amyandmark3 wrote in post #7802196
I just got back from some young girls' softball myself (east side of Indy).
Anyways, I'd base your opinion on the shots you take at the ball park today. It's a nice sunny day so shutter speeds should be high and AF should be easy. If you have mostly nice shots with just minimal processing, I'd say you're set with this lens and have fun at Disney (or wheverever you're going).
Yup it's good. Got some great shots of my niece today. Just last minute "jitters" I guess. Those are the pictures that count, and the reduced PP time is why I sprung for this over the Tammy I had.
Where on the east side? I am an east sider myself. I live in Lawrence but I was down in Wanamaker for the ball games today.
skid00skid00 wrote in post #7802231
Dave, I'm NOT being snarky here, but...
You need to worry about learning exposure, before you worry about minor lens 'defects'.
If you -really- think the lens might be bad, take shots of distant landscapes, or buildings 100 feet away from you, to determine if the lens elements are out of alignment, or the cam/lens has front/back focus.
No worries. Like I said, I think this was all in haste and my head wasn't on straight, the brick wall pictures lack a lot on many aspects and the dogs head is under exposed.
I've NEVER had a problem with Canon products other than my 28-135 was soft from 100 and up but that is FAR from L glass. My "experiences" have been with others that were sub par, then I got in my own head by reading WAY too much. Not sure if I will have time to post up any of today's shots before we leave, since I still have to pack my camera gear and for some reason that takes me FOREVER to do. But I'll make sure I bring some pics back from Disney.