Red-Ringed Tupperware Party with (ineffective) Tin Foil Hats (5)

Way to go Permie, you sleep (or Party!) better tonight now.

T.D. wrote in post #4605220
Glad to hear it! What a relief!!

yes it is. It would have never occurred to me to not use the 24-70 (I didn't want Dan to have to run a long distance...). I can't wait to test it in real life (better light). One thing I have noticed...it's not jumping around on a still subject so that's good. Obviously that has been fixed.

Greg_C wrote in post #4605231
Way to go Permie, you sleep (or Party!) better tonight now.

Yes, I'll sleep much better Greg. Thanks

OK, this is where we left off on the 21st:

Sneaux Day: Goin' Full Throttle!

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Permagrin wrote in post #4605205
okay, I think you were right. (I didn't know the 24-70 wasn't a speed focusing lens...I would have thought it was)

We just shot 66 shots with the 70-200 F4IS and 44 with the 400 (at high iso's because it was getting dark) There were about a dozen mis-focused shots (most of them w/the 400 because I have a hard time holding it still). Considering the low light, I'm amazed at how few there were.

So, in switching lenses 2 of the 3 tested came back with approx 90% keeper ratio which is extremely acceptable. With the 70-200, only 3 or 4 of the 66 frames mis focused. That was a HUGE difference from testing with the other lens.

(I checked the lens focus and had to turn off the -1 setting for all because it focuses properly now).

I'll test it again tomorrow in better light but I'm am feeling more hopeful. Thanks Wooly, I was all set to call canon again (I'd been over the CF's and couldn't get it to track...) but I think it's working. Dan looked over the shots and said that it was a completely different result (you wouldn't even think it was from the same camera) using the two telephoto lenses....

We're all breathing easier, Permie. But still awaiting the daylight tests with the long lenses.

Now, can I get 57 posts, and the rest of you get 275 posts (less whatever I do here) in the next 4 hours?

Hope all of you have a good start to the new year.

That's a lot of "Nice Duck"!

T.D. wrote in post #4604514
Here's the first shot I've processed. I tried to take advantage of the conditions in the first few shots (the fog).

Waddya think?

http://hoyboy.smugmug.​com/photos/238068442-L.jpg

I think it turned out really well. I'm interested in seeing more

timbernet wrote in post #4604838
From the midnight labs:
Midnight Sepia
http://www2.sandynet.o​rg …0D/10_28_2007-4009-ms.jpg

Midnight Gold
http://www2.sandynet.o​rg …0D/10_28_2007-4009-mg.jpg

these are lovely (especially the gold...I don't have that filter but I like it a lot)

Jon wrote in post #4604990
Lisa! That's AWFUL!!!

Thanks Jon I was quite panicked. I think things may be okay...

Woolburr wrote in post #4605171
Screeeeeeeeeeeeeeech
http://www.pbase.com/w​oolburr/image/91050772​.jpg

this is cool...I cannot figure out what it's raining on but I like it.

Jon wrote in post #4605324
We're all breathing easier, Permie. But still awaiting the daylight tests with the long lenses.

yes, I am too...in both situations

OK - question.
I have 70-200 2.8 IS, 100-400 IS, Canon 1.4x TC.

I will be getting the 500 f/4. Just not as soon as I'd hoped due to vet bills for Ann's horse. However, we've just paid off the mortgage, so that money's now available. The 1D III is also on delay, but inevitable.

In the mean time, I'm considering a tele prime. The question - 300 f/4 IS or 400 f/5.6?

I'm quite likely to be using it in forest conditions, so IS would be useful, as would the extra stop at 300. It'll also have to fit in with the rest of my gear as carry-on (and the UK, which is a probable destination, hasn't yet loosened up to allow 2 carry-on bags). Subjects - wildlife (including BiF) and MBiF.

Which - and why?

Claire wrote in post #4605333
Hope all of you have a good start to the new year.

You too, Claire. I hope you didn't sleep through the New Year's celebration

Jon wrote in post #4603628
Nothing like Auld Lang Syne on the pipes.
It's traditional for some of us . . .

Amazing Grace or Scotland the Brave on pipes is enough to make me all blissful.

T.D. wrote in post #4604514
Here's the first shot I've processed. I tried to take advantage of the conditions in the first few shots (the fog).

That's a great shot, Chris.

belmondo wrote in post #4605190
In the end, it will all work out, but in the meantime, you did manage to get Dan to do some exercise.

*pant pant pant* *wheeeze...* *faint*

Jon wrote in post #4605384
OK - question.
I have 70-200 2.8 IS, 100-400 IS, Canon 1.4x TC.

I will be getting the 500 f/4. Just not as soon as I'd hoped due to vet bills for Ann's horse. However, we've just paid off the mortgage, so that money's now available. The 1D III is also on delay, but inevitable.

In the mean time, I'm considering a tele prime. The question - 300 f/4 IS or 400 f/5.6?

I'm quite likely to be using it in forest conditions, so IS would be useful, as would the extra stop at 300. It'll also have to fit in with the rest of my gear as carry-on (and the UK, which is a probable destination, hasn't yet loosened up to allow 2 carry-on bags). Subjects - wildlife (including BiF) and MBiF.

Which - and why?

I will say this first: I love the 400. To be honest, I think it was the best gear purchase I've ever made.

That being said, I think that the 300 f/4 IS is more versatile than the 400. It has IS, it's an f/4 which is good, and it'll still work with a 1.4 TC to bring it up a step if you want the extra reach. The IQ is stellar.

While the 400 is amazing, IMO, the 300 is a better all around lens for what you're looking for.

I will now sit back and watch everyone disagree with me.

Jon wrote in post #4605384
OK - question.
I have 70-200 2.8 IS, 100-400 IS, Canon 1.4x TC.

I will be getting the 500 f/4. Just not as soon as I'd hoped due to vet bills for Ann's horse. However, we've just paid off the mortgage, so that money's now available. The 1D III is also on delay, but inevitable.

In the mean time, I'm considering a tele prime. The question - 300 f/4 IS or 400 f/5.6?

I'm quite likely to be using it in forest conditions, so IS would be useful, as would the extra stop at 300. It'll also have to fit in with the rest of my gear as carry-on (and the UK, which is a probable destination, hasn't yet loosened up to allow 2 carry-on bags). Subjects - wildlife (including BiF) and MBiF.

Which - and why?

well, I can tell you what I really like and dislike about each lens

400
likes: super fast focusing
400mm w/o a tc
pin sharp when you get the focus

dislikes: I can barely hold it still without IS
it leaves focus as fast as it gains it
5.6

300
likes: it's fast focusing but not as fast as the 400
can be either 300mm or 420 w/very minimum diminishment of IQ (I REALLY like this)
f4
IS
very sharp

dislikes:
only 300mm

puddlepirate44 wrote in post #4605418
Amazing Grace or Scotland the Brave on pipes is enough to make me all blissful.

*pant pant pant* *wheeeze...* *faint*

Or Black Bear/Hieland Laddie

As long as it's *faint*, not *AARGH - clutches chest*!