Poor Me

After I read the credintials of some of the people in this forum, I wonder if I belong here

Canon EOS 10D : Canon EOS 1N HS : EF 17-40/4L : EF 50/1.8 : EF 70-200/4L : EF 100/2.8 Macro USM : EF 300/4L : EF 1.4x II : EF 2x II : Sigma EF-500 DG Super

Credentials?

There is a wide range of regular contributors here.

Ranging from the total newbie beginners (Myself )

To many who's work is respected very highly, and who are well known in many circles both for there art and technical know how.

We are all at varying levels of experience, as well as different focuses on the expeirience we do have.

It requires no credentials at all to help someone who is starting out other than a little insight and patience.

Welcome to the Forum and don't let anybody scare you away
Once you get past the bluster,. you can learn a lot from these folks

..and I am sure you can teach me a thing or two as well.

MsVirick,

I just noticed the "Sigma EF-500 DG Super" in your sig.

Is that this lens;

http://www.sigmaphoto.​com/html/pages/500_45_​EX.HTM

...or the earlier version that looks a little different?

I am seriously considering that lens and would love to hear your opinion.

Guess who

Well i also welcom yu to the forum and yes, as Cyberdyne says, there are all kinds of people here, those who are pretty new to this and those who has been photographing for some years now.

Just because i happen to have some expensive stuff, dont nessecearly means that i take great pictures. But it will guarantee me that when i shoot THAT picture it will not fail in quality. Also, my equipment is bought in a loong period of time. My 300/4L is from 1992. And my 1N HS is from 1998, for example.

Also, one must also take in the fact that some of us make some money on their wrk and therefore can justify the cost of the equipment. If something is good enough for you, thats fine, as long as you are pleased with the result. But i must say that i am amazed with those who spend 1300$ on the camera itselfs, and then puts a 200-300$ (with some exeptions) lens on it. Since it is the lens who does most of the work. Therefore i think that the lens should match the camera.

Ofcourse this will result in more money beeing put into the photobag, but again, its a personal choice. I just think its sad that anyone is speending alot of Cash on a fine hose and then turn it into a digital IXUS (or so) it sees,s to me like a wast of good money.

I might have sounded a little bit harsh in your "review" but im really a nice guy. And its great that yuo are pleased with the results that the Tamron 28-300 gives you. But it simply isn´t enough to show the 10D's full potential.

You can take a look @ www.naturfotografen.ne​t/10D/25full.jpg (1.7MB)

That is the 10D, with an EF 70-200/4L and the EF 1.4x extender. Shot at 252mm, 1/400th, f8.

I can´t imagine that this shot had been as sharp with the Tamron 28-300 @ 250/f8 even without the extender.

But then again, this picture may sell, and thereby my cost for the lens is well spent.

Best regards

Jeppe

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
MsVirick,

I just noticed the "Sigma EF-500 DG Super" in your sig.

Is that this lens;

http://www.sigmaphoto.​com/html/pages/500_45_​EX.HTM

...or the earlier version that looks a little different?

I am seriously considering that lens and would love to hear your opinion.

Hehe.. i think he meant my "credentials"

Since its my signature....

(Damn, i think ill just remove that signature)

No that s not a lens, that is a flash (Sigmas Top-model)

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
MsVirick,

I just noticed the "Sigma EF-500 DG Super" in your sig.

Is that this lens;

http://www.sigmaphoto.​com/html/pages/500_45_​EX.HTM

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it's a flashgun - the replacement for the EF-500 Super (clone of the Canon 550EX)

KRs
Chris

Oh! I thought that was his signature. I thought he was embarrassed about the Sigma

LOL. now who's embarrased!???

I mistook Jeppe's sig for someone elses,. AND I mistook a flash unit for a lens! Aaargh!

hahahahaha

DOH!

Hey CDS -- least you got us all laughing !!!