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

[wu_wei0]

"TR's"

"CDS's video collection"
http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/149313286-L.jpg

"Room Service"
http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/149313320-L.jpg

can we say RED STRIPE :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hey some of us like blue in the can!!

[Permagrin]

Hey some of us like blue in the can!!

Red is a much better color :rolleyes: (I won't even mention the taste :lol: :lol: )

j/k to each his own beer ;)

[Belmondo]

OK, here are some shots today with the 400.

Intro: I shot these handheld. I wanted to see if I could, in case the mono/tripod wasn't feasible. I found that, yes, I could shoot handheld, but with more photo attrition than with a platform. That focus sensitivity is something that's going to take some getting used to. These are cropped some. All the birds today were too far away. On a couple, I tweaked the saturation a bit, but not that much.

Those are very good. I do believe that's the first time that lens has ever been used so well. It will probably try to point itself at locomotives for a while. You might want to keep it away from railroad tracks for a month or two.

I'm glad it arrived safely, and that Pud was pleased.

Love today's TR. I remember that pool party well. I belive that's the one when I fell in love with the Pool Sweep and acted out inapproppriately.:o:o

[aussieskier]

Congrats on the lens Puddle!

Just stopping in for a bit I have close to 1000 pictures to process... So I am going to be busy... You might see me around if I take a break but just wanted to tell puddle congrats!

[wu_wei0]

Those are very good. I do believe that's the first time that lens has ever been used so well. It will probably try to point itself at locomotives for a while. You might want to keep it away from railroad tracks for a month or two.

I'm glad it arrived safely, and that Pud was pleased.

Love today's TR. I remember that pool party well. I belive that's the one when I fell in love with the Pool Sweep and acted out inapproppriately.:o:o

whew! I thought that was the. . . .never mind.:o

[Permagrin]

OKAY...I'm a baaaaad girl :lol: LOL (and I totally blame the TPBMer's and yet...) :lol: :lol:

[wu_wei0]

OKAY...I'm a baaaaad girl :lol: LOL (and I totally blame the TPBMer's and yet...) :lol: :lol:

why are you a bad girl?

[Permagrin]

why are you a bad girl?

Cuz I did THIS (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=316198) on the lens forum...

(but after all, they need some fun in their lives) :lol: :lol:

[timbernet]

I just bought a book at the store... Birding in Oregon (or something like that) - over 200 sites to look at birds...

[Belmondo]

Cuz I did THIS (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=316198) on the lens forum...

(but after all, they need some fun in their lives) :lol: :lol:Very cute.

[Permagrin]

Very cute.

:lol: Sorry, I couldn't help myself :lol:

[Kevin]

Congrats on the 400 Mr. Puddle and those first shots look really swell.

[puddlepirate44]

Congrats on the lens Puddle!

Thanks!

Those are very good. I do believe that's the first time that lens has ever been used so well. It will probably try to point itself at locomotives for a while. You might want to keep it away from railroad tracks for a month or two.

I'll keep that in mind. It's an awesome lens, Chief. Thank you!

I'm glad it arrived safely, and that Pud was pleased.

Putting it mildly! :D

[puddlepirate44]

Congrats on the 400 Mr. Puddle and those first shots look really swell.

What really scares me is that I'm usually lousy with a new lens. I can't seem to figure out all the intricacies until I've shot with it a few times. I was reservedly pleased with today's shots... hopefully it will only get better from here.....

[Belmondo]

I'll keep that in mind. It's an awesome lens, Chief. Thank you!:D

That makes it a win/win all the way around. I'm happy to see it go to a good home.

[Permagrin]

Hey Chief...Puddle mentioned that you were a surrogate on the New Baby thread...just thought I'd mention it...just in case you start getting PM's with "offers" :lol:

[puddlepirate44]

Now I've got some serious gear questions.

As you may or may not know, I sold the 70-300 DO. In fact, we shipped it off today. It was/is a good lens, and I hope that I won't miss it too much in the future. Here are the lenses that I have right now in my bag:

400 f/5.6
200 f/2.8
100 f/2.8 macro
85 f/1.8
50 f/1.4
35 f/2
28-105 f/3.5-5.6

Only one zoom.

Here is my intention. I plan on buying a 70-200 f/4. I would also like to divest myself of the 28-105 and get a Tammy 17-50 f/2.8.

Question: Should I buy the 70-200 f/4 IS or non-IS? I played with Lisa's 72f4 IS today, and was amazed at the IS capability.... but it's another $500; and with a daughter's wedding on the horizon, I'm thinking that I would be maimed for spending the extra. Heck, there's a good chance I'll be maimed for just the 400.

Any suggestions?

[timbernet]

Now I've got some serious gear questions.

As you may or may not know, I sold the 70-300 DO. In fact, we shipped it off today. It was/is a good lens, and I hope that I won't miss it too much in the future. Here are the lenses that I have right now in my bag:

400 f/5.6
200 f/2.8
100 f/2.8 macro
85 f/1.8
50 f/1.4
35 f/2
28-105 f/3.5-5.6

Only one zoom.

Here is my intention. I plan on buying a 70-200 f/4. I would also like to divest myself of the 28-105 and get a Tammy 17-50 f/2.8.

Question: Should I buy the 70-200 f/4 IS or non-IS? I played with Lisa's 72f4 IS today, and was amazed at the IS capability.... but it's another $500; and with a daughter's wedding on the horizon, I'm thinking that I would be maimed for spending the extra. Heck, there's a good chance I'll be maimed for just the 400.

Any suggestions?


Hmm - I hate to say this to you Puddle - but, what do you plan on shooting?

[Permagrin]

Now I've got some serious gear questions.

As you may or may not know, I sold the 70-300 DO. In fact, we shipped it off today. It was/is a good lens, and I hope that I won't miss it too much in the future. Here are the lenses that I have right now in my bag:

400 f/5.6
200 f/2.8
100 f/2.8 macro
85 f/1.8
50 f/1.4
35 f/2
28-105 f/3.5-5.6

Only one zoom.

Here is my intention. I plan on buying a 70-200 f/4. I would also like to divest myself of the 28-105 and get a Tammy 17-50 f/2.8.

Question: Should I buy the 70-200 f/4 IS or non-IS? I played with Lisa's 72f4 IS today, and was amazed at the IS capability.... but it's another $500; and with a daughter's wedding on the horizon, I'm thinking that I would be maimed for spending the extra. Heck, there's a good chance I'll be maimed for just the 400.

Any suggestions?

You're forgetting that I BOUGHT you the 400 (no maiming there) ;)

[timbernet]

So what I would do - knowing that you won't be shooting sports with your 70-200, I would sell the 35 f/2 and the 28-105 --- get the 70-200 f/4 IS and the Tammy...

Do you REALLY use your 35 THAT MUCH?

[puddlepirate44]

Hmm - I hate to say this to you Puddle - but, what do you plan on shooting?

I've got fast primes. Maybe not the fastest, but fast enough. The reason for the 17-50 f/2.8 Tammy is for low light situations. E.g. Pike's Place Market, indoor church/architecture, evening at the beach/river. Yes, the primes would do wonders for those situations, however, there are times when I don't want to "foot focus".

[puddlepirate44]

So what I would do - knowing that you won't be shooting sports with your 70-200, I would sell the 35 f/2 and the 28-105 --- get the 70-200 f/4 IS and the Tammy...

Do you REALLY use your 35 THAT MUCH?

Not really. If I had the Tammy, the 35 would be sorta obsolete. Unfortunately, the 35 and the 28-105 won't fetch a lot of moolah....

[Permagrin]

besides that...I'm sadly lacking in fast light lenses...if he gets rid of the 35, I KNOW a bag it can go in :mrgreen:

[Belmondo]

Question: Should I buy the 70-200 f/4 IS or non-IS? I played with Lisa's 72f4 IS today, and was amazed at the IS capability.... but it's another $500; and with a daughter's wedding on the horizon, I'm thinking that I would be maimed for spending the extra. Heck, there's a good chance I'll be maimed for just the 400.

Any suggestions?

That is the only way I would consider buying that lens. f/4 is really borderline useful for a 200 under all but bright sunlight without tweaking the ISO (not always desireable). The IS will let you slow the shutter down a bit, and that will greatly increase the utility of the lens.

[timbernet]

Not really. If I had the Tammy, the 35 would be sorta obsolete. Unfortunately, the 35 and the 28-105 won't fetch a lot of moolah....

Hmm... so looking through the forums, the 35 goes for $200. And the Canon 28-105 is going for $200.... So... gee, enough to buy the Tamron...

[puddlepirate44]

That is the only way I would consider buying that lens. f/4 is really borderline useful for a 200 under all but bright sunlight without tweaking the ISO (not always desireable). The IS will let you slow the shutter down a bit, and that will greatly increase the utility of the lens.

Yeah.... I think I really want the IS. I'm working through the guilt of spending the extra. Heck, that's a lot of dough.

[Permagrin]

Hmm... so looking through the forums, the 35 goes for $200. And the Canon 28-105 is going for $200.... So... gee, enough to buy the Tamron...

he's gonna buy the tamron already...he just can't make up his mind on the F4 OR F4IS...I think he should go with the IS...we CAN afford it but he's having shock over the sudden outflow of $ into his gearbag...

[Belmondo]

I sure love my Tamron 17-50. I only wish I could use it on my pro bodies.

[puddlepirate44]

Hmm... so looking through the forums, the 35 goes for $200. And the Canon 28-105 is going for $200.... So... gee, enough to buy the Tamron...

Hmmm.... DANG, spending money it waaaaay too easy.

[Permagrin]

I sure love my Tamron 17-50. I only wish I could use it on my pro bodies.

Me too...tamron really hit a winner with that one (it doesn't work on the 5D either :confused: )

[timbernet]

he's gonna buy the tamron already...he just can't make up his mind on the F4 OR F4IS...I think he should go with the IS...we CAN afford it but he's having shock over the sudden outflow of $ into his gearbag...

Hmm... $500 now... or selling the non-IS later on and buying the IS version.... $500 now or $500 later...

[Permagrin]

Hmm... $500 now... or selling the non-IS later on and buying the IS version.... $500 now or $500 later...

LOL...that's probably what'd happen too :lol:

[puddlepirate44]

Hmm... $500 now... or selling the non-IS later on and buying the IS version.... $500 now or $500 later...

GAAAA! Quit being so danged logical!

OK, I'll take the IS. My daughter will now be married while wearing a burlap bag.

[Belmondo]

I have to chuckle. I'm still running a couple ads in the classifieds, and I'm getting a few PMs and emails a day asking if the various lenses are 'sharp copies.' I know I sound like a bit of a hustler, but I really haven't used any of the lenses I'm selling enough to know if they're sharp or not. The only thing I can say for sure is they're like new.

BTW, I picked up the new 16-35L II, so my old one is for sale. Of all the lenses I'm getting rid of, that's the only I used at all.

[timbernet]

GAAAA! Quit being so danged logical!

OK, I'll take the IS. My daughter will now be married while wearing a burlap bag.

Hey - there was an I Love Lucy episode where they went around in burlap bags and some designer thought they were great...

[puddlepirate44]

Hey - there was an I Love Lucy episode where they went around in burlap bags and some designer thought they were great...

I'll try it, but I have a funny feeling that my daughter is smarter than that. She's onto my evil tricks.

[Permagrin]

okay I got a couple of shots today (before the boids flew away) :) Actually it was one of those (oh, we just missed the bird...or...oh look, if we'd stayed just a bit longer) days...

chimping the 70-200 F4is
http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/150678081-L.jpg

Cute little tree swallow
http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/150678151-L.jpg

"I gotta fish stuck on my beak!"
http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/150678260-L.jpg

"Don't bother me kid, I'm fishin' "
http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/150678727-L.jpg

"talk to the back"
http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/150678892-L.jpg

[JSolie]

Nice shots there, Permie...

[timbernet]

I like the fish + GBH shot!

[timbernet]

I'll try it, but I have a funny feeling that my daughter is smarter than that. She's onto my evil tricks.

Or Vegas, Tahoe, etc...

[Belmondo]

The Red Crested Chimper in #1 looks a little soft.

[Kevin]

Nice ones Permie. I didn't know the Tree Swallows ever landed.:lol: :lol:

[Permagrin]

Thanks John and Scott. We saw 3 GBH's eating today but they were either far away or hidden behind grass (so the focus was on the grass) but it was pretty cool watching them spear the fish and have it stuck on their beaks.

[Permagrin]

Nice ones Permie. I didn't know the Tree Swallows ever landed.:lol: :lol:

thanks :)

Honestly, I tried to focus on them for over an hour and COULD NOT get a bif shot...then this little one landed so I snapped it FAST :)

[Permagrin]

The Red Crested Chimper in #1 looks a little soft.

soft in the head? :D Do you think it's a lens problem or ?? ?? :D :D

[puddlepirate44]

The Red Crested Chimper in #1 looks a little soft.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm off to bed, folks. All this gear talk has exhausted me.

[Kevin]

thanks :)

Honestly, I tried to focus on them for over an hour and COULD NOT get a bif shot...then this little one landed so I snapped it FAST :)
Yea, good luck. I have sat and tried for hours to get one in-flight and all I have ever captured is the blue sky. Well at least I know when my sensor is dirty.:lol:

[timbernet]

Night Puddles! Congrats on the baby!

I have some swallow BIF shots, but they were all somewhat blurry...

[Permagrin]

well, no one's got a tamron 17-50 in stock...wonder what that means...

[timbernet]

well, no one's got a tamron 17-50 in stock...wonder what that means...

I'll sell you mine for $750 ;-) -- the market is driving the cost up!

[Permagrin]

I'll sell you mine for $750 ;-) -- the market is driving the cost up!

LOL...it probably IS driving the cost up but um...no thanks :)

[Belmondo]

well, no one's got a tamron 17-50 in stock...wonder what that means...Ummmmm. There aren't enough of them to go around?:rolleyes:

[Permagrin]

Ummmmm. There aren't enough of them to go around?:rolleyes:


oh, yeah...okay...

[Belmondo]

If you absolutely have to have one, you can borrow mine. I'll use my Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 until you can get one of your own.

[timbernet]

Adorama has the lens in stock.... There is also a $10 mail-in rebate...

[Kevin]

You can buy my 16-35 so I can buy the series II.

[Permagrin]

If you absolutely have to have one, you can borrow mine. I'll use my Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 until you can get one of your own.

:) that's sweet but we're fine...(I've never heard of that sigma...and didn't you just get the new 16-35 II?)

[Permagrin]

Adorama has the lens in stock.... There is also a $10 mail-in rebate...

I just looked, and didn't see it!

[timbernet]

I just looked, and didn't see it!

http://www.adorama.com/TM1750EOS.html?searchinfo=tamron%2017-50&item_no=4

[Permagrin]

got it, thanks :)

[Kevin]

Well that's it for me tonight, nite all.

[Belmondo]

:) that's sweet but we're fine...(I've never heard of that sigma...and didn't you just get the new 16-35 II?)I don't think it was available all that long. Sigma sold a 24-70 f/2.8, but it was a real dog. They brought out the 24-60 that was a bit better while they redesigned the 24-70. It's not a bad lens, but (like so many others) I don't use it. Also, I don't use the Sigma 12-24.

[Permagrin]

Well it's done and Puddle's gear list is revamped ;)

Well that's it for me tonight, nite all.

G'night Kevin :D

I don't think it was available all that long. Sigma sold a 24-70 f/2.8, but it was a real dog. They brought out the 24-60 that was a bit better while they redesigned the 24-70. It's not a bad lens, but (like so many others) I don't use it. Also, I don't use the Sigma 12-24.

Cool...Are these on your sale list too? I don't remember them...

[timbernet]

Well it's done and Puddle's gear list is revamped ;)



Very cool!

[Belmondo]

Cool...Are these on your sale list too? I don't remember them...

I suppose, although I haven't listed them anywhere. I really was thinking I'd like to play around with them before I sell them, but if somebody decides they want to buy one or both, I'd probably sell. On paper, the 12-24 sounds pretty good.....full frame, 12mm, etc., etc. My impression was that it had a lot of CA at 12mm, so I put it back in its box and stuck it in the closet. I want to go back to see if my original impressions were correct.

[Belmondo]

Well it's done and Puddle's gear list is revamped ;)

Great! His equipment list is looking more like mine used to.:cry:;)

I just sold the 17-40L and the 350D. I still have the 35L, 200L, and the 16-35L. Once they sell, there'll be almost enough in my PayPal account for the Mk III when it comes out.

I'm not sure that's what I'm going to do, but it's fun to think about it.

[timbernet]

Bed time for Boring Boy Scott .... see you later!

[Permagrin]

Great! His equipment list is looking more like mine used to.:cry:;)

I just sold the 17-40L and the 350D. I still have the 35L, 200L, and the 16-35L. Once they sell, there'll be almost enough in my PayPal account for the Mk III when it comes out.

I'm not sure that's what I'm going to do, but it's fun to think about it.

:)...well, it was just time he did some updating I think. His hardest switch was the DOIS. I wonder if he'll regret it. He played with the 70-200 F4IS and fell (like a rock) for it's IS (he kept saying...it just SNAPS to a standstill)...and so now no DO. He said today...I hope the new owner learns the "Skip Souza combat stance" so the lens will feel at home in it's new place ... :lol:

It sounds like you are doing pretty well in your sales Chief...I can't wait to hear about the MKIII (yes, IT IS FUN to think about) :D

[Permagrin]

G'night Scott...I'm off too...(I figure as much as I've chatted today, I've probably finally passed WoolE, who's been rather quiet lately...so now he can come out and play again ;) ).

[Belmondo]

Bed time for Boring Boy Scott .... see you later!Hah...I read that a little too quickly, and thought you said 'Boring Boy Scout.' Either way, pleasant dreams.:lol:

[aussieskier]

Hah...I read that a little too quickly, and thought you said 'Boring Boy Scout.' Either way, pleasant dreams.:lol:
That is still technically correct... but it doesn't really work cuz we are both scouts and Eagles :). So it doesn't do a good job to seperate us... :grin:

[aussieskier]

Well, I was hoping to have something to post tonight but I think it will have to wait till tomorrow, I am watching the family guy I recorded last night :)

[Maureen Souza]

Good night to all....by the time I can get on here, everyoone is off to la la land. I guess I'll hang out with my buddies from across the pond:)

[Mrselfdestruct]

Wow... this is a huge thread. I think POTN needs a live-chat room. I would be interested in helping making it if no one knows how.

[Lightstream]

Wow... this is a huge thread. I think POTN needs a live-chat room. I would be interested in helping making it if no one knows how.


Tried that, found it wanting....nobody could keep up.

[Belmondo]

My display is set to 40 posts/page, so it's a little over 1,000 pages long. (1,086, actually)










I didn't have the patience to read War and Peace, either.

[Mrselfdestruct]

What do you mean? No body could keep up?

[Woolburr]

Too much business to attend to to spend all our time chatting...so here we take care of business, share some stuff and get an occasional chat in.

[Maureen Souza]

Too much business to attend to to spend all our time chatting...so here we take care of business, share some stuff and get an occasional chat in.
You were off line a little bit ago... I was thinking that was awfully early for you;)

[Mrselfdestruct]

Oh I understand. That makes sense, I'm usually posting images and sharing input on other peoples images, but I also have some free-time I figured would be fun spent chatting live with people. I just hate refreshing all the time.

[Woolburr]

You were off line a little bit ago... I was thinking that was awfully early for you;)

Had some stuff I needed to do around the house. But now I suppose I should drag my carcass off to bed...contractors back in the AM....I can actually see some progress.

[Pete]

Mooo All...

Well, less than two weeks to go in my current job, I move house a week after that.

Stress city isn't the word for it.

[Maureen Souza]

Sounds exciting, Pete...just relax. It will all come together and soon you'll wonder what all the worry was about.

Alas... I am back to work after 10 days off. A hectic night, too....oh well.

[Pete]

The really stressful part of it is that I need to sell my flat pretty soon, otherwise I'll be running out of money very very quickly!!

[Mgdh]

I thought you were going to be letting it out, Pete?

[Pete]

Yes, I was going to Mark, bit I feel that it needs quite a bit of investment into it to make it really spangly. I can't really afford that kind of outlay (talking a few grand), so I'm deciding to get shot of it and put the equity into an ISA or something long term.

[Pete]

I'm just thinking of my potential venture into kids photography (for Ali's school). I'd need a fast, shot lens for the indoor portraits.

What would be recommended? Note I'm posting the question here as I trust you guys, the people in the lens forum would have me wanting to buy Tamron and Sigma.

[tommykjensen]

Not knowing what you mean with short but the 85 mm f/1.8 is an excellent lens.

Here is a few photos I have taken with this lens

Outside daylight.
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=050910tambur01.jpg

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=050910tambur02.jpg

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=050910tambur03.jpg

Outside with flash.
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=2005carnival_day1_01.jpg

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=2005carnival_day1_02.jpg

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=2005carnival_day1_03.jpg

[Pete]

Smashing shots, Tommy.

what I'm thinking of however, is shooting kids in the classroom (one built for 3 and 4 year olds, so fairly small), so I'd guess that a fixed 85mm will be too long for that.

I'm thinking of shorter, down at 17mm or 24mm

[Lightstream]

I'm just thinking of my potential venture into kids photography (for Ali's school). I'd need a fast, shot lens for the indoor portraits.

What would be recommended? Note I'm posting the question here as I trust you guys, the people in the lens forum would have me wanting to buy Tamron and Sigma.


300 f/2.8.

:D

[Pete]

300 f/2.8.

:D

Cocky git!! :D

[Lightstream]

Really.... your 24-105 will do just fine. You probably do not want to go down to 17 because of the risk of distortion (unless very carefully controlled), so stick with the 24-105.

Lots of people bitch and whine about how you need f/2.8 in a zoom or even better f/0.95 to do portraits, but I have (out of necessity) shot excellent environmental portraits with the 24-105. In fact, while I claim not to do portraits (which is true - as far as the studio/posed portraits go), I do a LOT of people shooting at events. You could classify that as environmental portraiture, which is 'subject in their environment' (ie. the event). Most of this is shot on-camera, unposed, and on the fly under time pressure.

For this, the 24-105 is outstanding. f/4 ensures sufficient DOF. You don't want one eye in focus, the other eye out of focus. You also want a zoom because I can NEVER be sure where my subject is going to pop up. For environmental work it is even more important because you want to capture the subject's surroundings rather than just nail a mug shot.

[Lightstream]

Cocky git!! :D


If you look at "EF Lens Work", BOTH 300/2.8 and 300/4 'sample images' are portraits! :D

[Pete]

Wow.. Wasn't expecting such constructive (cheap) advice... I was only really thinking fast as I'm thinking the backgrounds might be pretty busy, I wanted to blur it out as much as possible.

Got any examples of environmental portraiture?

I'm willing to go with the cheap option though.

[Pete]

If you look at "EF Lens Work", BOTH 300/2.8 and 300/4 'sample images' are portraits! :D

From about 20' away, I bet...!

[Mgdh]

Yes, I was going to Mark, bit I feel that it needs quite a bit of investment into it to make it really spangly. I can't really afford that kind of outlay (talking a few grand), so I'm deciding to get shot of it and put the equity into an ISA or something long term.

Sounds like a reasonable plan, Pete. Bricks and mortar are a good investment but you have to include the capital in your calculation. And, as you say, to let it out it needs to be to a certain standard.

Just make sure that the capital is not too easily accessible, or it'll end up invested in glass ;)

I'm just thinking of my potential venture into kids photography (for Ali's school). I'd need a fast, shot lens for the indoor portraits.

What would be recommended? Note I'm posting the question here as I trust you guys, the people in the lens forum would have me wanting to buy Tamron and Sigma.

Not knowing what you mean with short but the 85 mm f/1.8 is an excellent lens.

Here is a few photos I have taken with this lens


Smashing shots, Tommy.

what I'm thinking of however, is shooting kids in the classroom (one built for 3 and 4 year olds, so fairly small), so I'd guess that a fixed 85mm will be too long for that.

I'm thinking of shorter, down at 17mm or 24mm

Great advice and examples there, Tommy.

To a degree, it depends what you want to achieve, Pete. If you are talking group shots with a bit of distance between you and the subject, then wide angle is o.k. but not more than that. Because of the distortion it introduces to the facial features, it is not normally used for portraits. With the 5D being full frame, to eliminate the distortions you'd need to use a 50mm or longer. The more pleasing shots normally come from lenses in the 70 to 135mm range as the distortion introduced by the longer lenses (yes, there is a little) compresses the features slightly and makes the image more pleasing to the eye believe it or not.

Obviously, space is the major constraint to the length you are able to use but you already have the 50 f/1.4, I would sat that that is possibly the best one to start with and see how you get on.

[Lightstream]

Wow.. Wasn't expecting such constructive (cheap) advice... I was only really thinking fast as I'm thinking the backgrounds might be pretty busy, I wanted to blur it out as much as possible.

Got any examples of environmental portraiture?

I'm willing to go with the cheap option though.


Usually I leverage my background, rather than treating it as something annoying to be blurred out. Maybe that's a fundamental difference between me and many others, and that's why I could never agree with them. And given that I'm usually presented with lots of wierd backgrounds, maybe I do have more creativity than I imagine I have.

I have lots of good ones, unfortunately nothing I can release due to the 'personally identifiable' criteria.


Agreed with Mgdh that the 50/1.4 will fill the job of the background-eraser if necessary. However, I don't find WA distortion to be a problem. I routinely shoot around 28-50mm for environmentals and that is not an issue. Maybe at 24. Again I am breaking the rules here; but as long as my results look good and the clients are happy.. I don't see a reason why not.

A well-regarded, experienced, and *SANE* poster in the wedding forum has said he can go all the way down to ~28mm on his 24-105 without worrying too much about distortion. My experience seems similar.

Keep your camera level with your subject, the film/sensor plane should be parallel to your subject. If your subject is short, get down to their height (rough on the old knees I know, mine are hinting at the beginning of problems too).

[Mgdh]

Really.... your 24-105 will do just fine. You probably do not want to go down to 17 because of the risk of distortion (unless very carefully controlled), so stick with the 24-105.

[snip]

For this, the 24-105 is outstanding. f/4 ensures sufficient DOF. You don't want one eye in focus, the other eye out of focus. You also want a zoom because I can NEVER be sure where my subject is going to pop up. For environmental work it is even more important because you want to capture the subject's surroundings rather than just nail a mug shot.

These are also very goot points and kids can move quickly so the zoom of the 24-105 would be a help.

Start out with what you have - find what works and what doesn't and you'll have a much better idea of what you need to invest in if you have to. Maybe instead, put the money into a portable studio flash kit and get them to sit for slightly more formal stuff? ;):lol: as if that can ever be achieved with young kids... :lol:

[Lightstream]

From about 20' away, I bet...!

Nothing was said about the photog so that is a fair assumption yes ;) ;)

[Mgdh]

Usually I leverage my background, rather than treating it as something annoying to be blurred out. Maybe that's a fundamental difference between me and many others, and that's why I could never agree with them. And given that I'm usually presented with lots of wierd backgrounds, maybe I do have more creativity than I imagine I have.

I have lots of good ones, unfortunately nothing I can release due to the 'personally identifiable' criteria.


Agreed with Mgdh that the 50/1.4 will fill the job of the background-eraser if necessary. However, I don't find WA distortion to be a problem. I routinely shoot around 28-50mm for environmentals and that is not an issue. Maybe at 24. Again I am breaking the rules here; but as long as my results look good and the clients are happy.. I don't see a reason why not.

A well-regarded, experienced, and *SANE* poster in the wedding forum has said he can go all the way down to ~28mm on his 24-105 without worrying too much about distortion. My experience seems similar.

Keep your camera level with your subject, the film/sensor plane should be parallel to your subject. If your subject is short, get down to their height (rough on the old knees I know, mine are hinting at the beginning of problems too).

I think we're on the same page with the WA issue. Environmental portraits are normally from far enough away to control the distortion so it's acceptable. Where it shows up is when you come in closer to the subject and isolate them - then it becomes more apparent. Your advice in the last paragraph would also help contol it. :D

[Pete]

Nothing was said about the photog so that is a fair assumption yes ;) ;)

That's from experience of doing a team shot with the 100-400. I had to stand about 10 feet behind the rest of the parents and stand on tiptoes so I didn't get their heads in shot!

Many thanks for the advice there. Now I just need to get some practice in with the nephews sometime. I know there's money in this as many of the parents drive around in big Lexus' and X5's and those kinds of beasts...

[Lightstream]

These are also very goot points and kids can move quickly so the zoom of the 24-105 would be a help.

Start out with what you have - find what works and what doesn't and you'll have a much better idea of what you need to invest in if you have to. Maybe instead, put the money into a portable studio flash kit and get them to sit for slightly more formal stuff? ;):lol: as if that can ever be achieved with young kids... :lol:

That's a great idea - lighting is always important!!

And forget the traditional studio gear. I have been on location shoots with drunk-off-their-ass 20 y/o's (*) and if you think little kids are bad, wait till you get the big kids. There is ABSOLUTELY NO TIME to chimp and test and test and test. E-TTL2 carried the day, fast and effective while the studio gear fell flat on its face. I got results faster than anybody could and not only that, more reliable, consistent results.

(* please remember that legal drinking age in AU is 18. These twits are not only drinkers, they are EXPERIENCED drinkers too :p)

I find too many people carp about E-TTL2: only because they fail to understand it. Maybe given that my calling is in technology, I can reverse-engineer E-TTL's thinking (to some extent), particularly when it falls flat, and then override it, so I understand the flash better.. I dunno. It works for me, and it works spectacularly well. But you, as a fellow technologist, should be able to benefit from it. Always remember to start out with +2/3rd exposure comp.

I run a two flash system now, 420 and 430 with ST-E2 transmitter. The ST-E2 has never misfired, except when yours truly the dork is holding the flash in hand with the palm completely covering the IR sensor. (well done. Usually happens when I am macro'ing something :D)

Travel fast and light, get two lightstands, umbrellas, and brackets. You can use white umbrellas as shoot-through 'softboxes' or reflectors (silver as reflector works great). Remember, light is light. And the flash units are pretty damn decent light, too. I can build out an entire lighting setup in five minues with this kit while the 'traditional' folks mess with their huge bulky and unwieldy studio gear. Their loss.

As for power.. we had a lot of arguments over this. I personally did some testing under exceptionally unreasonable testing conditions. I can fire three flashes on my system in five seconds at f/22 ISO 100 - how is *THAT* for unreasonable. And I didn't even recharge the NiMH before testing!!

At f/8 ISO 100, I can fire one shot a second CONTINUOUSLY for 20-30 frames. And three shots in DRIVE MODE before the flashes need to recharge.

[Lightstream]

I think we're on the same page with the WA issue. Environmental portraits are normally from far enough away to control the distortion so it's acceptable. Where it shows up is when you come in closer to the subject and isolate them - then it becomes more apparent. Your advice in the last paragraph would also help contol it. :D

Oh yeah, that's true - I would never do point blank shots with the WA. Most subjects get uncomfortable when you get THAT close and personal ;)

That's from experience of doing a team shot with the 100-400. I had to stand about 10 feet behind the rest of the parents and stand on tiptoes so I didn't get their heads in shot!

Many thanks for the advice there. Now I just need to get some practice in with the nephews sometime. I know there's money in this as many of the parents drive around in big Lexus' and X5's and those kinds of beasts...

The 100-400 is awesome. It enables me to 'cut through' the clutter and zoom past the heads: http://pix.lightrefineries.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2907&g2_serialNumber=2


You will DEFINITELY want E-TTL2 lighting gear as I have mentioned. Kids will hardly stay still enough for you to get ONE shot, much less 2 shots. And if you shoot higher EV's (ISO 400 f/4) you may be able to squeeze off a lot more shots in drive mode.

BTW, my power testing was also done using umbrellas, in a shoot-thru configuration (where you lose the most power) both of them off camera at 45 deg angles to the subject - the classic portraiture 'mug shot' configuration.

[Pete]

Yeah. Lighting is something that I'm struggling to control. I think what I really need to do is learn to trust ETTL2 and shoot in manual mode and let the flash do the work for me.

It's something I need to work on with a vengence...

[Lightstream]

Yeah. Lighting is something that I'm struggling to control. I think what I really need to do is learn to trust ETTL2 and shoot in manual mode and let the flash do the work for me.

It's something I need to work on with a vengence...

To kill ambient light, 1/200 and f/8 ISO 100 works great. To work with ambient light, of course, open everything up.

You can master E-TTL2. A lot of griping comes from the fact that people have not spent the time to master it. Eventually you will be able to think like it does.. probably quicker than you imagine too.

Conversely, I could probably master studio gear until I could set it up blind without a light meter if I spent the time to do it, and money to buy some nice Elinchrom's. It's just that I like the Canon system better. And the Elinchroms are sweet...just so damn expensive.

I suggest you buy the lightstands and brackets and practice at home. Buy a stuffed animal as well, it is less likely to complain. Get something with nice thin fur that stands out rather than something thick or with a relatively smooth surface. Also, since they are 3-dimensional, they will give you a good idea about DOF.

[Lightstream]

One half of my lighting setup:
http://pix.lightrefineries.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=3016&g2_serialNumber=2

The tip of the umbrella points towards my subject in shoot-thru configuration. This setup has been used to shoot some great product pics too, with just ONE light. Didn't even have two back then!

http://pix.lightrefineries.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1643&g2_serialNumber=2

To use it as a traditional reflector umbrella, simply raise the lightstand, turn it around, and point the handle of the umbrella at your subject instead of the tip. The flash fires into the umbrella and the light bounces back out towards your subject.

Bought the umbrellas off ebay cheap too. No special umbrellas required.

I remember when I was really young, one of the photogs was taking portraits of us at school.. for some odd reason, I remember his umbrella setup. (could this be a prophecy of where I was to head?) He had two silver umbrellas in 45 deg reflector configuration. I wondered WTF these umbrellas were for, and why one would need them just for a simple photo.

Never dreamed that one day I'd deploy a similar setup.. oh, just about 20 years later..

[Pete]

Many thanks, Kevin. That's something that I'll have to look into when I get the time. There's always something more to be learnt.

I'm sure glad I didn't post that question in the lens forum.

Although it might be fun to see the replies... ;)

[Lightstream]

Many thanks, Kevin. That's something that I'll have to look into when I get the time. There's always something more to be learnt.

I'm sure glad I didn't post that question in the lens forum.

Although it might be fun to see the replies... ;)


Let me post a sample of possible replies.....

1. "You must use the 85/1.2L and shoot wide open"
2. "You must use the 16-35"
3. "Only the 24-70 will do"
4. "Get the Tamron 17-50" (for a 5D, think about it.. it will mount, but I can show you what happens..)
5. "You need to get some Alien Bees"
6. "Flash is lame, use available light"
7. "Available light is a crutch, use flash"
8. "70-200 f/2.8 IS"
9. "Primes are limiting"
10. "Zooms are for weenies"
11. "I can carry 50 pounds of gear on a hike"
12. "Only non professionals use f/4 lenses"
13. "18-55 kit lens - it just takes skill"
14. "E-TTL sucks"
15. "The ST-E2 sucks, use Pocket Wizards" (and lose E-TTL)
16. "Pocket Wizards are expensive, use cheap ebay triggers"
17. "Cheap ebay triggers don't work, use PC sync cords"
18. "PC sync cords fall out, use available light"
19. "Available light is lame, use flash" (part 2 redux)
20. "Nice duck"
21. "thanks for sharing"

:mrgreen:

[Pete]

You forgot one...

13. Need an Exposure Crutch?

:D

[Pete]

Into the Lion's Den I go... http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=316356

Just want to see what suggestions crop up.

[wu_wei0]

Into the Lion's Den I go... http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=316356

Just want to see what suggestions crop up.

hehehe. . . .this should be fun to watch. :)

Good mooooorning y'all.

[Woolburr]

Mooooooooooooooooooooooooorning

[Woolburr]

Hey Pete...I'll toss out my take. Classrooms are tough...even with a FF body, 24 might not be wide enough...16-35 would be my choice. That said...I think Kevin is right about giving the 24-105 a shot. If you get a chance to check out the shoot location, you could snap off a few test images to see where the focal length falls and how your lighting is going to work.

[Lightstream]

Mooooooooorning woooooooooooooooool & wuuuuuuuuu

Perfect excuse for Pete to pick up a 16-35 ;) make it a Mark II ;)

The "cheap" route is try the 24-105 first since it is already there..... but hey.. you only live once: put a 16-35 on the house mortgage :mrgreen:

Everybody needs an ultrawide....I love my 17-40.

[Woolburr]

Yup...the 17-40 would probably work just as well...for a whole lot less.

[Pete]

This is the kind of response I was dreading. It's reading things like this that make me screw my eyes up in a "what is he talking about?" kind of a way...

Using a 20D, the 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135L and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS have work well for me in similar situations. I'm still lacking a wider angle lens such as the 24L or 24-70L.

Indoors, with/without flash, I find a f/2 or > lens is often needed to properly separate the subject from distracting backgrounds. When flash is not an option, f/2.8 or > is a must.

On one occasion I used the 300 f/4 L IS with the BetterBeamer to pick individual faces out of a large group of children and was surpised at just how well that combo worked indoors in an auditorium

[Woolburr]

You knew it was coming! ROFL I added some bait.

[Pete]

I think we're on the same wavelength, Dan....

[Woolburr]

I love to see what comes out of the woodwork over there.:rolleyes:

[Belmondo]

You knew it was coming! ROFL I added some bait.That was a terrible bit of disinformation you put out there., and felt I had to set it straight. People might have believed you. :rolleyes: I am a moderator, you know.:lol:

[Woolburr]

We all know science is nothing but smoke and mirrors...I stand by my mathematical assertion!

[Lightstream]

Forgive me...I could not resist joining in the debacle ;)

Some of the posters also seem to have forgotten that 24mm on a 5D is much wider than 17mm on a crop camera.

[Lightstream]

That was a terrible bit of disinformation you put out there., and felt I had to set it straight. People might have believed you. :rolleyes: I am a moderator, you know.:lol:


And you have good taste in chicken. Now, steamed, baked, fried, or microwaved?

(I just had one oven baked with tomato and basil......YUMMY.. no, sadly I did not save the wishbone for lens-picking.)

[Pete]

A debacle, it surely is. Interesting that I've not had two people state the "correct" answer...

It remains to be seen what happens before the thread dies...

Oh, and I'd just like to state for the record, that Hoobastank ROCK!! It's music like this that get me through my days.

[Lightstream]

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

I just read one of the most hilarious threads in the lens forum ever.

OP posts a photo with poor bokeh from the 24-105 f/4L. WHOLE bandwagon and cattle train follows OP saying "yes, the 24-105 has sh%t bokeh, the lens sucks, it's horrible, get a prime, get the 24-70, get laid, yadda yadda."

Four pages later, an observant EXIF reader points out that it was shot at 50mm, f/1.4.

Wow, must be SOME awesome 24-105 that can do that, I want one, sh%tty bokeh or not.

Rest of bandwagon, having touted 'how wonderful primes are and how horrible the 24-105 is', are now stunned into silence and slink back into their holes.

Hilarious!! Better entertainment from that section of the world than I have seen in a fair long time.

[Pete]

Yeah. I read through that one. Just rolled my eyes at the inanity of it all...

[Lightstream]

Yeah. I read through that one. Just rolled my eyes at the inanity of it all...


It shows that the bandwagon does not know what they are talking about. Period. The problem with so much advice on the lens forum is that so much is repeated.

I have gotten nice bokeh out of my 24-105, so I know what it is capable of.


Also, I recently held a briefing for my fellow networkers. I told them explicitly that yes, every so often there will be one example in the IT world who gets up there and beats his chest and says "oh I did blah and blah and blah and my business worked even in the dot com boom and grew from one man to a multimillion dollar company." Correct; I do not deny that said speaker or presenter has succeeded. But just because HE found one path through a minefield does not mean the path will be same for you; nor should you blindly follow him unless you do not value lower extremities. Hey, I too am looking for an easy ticket to fame and fortune. If it was such a bulletproof formula for success I would follow it, become rich, sell my stock and tell Canon to send "one of EVERYTHING" over to my place by FedEx and my hot secretary would sign for it. Bull s$ht that is ever gonna happen.

Similarly with lenses, what works in one situation is not going to work for *EVERYTHING*. That's why zooms exist; to give you a wider spectrum of workable FL's in a given situation. And that's why strobes exist, to deliver sufficient light where the lenses may not prove adequate.

Either that, or you could buy the whole raft of small Canon primes.

[timbernet]

G'MAE!!! MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Wow - lens forums madness... you guys are crazy ;-)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Oh no! We have "seepage" the RRTP is seeping out into the gear forums... ;)

I thought Tupperware was supposed to a have the "Stay Fresh Seal" on the lid :)

[thomascanty]

Maybe you should set restrictions on the accounts for everyone in here so that can't happen again.

[Lightstream]

Microwaved

That actually reminds me, I need to marinade a chicken.... thanks! :)

I have some excellent chilli sauce that needs to be given time to soak into the chicken fillets.

[cylentka]

Pete, good luck with your kid shots when you get to take them. Post pics if its ok security-wise, and give us your lens story. FWIW I had fairly good luck with the 70-200 at the karate promotion, but I often wished I could shoot wider. So I'm thinking your 24-105 will be good in a classroom.

The REAL problem with kids is that in a group most of them will have totally goofball expressions, have their fingers in their mouths (or noses), be clutching their crotches because they didn't bother to go potty during the last potty break, have one leg over their head, be poking the kid next to them, flip their eyelids to look like monsters, pout because they didn't get to stand in front, pout because they didn't get to stand in back, pout because they didn't get to stand on their head, have paint and markers all over their face and clothes, hold stuffed animals in front of their faces, hold stuffed animals in front of the face of the kid next to them... Its nearly impossible to get a shot that parents would buy! (maybe this just applies to American children, but I wouldn't bet on it)

[calicokat]

#43466

[wu_wei0]

You knew it was coming! ROFL I added some bait.

That was a terrible bit of disinformation you put out there., and felt I had to set it straight. People might have believed you. :rolleyes: I am a moderator, you know.:lol:

Forgive me...I could not resist joining in the debacle ;)

Some of the posters also seem to have forgotten that 24mm on a 5D is much wider than 17mm on a crop camera.


Hehehe. . . a whole bunch of naughty boys in that thread. Funny, guys
Oh no! We have "seepage" the RRTP is seeping out into the gear forums... ;)

I thought Tupperware was supposed to a have the "Stay Fresh Seal" on the lid :)

You have to remember to seal tightly it if you want no seepage! And don't forget to burp it, too.
still, wouldn't tupperware full of skunk still smell like skunk? Maybe seepage is inevitable. . . but, that's a philosophical question for another time and lots of beer.

[cylentka]

You have to remember to seal tightly it if you want no seepage! And don't forget to burp it, too.
still, wouldn't tupperware full of skunk still smell like skunk? Maybe seepage is inevitable. . . but, that's a philosophical question for another time and lots of beer.

If you store a body in a tupperware container, will the K9 not find it? :cool:

[Lightstream]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGHty_S0TU0

Absolutely hilarious. Most of the Internet jokes inspire the "Been there, done that" feeling as far as I am concerned, but this is one of the rare ones I have actually LAUGHED at. Loudly, too.

[gjl711]

I know from personal experience that Tupperware is quite effective at containing all sorts of exotic flora most on the single cell level though at times I have discovered entire tiny civilizations having evolved to flight and complex warfare. It does not however hamper the growth within the container. ;)

[calicokat]

When things are inside tupperware too long, they get stale, then rot. Its good to get outside :lol:

[wu_wei0]

If you store a body in a tupperware container, will the K9 not find it? :cool:
hmmmmmm. do they make tupperware that big? or would we need a whoooooole bunch of little ones?

either way, I believe there definitely be seepage.

[Permagrin]

Moooorning all...

Wow, it seems like mayhem ensued last night :) (I just love mayhem...)

A debacle, it surely is. Interesting that I've not had two people state the "correct" answer...

It remains to be seen what happens before the thread dies...

Oh, and I'd just like to state for the record, that Hoobastank ROCK!! It's music like this that get me through my days.

Well Pete, a couple of people did seem to try to give you good advice so that's a plus over there...(note: of course I'm NOT referring to anyone from this room) :lol: ALTHOUGH I loved the Chief's VOODOO lens advice! :lol: If you want fast and isolation, go with what Tommy suggested...the 85 1.8 isn't too expensive and it does focus fast. If you want a group shot...try the 24-105 and if it's fast enough but not wide enough, get the 17-40 because it's way less expensive than the 16-35...but if it's wide enough but not fast enough...then it's the 16-35 all the way. And if that's too expensive, try to buy it used and haggle the heck out of the seller :)

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

I just read one of the most hilarious threads in the lens forum ever.

Four pages later, an observant EXIF reader points out that it was shot at 50mm, f/1.4.

Oh my gosh! I saw that thread in the beginning but NEVER looked at the exif...this is too funny!

Oh no! We have "seepage" the RRTP is seeping out into the gear forums... ;)

I thought Tupperware was supposed to a have the "Stay Fresh Seal" on the lid :)

Um...would that sort of be like prison? I mean, it's one thing to CHOOSE to stay in here but suddenly when you are talking of locking the door....:lol:

[Jon]

"TR's"

"CDS's video collection"
http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/149313286-L.jpg

"Room Service"
http://LC-images.smugmug.com/photos/149313320-L.jpg

For more on Belmondo's Pool Party, try this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66444&highlight=pool+noodle). Sorry, Tom - but it had to be said!

[Permagrin]

oh my gosh...TOO FUNNY!

[Lightstream]

And with that, I must head to bed......night folks!

[Permagrin]

G'night Yoda

...and hey Chief...enquiring minds want to know....did you take this suggestion to your tripod woes? (or the alligator?):

Tom,
You may want to consider an inconspicuous body piercing, and festoon the new tripod to it. I tried this and believe me, I never misplaced my car keys again...

oh and Chief...
Belmondo is feverishly building the prototype while trying to corner the market on Pool Noodles.

how's that Pool Noodle market these days? :D

[aussieskier]

Moooorning All!

That is a great TR and a amusing link :)

[Belmondo]

oh and Chief...


how's that Pool Noodle market these days? :DWow! How far back did you go to dredge up that old chestnut?

[Permagrin]

Wow! How far back did you go to dredge up that old chestnut?

LOL..I DIDN'T! Jon did...I simply did him the honor of reading the link he posted and then LMHO over the whole thing :lol:

[wu_wei0]

For more on Belmondo's Pool Party, try this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66444&highlight=pool+noodle). Sorry, Tom - but it had to be said!
I remember this thread! that was a hoot.

[Woolburr]

The pool noodle concept was a classic....and proof that some of our newer members are not the ones responsible for bringing mayhem to the forum!

[wu_wei0]

The pool noodle concept was a classic....and proof that some of our newer members are not the ones responsible for bringing mayhem to the forum!

hehehe. was a thread that made me glad I joined up!