Red-Ringed Tuppertub Party with Tin Foil Tiaras (9)

I looked at the sigma 120-400 OS (the posts people have posted about it, not IRL) but NO ONE carries sigma around here....not for hundreds of miles! I wonder why?

aussieskier wrote in post #5540877
Oh, I suppose your right. I'm probably wrong. I don't use those ruler things.

me neither usually but the shots were so soft today I was trying to figure out what the issue was with the lens.

I would just like a sharp walk around lens. That's all guess it'll have to be tne 70-200.

Permagrin wrote in post #5540924
I would just like a sharp walk around lens. That's all guess it'll have to be tne 70-200.

There is no better walk around IMO, especially on FF

aussieskier wrote in post #5540928
There is no better walk around IMO, especially on FF

sometimes I just want a little more reach. But the 300 2.8 WITH the 2x tc is sharper than the lens I bought today.

Permagrin wrote in post #5540937
sometimes I just want a little more reach. But the 300 2.8 WITH the 2x tc is sharper than the lens I bought today.

1.4x TC on the 70-200.

When I think walk around, I think something I use downtown for people or just general when traveling around. Maybe your definition is different.

You could always walk around with the 300 .

Wow sorry to hear that Permie - maybe try another copy of it. I agree though, that lens just looks funky, like it should be a noink design or something . You have the 300 huh? Mmmm I wish hahaha!

timbernet wrote in post #5540763

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

oh that's so cool.

timbernet wrote in post #5540563
Everyone else in the family has received theirs... I just got a letter today saying that it should show up by the 23rd...

When did you file?

I got a letter Monday saying it should show up today... but it didn't..

aussieskier wrote in post #5540607
Ok, I am forcing myself to use my camera more even with all the work I am doing... I am going to take pictures everyday! I don't need to go anywhere special, there is lots of neat stuff around the house I decided.

Anyways, here are a couple from today.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

I like this a lot.

Permagrin wrote in post #5540870
yeah. I really REALLY love the 70-200 and the 300. I was just looking for a more versatile lens (if I carried one camera). I'm just not destined to own the 1-4 I guess.

Sorry the lens isn't what it's supposed to be. BTW, I talked with those Canon guys too. They told me that the Mark III problems were greatly over exaggerated, especially on the forums, and didn't like hearing me disagree.

Goodnight everyone - going to watch a little TV and then bed... These past two days I have moved around 975lbs worth of networking equipment (valued at $160K total) and we might work on it tomorrow... so I need my rest...

Oh - and I might have another trip down to SoCal in October !!! We shall see

bedtime here too...supposed to head out to meet up with Jamie tomorrow....sure hope the weather improves over today...

aussieskier wrote in post #5540945
1.4x TC on the 70-200.

When I think walk around, I think something I use downtown for people or just general when traveling around. Maybe your definition is different.

You could always walk around with the 300 .

lol...I think I will do that tomorrow (tc/7-2) And I HAVE walked around with the 300 but in 100 F weather...it's just a bit much!

Jeff Allred wrote in post #5540956
Wow sorry to hear that Permie - maybe try another copy of it. I agree though, that lens just looks funky, like it should be a noink design or something . You have the 300 huh? Mmmm I wish hahaha!

It's my second one Jeff. I used to own it...thought I'd try once more because I've seen some really good copies floating around...but honestly, it's just not in the cards for me.

I love the 300...really love it. But it's SO HEAVY (I'm just a ghurl...)

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #5540969
oh that's so cool.

poppie guy wrote in post #5540974
Sorry the lens isn't what it's supposed to be. BTW, I talked with those Canon guys too. They told me that the Mark III problems were greatly over exaggerated, especially on the forums, and didn't like hearing me disagree.

yeah, they were really rude. Really. They didn't want to talk about the issues with the 50 1.2 either. I'd considered buying that one because I loved the bokeh so much on the Chief's copy...but I'd want it fixed...I'm just tired of the hassle.

timbernet wrote in post #5540763

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I missed this the first time through!!!

Goodnight all, 4:30 start for me. Cheers.

SuzyView wrote in post #5540083
Why did you get that camera, Tom?

belmondo wrote in post #5540095
Honest answer.....

I don't know.:o:o

I have an EOS 33 date body lying around. Wanna buy that one too? Just like digital you need a backup