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

Woolburr wrote in post #5362227
If you do a lot of headshots...the 135 is a sweet lens...

I used to own it. Then I bought the 5D and the 85 1.2 THEN I sold the 135 because the 5D/85 combo is magic...I never used the 135. But now I've got the 24-105 (which I used on vacation) and the 24-70...while both serve well, it seems a little redundant to own both. I could use a good, fast prime with sweet bokeh

Maureen Souza wrote in post #5362244
Maybe we should trade lenses and see how each other likes it. Skip has been dying to get his hands on the 24-105 and my 135 gets less use than I would like. It really does killer work but I am not using it as much as I could.

I sent you a pm

I have both too....the 24-105 would be so much nicer if it were a 24-150. I am considering trading my 24-105 for a 180 macro.

Woolburr wrote in post #5362273
I have both too....the 24-105 would be so much nicer if it were a 24-150. I am considering trading my 24-105 for a 180 macro.

A very nice lens!

Permagrin wrote in post #5362207
I was thinking of trading my 24-105 for a 135 f2.

Do you think this is a bad trade? The price of the 135 is a couple of hundred less than the 24-105...I could just sell the 24-105 and buy a used 135 instead...

(thinking aloud here...)

You already know that I'm addicted to the 135L. There's times when I use it as a walkaround.

But, you might find it inflexible and a touch long. I just love it, and I'll use plenty of foot-zoom to make it work for me.

Woolburr wrote in post #5362273
I have both too....the 24-105 would be so much nicer if it were a 24-150. I am considering trading my 24-105 for a 180 macro.

well, I can't get rid of the 24-70 because I found that I really DO need 2.8 inside churches (minimum) so I'd have to choose the 24-105. I used the 24-105 on vacation, almost the whole time...I like it too. But it's the first time I've used it since I got the 24-70.


the 180 is sweet. But for me it's too heavy to handhold (for such a narrow DOF) and get a steady shot. I like the 90mm macro. I'm still not good with macro. I do much better using the 24-70 and 16-35 for close up shots (just not macro)

Stop talking about lens. You'll make me spend money. Besides what do you folks think this is a lens forum or something?

That's purdy Lisa

Pete wrote in post #5362280
You already know that I'm addicted to the 135L. There's times when I use it as a walkaround.

But, you might find it inflexible and a touch long. I just love it, and I'll use plenty of foot-zoom to make it work for me.

what I want it for is for the 40D during weddings...and put my 24-70 on the M3...the 70-200 F4 IS was great for outdoor portraits but I'm trying to solve the light issues inside. I don't want the 70-200 2.8 IS. It's another one that I think is too mixed in IQ. Dan and I switched because I was having a hard time holding the 80-200 2.8 still in low light and he loves it...and I admit that lens has some of the best color renditions I've ever seen...I wonder why canon changed things with the 70-200 2.8?

talking of lenses still weighting for my 300 should be here in a week

Jamie Holladay wrote in post #5362302
That's purdy Lisa

thanks Jamie

Chris and Dan are out shooting tulips...it's snowing here...but it's a slushy snow. I'm glad I didn't go.

very nice picture lisa

Zilly wrote in post #5362309
talking of lenses still weighting for my 300 should be here in a week

YOU ORDERED the 300?? WTG

Zilly wrote in post #5362309
talking of lenses still weighting for my 300 should be here in a week

Grumble Grumble Grumble.

timbernet wrote in post #5362276
A very nice lens!

Yep...and nobody has one in stock....