. Small things *DO* matter.

[Belmondo]

We're in Monterey (Steinbeck, Cannery Row, etc., etc.) We cashed in 55,000 Marriott points to spend two nights in their 'full service' hotel. It turns out they don't have a restaurant, and internet access is $10.00 per night, but the elevators don't smell too strange, and it only costs $20/night to park my very small car here.

It's raining.

We're heading home in the morning, and I'm so happy to be doing so. I forgot what a downer rain can be. I had high hopes of getting some nice photos here, but there are limits to the the suffering I will endure for my art. The one redeeming virtue of this place is the camera store across the street.....tons of used gear, and a whole wall full of high-end (albeit obsolete) medium format bodies and lenses. Also, he has a bunch of Leica bodies, etc. A very impressive store for such an out-of-the-way backwater place.


Good News. The 40D should be introduced any day now. How do I know? I just bought a 30D. Ever since I sold my 20D, I've really been kicking myself. I really believe there is a benefit to the 1.6X in certain circumstances, and I wanted a bit more camera than the XT. I looked at the 400D, and didn't feel a strong connection to it even though it's 10 megapixels. The current plan is to sell the XT, but it's such a fun camera and so compact, I might just keep it to carry in the car. I don't know yet.

Okay, that's all the news that's fit to print.

I'm glad to see that Sari's life is headed for a new adventure, and I'm especially pleased that Permie's feeling better after her ordeal. I'm also pleased to see that the Boring Boys caught the eye of the title faerie.

There is order in the universe.

[aussieskier]

We're in Monterey (Steinbeck, Cannery Row, etc., etc.) We cashed in 55,000 Marriott points to spend two nights in their 'full service' hotel. It turns out they don't have a restaurant, and internet access is $10.00 per night, but the elevators don't smell too strange, and it only costs $20/night to park my very small car here.

It's raining.

We're heading home in the morning, and I'm so happy to be doing so. I forgot what a downer rain can be. I had high hopes of getting some nice photos here, but there are limits to the the suffering I will endure for my art. The one redeeming virtue of this place is the camera store across the street.....tons of used gear, and a whole wall full of high-end (albeit obsolete) medium format bodies and lenses. Also, he has a bunch of Leica bodies, etc. A very impressive store for such an out-of-the-way backwater place.


Good News. The 40D should be introduced any day now. How do I know? I just bought a 30D. Ever since I sold my 20D, I've really been kicking myself. I really believe there is a benefit to the 1.6X in certain circumstances, and I wanted a bit more camera than the XT. I looked at the 400D, and didn't feel a strong connection to it even though it's 10 megapixels. The current plan is to sell the XT, but it's such a fun camera and so compact, I might just keep it to carry in the car. I don't know yet.

Okay, that's all the news that's fit to print.

I'm glad to see that Sari's life is headed for a new adventure, and I'm especially pleased that Permie's feeling better after her ordeal. I'm also pleased to see that the Boring Boys caught the eye of the title faerie.

There is order in the universe.

You won't regret the 30d chief, its a nice little piece and I guess I ought to be the first to give the cliche of "you need to update your gear list' :lol:. Oh, and only one boring boy caught the eye of the title faerie :)

[Lightstream]

We're in Monterey (Steinbeck, Cannery Row, etc., etc.) We cashed in 55,000 Marriott points to spend two nights in their 'full service' hotel. It turns out they don't have a restaurant, and internet access is $10.00 per night, but the elevators don't smell too strange, and it only costs $20/night to park my very small car here.

It's raining.

We're heading home in the morning, and I'm so happy to be doing so. I forgot what a downer rain can be. I had high hopes of getting some nice photos here, but there are limits to the the suffering I will endure for my art. The one redeeming virtue of this place is the camera store across the street.....tons of used gear, and a whole wall full of high-end (albeit obsolete) medium format bodies and lenses. Also, he has a bunch of Leica bodies, etc. A very impressive store for such an out-of-the-way backwater place.


Good News. The 40D should be introduced any day now. How do I know? I just bought a 30D. Ever since I sold my 20D, I've really been kicking myself. I really believe there is a benefit to the 1.6X in certain circumstances, and I wanted a bit more camera than the XT. I looked at the 400D, and didn't feel a strong connection to it even though it's 10 megapixels. The current plan is to sell the XT, but it's such a fun camera and so compact, I might just keep it to carry in the car. I don't know yet.

Okay, that's all the news that's fit to print.

I'm glad to see that Sari's life is headed for a new adventure, and I'm especially pleased that Permie's feeling better after her ordeal. I'm also pleased to see that the Boring Boys caught the eye of the title faerie.

There is order in the universe.

You are going the same way as me.. 30D owner as well. Canon is projected to launch the 40D in six months time so you can still enjoy your state of the art camera for now.

I can't sell my XT, it was my first SLR and first DSLR.. some things you can't bring yourself to do. I will retire it, and it will live out its days in peace.

I also finally got my 17-55 after one of the greatest nightmare shipments I have ever been through.... and someone just tipped me off I could have gotten it locally, slightly cheaper, but that info came 11 days too late.. oh well. At least I have my glass now...

[timbernet]

We're in Monterey (Steinbeck, Cannery Row, etc., etc.)



Is there an Apple store nearby that you can change all the homepages on?

[Belmondo]

Oh, and only one boring boy caught the eye of the title faerie :)Patience. The title faerie works in mysterious ways.:rolleyes:

I can't sell my XT, it was my first SLR and first DSLR.. some things you can't bring yourself to do. I will retire it, and it will live out its days in peace.

I also finally got my 17-55 after one of the greatest nightmare shipments I have ever been through.... and someone just tipped me off I could have gotten it locally, slightly cheaper, but that info came 11 days too late.. oh well. At least I have my glass now...I was catching up on RRTP, and saw that you finally got your lens. Congratulations. I hope it was worth the stress. I understand what you mean about your first DSLR. I sold both my 10Ds, and regretted it almost immediately. In fact, I was looking at a used 10D yesterday, and for one brief minute, seriously considered buying it. Fortunately, my sanity returned before I could reach my wallet.

[Belmondo]

Is there an Apple store nearby that you can change all the homepages on? No, but we do pass one on our way home tomorrow. I've hit them before, though, so they might have a 'shoot on sight' order in place. I have to be careful.

[Permagrin]

We're in Monterey (Steinbeck, Cannery Row, etc., etc.) We cashed in 55,000 Marriott points to spend two nights in their 'full service' hotel. It turns out they don't have a restaurant, and internet access is $10.00 per night, but the elevators don't smell too strange, and it only costs $20/night to park my very small car here.

It's raining.

We're heading home in the morning, and I'm so happy to be doing so. I forgot what a downer rain can be. I had high hopes of getting some nice photos here, but there are limits to the the suffering I will endure for my art. The one redeeming virtue of this place is the camera store across the street.....tons of used gear, and a whole wall full of high-end (albeit obsolete) medium format bodies and lenses. Also, he has a bunch of Leica bodies, etc. A very impressive store for such an out-of-the-way backwater place.


Good News. The 40D should be introduced any day now. How do I know? I just bought a 30D. Ever since I sold my 20D, I've really been kicking myself. I really believe there is a benefit to the 1.6X in certain circumstances, and I wanted a bit more camera than the XT. I looked at the 400D, and didn't feel a strong connection to it even though it's 10 megapixels. The current plan is to sell the XT, but it's such a fun camera and so compact, I might just keep it to carry in the car. I don't know yet.

Okay, that's all the news that's fit to print.

I'm glad to see that Sari's life is headed for a new adventure, and I'm especially pleased that Permie's feeling better after her ordeal. I'm also pleased to see that the Boring Boys caught the eye of the title faerie.

There is order in the universe.

Hey Chief, go photograph the great white shark at the aquarium! :D (there are not many people in the world who'll have an opportunity to see a GW in captivity you know...)

(and thanks for the sentiments, I AM feeling better :D)

I read this: (re: canon's upcoming releases)
"I did some MKIII asa testing at the PMA show and hear are the photos
http://www.sportsshooter.com/sportsf...kiiiisophotos/
Also a final update on other Canon stuff that was not at the show like the 40D, 100-400 F-4.IS and the 800mm F5.6.
The next release will be in August-07 and the MKIII
will be out late April now, info from CEO of Canon him self C.W of NY...Gene"

Congratulations on your 30D, I am really fond of mine :)

[Permagrin]

latest Tupperware Ranch :)

http://tuppervilleranch.com/comics/13permiesnewlens.jpg

[timbernet]

latest Tupperware Ranch :)



HAHA - good one Puddle!

[aussieskier]

latest Tupperware Ranch :)

http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/137552627-L.jpg
HAHAHAHA! Nice.. I am liking it

[ibdb]

Is there an Apple store nearby that you can change all the homepages on?
:lol: He's going to have to start wearing a disguise!

... and someone just tipped me off I could have gotten it locally, slightly cheaper, but that info came 11 days too late.. oh well.
DOH!

...Also a final update on other Canon stuff that was not at the show like the 40D, 100-400 F-4.IS and the 800mm F5.6.
I was REALLY close to buying a used 100-400 yesterday, but I've not yet bought a lens that I didn't see a specific use for in the very near future. I am still lusting over the 100-400, but I told myself that I should wait and see what happens. It would have been great a month ago (before whale watching), but I can live quite happily with my 70-300 for now.

latest Tupperware Ranch :)

:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

[Woolburr]

latest Tupperware Ranch :)


That is so, so what I envision! ROFL:lol:

[puddlepirate44]

That is so, so what I envision! ROFL:lol:

It was an epiphany....

[wu_wei0]

Love it, Pudsy!

[Permagrin]

Love it, Pudsy!

Tomorrow is one with you in it too ;)

[Woolburr]

Complete with flashing lights? hehehe

[timbernet]

Tomorrow is one with you in it too ;)

Last time she fainted - hopefully this time she doesn't get eaten...

[theflyingkiwi]

latest Tupperware Ranch :)

http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/137552627-L.jpg

it's even funnier when you read it. :rolleyes: ;) :lol:

[wu_wei0]

Tomorrow is one with you in it too ;)
cool!
Complete with flashing lights? hehehe
as in fireflies?
Last time she fainted - hopefully this time she doesn't get eaten...
I was just overcome. Wool's quite a bull.:)

[Permagrin]

Last time she fainted - hopefully this time she doesn't get eaten...

He finished one with you guys and TD too...that's VERY funny (although I'm still waiting for you to get the LAST one with you guys in it...:lol: :lol: ) too

[JSolie]

Umm talking about sharp stuff...

I just knocked up a creative sharpening tutorial. Would any gentlefolk care to give it a look over before I got and do something daft like post it up in the Post Processing section?

Many thanks.

http://www.the-aperture.com/EdgeMaskSharpen.htm

Good job! I've seen tutorials similar to this, except that they start by checking through the different channels (ctrl+1, 2 or 3) to find the one with the greatest contrast in it (which helps in finding the edges).

[puddlepirate44]

Sorry guys, I'm trying to keep up, but I'm also chatting with my son in Alaska....

Yeah, Wu will be in one soon, and, no, she doesn't get eaten.

There's one with the BB's too.... And Belmondad. I did five today.

[Woolburr]

This poor guy was having a bad hair day.
http://www.pbase.com/woolburr/image/75968638.jpg
Canon EOS 1D Mark II N ,Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM w/Tamron SP Pro 1.4x TC,
1/640s f/5.6 at 420.0mm iso400

[JSolie]

Oh balderdash....

The title fairy hit me.... And for some reason they think I am easily amused... Whatever.

:( Well, I guess that's better than Thing 1 or Thing 2. I'm wondering if it should be spelled Amooooosed... ;)

[aussieskier]

This poor guy was having a bad hair day.

Nice shot dan! What is it? cool looking though

[Permagrin]

This poor guy was having a bad hair day.
http://www.pbase.com/woolburr/image/75968638.jpg

is that a green heron? He's got some serious BIRD legs going on there :lol: :lol: ...oh, wait...

nice shot Wool!

[wu_wei0]

I think he's cute! I love the bed head look

[JSolie]

Can your grip run with one battery?

My 20D runs fine with 1 battery in the grip.

[timbernet]

Nice BNIF there Dan ... what glass did you use?

[JSolie]

Yes, that is the notorious Green Ringed DO of Glory. I love that lens.

Is that the 70-300 DO? I've been wondering about that lens for a little while now. I'd rather research a lens here than take my chances on yet another "Lens opinion: 70-300DO IS" thread on the lens forum...

[timbernet]

:( Well, I guess that's better than Thing 1 or Thing 2. I'm wondering if it should be spelled Amooooosed... ;)

Well, complain to the title fairy about that ;-)

[Permagrin]

Wool, I just looked it up in my bird book...it's a tri-colored heron. Something we don't get over here...very cool!

[puddlepirate44]

Is that the 70-300 DO? I've been wondering about that lens for a little while now. I'd rather research a lens here than take my chances on yet another "Lens opinion: 70-300DO IS" thread on the lens forum...

I love the DO. Some do, some don't. I do. Our illustrious Mo(o)'s husband, Skip, also has the DO and has found it very satisfactory. If you wish, I could post some shots that I took with the DO, landscapes, even some birds in flight.

Don't start a thread, though. There are two very polarized camps about the lens.

[T.D.]

Oh balderdash....

The title fairy hit me.... And for some reason they think I am easily amused... Whatever.

Wow, this is the first time the title fairy has made a mistake...he meant to say "easily confused." :rolleyes:

He finished one with you guys and TD too...that's VERY funny (although I'm still waiting for you to get the LAST one with you guys in it...:lol: :lol: ) too

OH NO! :rolleyes:

[Woolburr]

All the shot data posted with the picture Scott...

[aussieskier]

All the shot data posted with the picture Scott...
He is just being lazy :rolleyes:.

Puddle, Bailey loves the TR tonight and jokingly asked when she would be in one :lol:.

[timbernet]

All the shot data posted with the picture Scott...

mmmm, I actually had to right click, save as --- ahh, so much work...

But, it looks like your 300mm f/4 IS + 1.4x TC....

He is just being lazy :rolleyes:.

Puddle, Bailey loves the TR tonight and jokingly asked when she would be in one :lol:.

Why doesn't she just post and say she liked it ;-)

[aussieskier]

mmmm, I actually had to right click, save as --- ahh, so much work...

But, it looks like your 300mm f/4 IS + 1.4x TC....



Why doesn't she just post and say she liked it ;-)
Cuz she wasn't lurking, I just sent her a link cuz I know she likes them:D

[Woolburr]

Scott...scroll back and look directly under the picture...I even went back and added the model of the TC...which I forgot initially.

[T.D.]

Hey Perm, I checked out your gallery. Nice shots! It's cool to see another person's perspective on the same scenery.

I haven't gotten to too many more of mine yet. I did post a thread here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=292579).

[timbernet]

Scott...scroll back and look directly under the picture...I even went back and added the model of the TC...which I forgot initially.

NOW it is there ... when I first looked none of that data was there.

[Permagrin]

Hey Perm, I checked out your gallery. Nice shots! It's cool to see another person's perspective on the same scenery.

I haven't gotten to too many more of mine yet. I did post a thread here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=292579).

Thanks TD :)

And yes, I've been enjoying seeing what others have shot when standing in the same area...most of Dan and my shots are completely different, though we do have a few overlaps.

I'll go check out your thread now.

[Woolburr]

I checked out your shots earlier Permie...very nicely done!

This shot is technically flawed...but so fitting...
http://www.pbase.com/woolburr/image/75970472.jpg
Canon EOS 1D Mark II N ,Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM w/Tamron SP Pro 1.4x TC
1/400s f/5.6 at 420.0mm iso400

If only the tree shark had jumped in...

[JSolie]

latest Tupperware Ranch :)

...

That's great! A portable tripod, er, quadpod... :lol: http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t123/jsolie01/Smilies/2funny.gif

[puddlepirate44]

He is just being lazy :rolleyes:.

Puddle, Bailey loves the TR tonight and jokingly asked when she would be in one :lol:.

Aww, that's nice that she likes 'em. It's odd how many people seem to like the TR comix. I really thought they would burn out after a few were posted. Who knew. :rolleyes:

[aussieskier]

I checked out your shots earlier Permie...very nicely done!

This shot is technically flawed...but so fitting...

Canon EOS 1D Mark II N ,Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM w/Tamron SP Pro 1.4x TC
1/400s f/5.6 at 420.0mm iso400

If only the tree shark had jumped in...

There is always photoshopping...

[JSolie]

I love the DO. Some do, some don't. I do. Our illustrious Mo(o)'s husband, Skip, also has the DO and has found it very satisfactory. If you wish, I could post some shots that I took with the DO, landscapes, even some birds in flight.

Don't start a thread, though. There are two very polarized camps about the lens.

That would be great... The 100-300 we currently have is actually a loaner, and the loanor has made noise about wanting it back. Since it's so soft, and focusing is actually quicker when done manually, I've been considering an upgrade.

[wu_wei0]

Aww, that's nice that she likes 'em. It's odd how many people seem to like the TR comix. I really thought they would burn out after a few were posted. Who knew. :rolleyes:

shall I start naming names? :D

[Woolburr]

NOW it is there ... when I first looked none of that data was there.

What browser are you using? If you have Firefox...get FxIF 0.2.2 Then if the exif info doesn't show at first....right click the image...select view image from the menu and then try the exif reader from the image alone...no need to actually save the shot back to your system.