60D users, friends and their random OT B.S. (II)

Haven't posted in a bit, so here's one from my outing tonight.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/drdphotos/87617​09111/

Great shot! Looks like he spotted you

Dr.D wrote in post #15951966
Haven't posted in a bit, so here's one from my outing tonight.

Awesome shot!! The lighting and composition are great.

I have to agree. nice one Dr.D.

this SL1+pancake combo continue to amaze me.

our neighbor's trespassing flowers.

vinmunoz wrote in post #15952565
...our neighbor's trespassing flowers.

the nerve of some neighbors.....

the groom from my first wedding during preparation... CC please.

Sorry all for the delay in response. It was our anniversary yesterday so we went out to play. Thank you very much for the samples!

pauly916 wrote in post #15949496
My 70-200 is the non is and I get plenty of sharpness from it, I use it for all sorts and don't have a problem I think you just have to get your technique right.
If I was buying at the moment though I would go for stabilised, trouble is now I'm earning money from more shoots I'm getting a bit funny about buying stuff. It's all about profit margins at the moment lol

Well, I'm definitely not making any money. Just a hobby at this point. Not that I would argue if someone wanted to pay me. lol I guess I will see how impatient I get when I am closer to having all the $

MakisM1 wrote in post #15950411
Brenda, by f4 the sweet spot I mean the sweet spot of the selection. You can choose f4 non IS, f2.8 non IS, f4 IS, f2.8 IS.

Vinz can shoot people at 15-20 ft at 155 mm and so can I at high shutter speed. You have to understand the point that when camera shake materializes (either by shooting close, or long tele) IS is sine qua non.

The moth was at the minimum focus distance (MFD), and I was coming in and out of it just by breathing. The DOF is less than 1/8 of an inch, you move 1/16 forward or back and you missed the shot.

Anyway, there are two ways to learn... ;)

Trial and error? lol Argh...I think I want IS but the extra $ is hard to justify...shoot even a new lens is just a luxury for me. But my hubby will buy me whatever I ask for...I just have to be careful what I ask for..

vinmunoz wrote in post #15950554
gerry is right. i usually kill the ambient with shutterspeed to balance forground and background so i'm always at 1/200 or more to do that so non is is not a problem for me.

So since you are killing ambient you are filling with flash on a regular basis? I'm probably not likely to do that...though I love your shots, I am lazy...I'll admit it.

pauly916 wrote in post #15950587
If your going to shoot close up or min focal distance IS is a godsend that's why I have the 100l macro it's amazing and I couldn't get the shots I need without it.
But general portraits and sports the non IS 70-200 rocks and I get the shots, a lot of my shots end up as prints and are plenty sharp enough for that the problems start when you pixel peep that's when I know if I has IS they would be sharper.....lol
Don't pixel peep it's not good for you wallet !!!!

This thread is not good for my wallet!!! I'm kinda thinking that if I'm going to jump in and get the pricey L lens, I may just as well go for the gold. But if I get impatient, I may end up with non-IS.

NewCreation wrote:
So since you are killing ambient you are filling with flash on a regular basis? I'm probably not likely to do that...though I love your shots, I am lazy...I'll admit it.

Dankata is always shooting at the right time of the day. So he always have excellent ambient/soft light from the sun(free) and he uses the flash just to "pop" the subject.

So Pop instead of fill is the right word for my technique acquired from Dankata(thanks Dan for being unselfish)

And with Y622C trigger, i can control the flash from the camera so it's super easy.

vinmunoz wrote in post #15952696
the groom from my first wedding during preparation... CC please.

the bride...

No Exif, no comment...

hehe.... i don't know where in my procedure the exif got strip. teach me how to keep it intact please.

both are window light. with the 70-200

Thanks for the comments guys! Kinda lost my inspiration for a little bit, so it's nice to hear the encouragement.

For whatever is worth... Us gearheads can sit here the whole day and oooh and aaaah over how sharp and how shallow the DOF is in the first photo.

I don't think it is a successful portrait. In my view, the field of view from the tip of the nose to behind the ears should be sharp. His vest should be sharp too... Everything BEHIND him should be blurred...

That's what happened in the second photo, which, for me at least, it is much more appealing.

Sorry Vinz, you know that I wish the best for you and my commenting means well...

OK..just to confuse myself more...What are your opinions on f/2.8 or f/4 for the 70-200? For those of you who have the 2.8...how often are you below f/4? TIA

NewCreation wrote in post #15953225
OK..just to confuse myself more...What are your opinions on f/2.8 or f/4 for the 70-200? For those of you who have the 2.8...how often are you below f/4? TIA

I shoot a lot of ice hockey so I live at f/2.8 all winter. Great lens but it is heavy.

The weight of the 2.8 should definitely be taken into consideration.

If it's on a monopod or tripod, then weight is a bit of a moot point.

After renting the lens a few times, it was really nice to have 2.8 and couldn't imagine being limited to f4