Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.		 OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS ➔ Cameras, Lenses & Accessories ➔ Canon Lenses 
Thread started 13 Dec 2005 (Tuesday) 12:43
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Holy Trinity, Mazda Edition

9 posts, 1 page
1
 
Todd ­ Louis ­ Green
Member
Avatar
132 posts
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Rockville, MD
More info
     
Dec 13, 2005 12:43 |  #1

Zoom Zoom Zoom

IMAGE: http://greent.com/photos/potn/trinity.jpg

70-200/2.8L IS USM
24-105/4L IS USM
16-35/2.8 USM

Todd Louis Green
Canon 1D MkII N
50/1.4 USM.....16-35/2.8L USM ... 24-105/4L IS USM ... 70-200/2.8L IS USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
condyk
Africa's #1 Tour Guide
Avatar
20,887 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Birmingham, UK
More info
     
Dec 13, 2005 13:08 |  #2

Very nice bunch, but are they safe balancing on a Sheeps back like that?

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1203740

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Todd ­ Louis ­ Green
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
132 posts
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Rockville, MD
More info
     
Dec 13, 2005 13:14 |  #3

You just need a smart lamb and a gun ...

Todd Louis Green
Canon 1D MkII N
50/1.4 USM.....16-35/2.8L USM ... 24-105/4L IS USM ... 70-200/2.8L IS USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ronald ­ S. ­ Jr.
Prodigal "Brick" Layer
Avatar
16,481 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 71
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Sayre, Pennsylvania
More info
     
Dec 13, 2005 13:20 |  #4

Wouldn't the 24-70L belong in that bunch a bit more than the 24-105? After all...the other two are 2.8's. :confused:

Mac users swear by their computers. PC users swear at theirs.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Todd ­ Louis ­ Green
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
132 posts
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Rockville, MD
More info
     
Dec 13, 2005 13:49 as a reply to  @ Ronald S. Jr.'s post |  #5

Ronald S. Jr. wrote:
Wouldn't the 24-70L belong in that bunch a bit more than the 24-105? After all...the other two are 2.8's. :confused:

It was a tough choice. What finally put me over the edge for the 24-105 was the broader focal range, Image Stabilization, and about 10oz less weight. My 1D2N is heavy enough as it is. :)

At some point I expect to add a 50/1.4 to my kit, which should give me the missing mid-range fast lens.

Todd Louis Green
Canon 1D MkII N
50/1.4 USM.....16-35/2.8L USM ... 24-105/4L IS USM ... 70-200/2.8L IS USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cfcRebel
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,252 posts
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Austin, TX
More info
     
Dec 13, 2005 14:20 as a reply to  @ Todd Louis Green's post |  #6

Hey Todd, congrats on your zoom trinity.
Mazda edition.... LOL!:lol:

Fee

Canon | SIGMA | TAMRON | Kenko | Amvona

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jjonsalt
Goldmember
1,502 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Central Florida
More info
     
Dec 13, 2005 14:58 as a reply to  @ Ronald S. Jr.'s post |  #7
bannedPermanent ban

Ronald S. Jr. wrote:
Wouldn't the 24-70L belong in that bunch a bit more than the 24-105? After all...the other two are 2.8's. :confused:

I agree.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MrChad
Goldmember
Avatar
2,815 posts
Joined Aug 2004
Location: Chicagoland
More info
     
Dec 13, 2005 16:11 as a reply to  @ Ronald S. Jr.'s post |  #8

Ronald S. Jr. wrote:
Wouldn't the 24-70L belong in that bunch a bit more than the 24-105? After all...the other two are 2.8's. :confused:

Ditto, if I was FF the 16-35mm would replace my 10-22mm.

I kaNt sPeL...
[Gear List]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
condyk
Africa's #1 Tour Guide
Avatar
20,887 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Birmingham, UK
More info
     
Dec 13, 2005 16:32 as a reply to  @ Ronald S. Jr.'s post |  #9

Ronald S. Jr. wrote:
Wouldn't the 24-70L belong in that bunch a bit more than the 24-105? After all...the other two are 2.8's. :confused:

But two of them are IS ... so maybe we could replace the wide boy the with 17-85 IS L :lol: :lol: would be just as logical as all being 2.8 ;)

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1203740

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

9 posts, 1 page
1
2,870 views & 0 likes for this thread, 6 members have posted to it.
Holy Trinity, Mazda Edition
FORUMS ➔ Cameras, Lenses & Accessories ➔ Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home
Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
2247 guests, 136 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.