Pixels Senior Member  454 posts Likes: 5 Joined Jul 2003 Location: Ireland More info | Dec 15, 2007 17:27 | #1 Just got this lens, weather not great, but managed to take a few test shots. Attached is one of grey squirrel.  HOSTED PHOTO please log in to view hosted photos in full size. Canon 24-105 L IS USM,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BrazenC5 Hatchling 2 posts Joined Dec 2007 More info | Dec 15, 2007 20:27 | #2 Great photo! How far away were you standing, and did you shoot hand held?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 15, 2007 22:40 | #3 Interesting colors on this guy. Good detail too.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jw1047 Senior Member 286 posts Joined Aug 2006 Location: Sydney, Au More info | Dec 16, 2007 03:55 | #4 Great shot pixels..
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Thanks to all for your comments. Canon 24-105 L IS USM,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ps249 Senior Member  420 posts Joined Jul 2007 Location: Last seen in Saginaw, Michigan USA More info |  Permanent banGreat shot. I was going to get that lens but decided to get the Canon 100-400 IS lens after Christmas. That squirrel looks like a cross breed between red and grey squirrel. Neat colors. 40D
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ScottDR Senior Member  763 posts Joined Sep 2007 Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada More info | That shot turned out very well! Hmm, maybe I'll consider that lens now instead of the 100-400L that is getting very long in the tooth. Thanks for sharing! ScottDR
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 17, 2007 05:28 | #8 ScottDR wrote in post #4517432  maybe I'll consider that lens now instead of the 100-400L that is getting very long in the tooth. Thanks for sharing! The 100-400L is highly regarded, but if you can do without the extra 100mm range, the 70-300 IS is less than half the weight and is 1/3 the price. Canon 24-105 L IS USM,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ajosteve Cream of the Crop  16,468 posts Likes: 8 Joined Sep 2007 Location: Grand Canyon Arizona More info | Dec 17, 2007 16:30 | #9 ScottDR wrote in post #4517432 That shot turned out very well! Hmm, maybe I'll consider that lens now instead of the 100-400L that is getting very long in the tooth. Thanks for sharing! I had the 70-300mm IS, and it was a fantastic lens, very sharp and was all I used for a couple of years. The only thing wrong was the slow focus at times trying to shoot little birds that move about alot. I went to the 70-200mm 2.8 IS, and have a much faster focus, almost instant. But for the money, that 70-300mm is a very fine lens, and you won't be unhappy about the quality of the photos...steve Steve
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Fyerfytr Senior Member  565 posts Joined Sep 2007 Location: Des Moines, Iowa More info | Dec 17, 2007 16:36 | #10 ScottDR wrote in post #4517432 That shot turned out very well! Hmm, maybe I'll consider that lens now instead of the 100-400L that is getting very long in the tooth. Thanks for sharing! Not to hi-jack the thread but...
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is semonsters 1550 guests, 134 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
. 