Tupperware Photography & Red Ring Tinfoil (14)

FWIW, the 16-35 is faster to acquire focus but the tamron 17-50 was sharper. But it only works on a 1.6x crop too.

Greg_C wrote in post #7172822
I'm considering selling my 10-22 when I sell the 40D. I don't have a regular UWA now, I do have a 10-17 Fishy which will be ok to about 15 or so. WIll pick up a 16-35 in a few months hopefully. No real rush as I tend to prefer longer focal lengths to wider stuff.

My 10-22 would be very hard to part with. It's enough on its own to justify keeping the 20D/10-22 combination around. I don't shoot ultra-wide a lot, and don't have anything wider than my 24-105 for the MkIII. When I use it, though, I love it.

Permagrin wrote in post #7172831
I wasn't fond of the 16-35II. I didn't like how it handled anything but the center of the photo. It was one of my peeve lenses. I preferred the 17-40. But I needed 2.8 for work.

Permagrin wrote in post #7172836
FWIW, the 16-35 is faster to acquire focus but the tamron 17-50 was sharper. But it only works on a 1.6x crop too.

mmm food for thought

ibdb wrote in post #7172879
My 10-22 would be very hard to part with. It's enough on its own to justify keeping the 20D/10-22 combination around. I don't shoot ultra-wide a lot, and don't have anything wider than my 24-105 for the MkIII. When I use it, though, I love it.

I get to play with all these lenses that I have that look subtly different now.

ibdb wrote in post #7172879
My 10-22 would be very hard to part with. It's enough on its own to justify keeping the 20D/10-22 combination around. I don't shoot ultra-wide a lot, and don't have anything wider than my 24-105 for the MkIII. When I use it, though, I love it.

If I had a 1.6 crop body I'd want a 10-22 also. I used to borrow my sons when I had the 20D, and liked it. He uses it for shooting the insides of houses in his realty work and gets fantastic results. I'm hoping to get a 17-40 sometime this year.

Greg_C wrote in post #7172907
I get to play with all these lenses that I have that look subtly different now.

I like my 85 f/1.8 a lot more on the 1.3 vs the 1.6 crop. Like you said, it's not a ton of difference, but it's enough. Add in the changes in DOF and there are even more things to tweak and play with.

I think that's very true...the lenses really do show more weaknesses (and strengths) when you go from a crop to a 1.3 or FF. I absolutely loved our DO lens on the m2n & 30D. I didn't like it on the 5D. I couldn't tell you why but it was just different. The bokeh bothered me.

I first lens that went onto the camera was the 85L but a O'Dark o'clock last night it really didn't do it justice. We're going to a BBQ for lunch today so I'll get to play more with other lenses and fast moving kids.


One for you recovering arachnophobs:p spider was about the size of thumbnail.

Holy creepy geezy, ick, blllllrrreeguuuuh. It's so sharp i had to touch it to make sure it wasn't really real. gack, guh, pllllppphhhhsssthhh. yicky

Somebody go pick Permie up off the floor.

Me, I just went to my kids' classes today. The oldest is in the middle of a science project. Each group of four kids has a bowl with frogs, a bowl with Fiddler Crabs, and a bowl with millipedes. I took some shots of their crabs so they could see them closer up than the cheap plastic magnifying glasses they had. This one is a little smaller than a quarter.

Togra4 wrote in post #7172407
17-85....hmmmm....let's see what I can find used.....off to the sell thread...

Wait Tracy....given your new option....there is only one lens that jumps to the top of the pile...the Tamron 17-50.....very nice lens on a 20D.

Claire wrote in post #7167623
Short recap of my life: Broke up with boyfriend, celebrated holidays with my folks, got the flu and stayed in bed for two weeks, getting back on track now. Don't ask about job search. Don't ask about why I haven't touched all the things on my To-Do-List. Don't ask about the red bull in the fridge. Don't ask why I'm still up. Don't ask why I haven't showed you any better pics taken with the 70-200...

Ugh, that sucks

T.D. wrote in post #7167753
DOOD! Miss Tina does NOT sing the blues!:p

No, but her singing gives me the blues

newatthis wrote in post #7167957
I used to watch CSI, the Las Vegas one. Got burned out I guess.

I like CSI:NY better...

Lightstream wrote in post #7169751
Yeah actually Nikon's latest generation is pretty good. I didn't like the earlier ones because of the high ISO issues, but the D300/D700 are very credible competitors. Keeps Canon honest and the D700 in particular kept the 5D2's price down.

I sorta painted myself into a corner as well. Given my legendary dislike of the 1-series, and the failings of crop cameras in my hands, it really is a 5D2 or D700 upgrade issue. The 24-105 IS however is Nikon's deal breaker - that lens is truly special (to me, I speak for nobody else) for all it does in my hands. I love that specific range, stabilizer, and aperture. It even does pretty decent bokeh.

Shock horror, I even shot at a wedding (note: difference from "shot A wedding") - it was a very very good friend getting married and she requested I bring along the camera. Took less than 36 frames, got my keeper of "you may now kiss the bride" - and the 5D didn't let me down

Printed it 12x12 (square crop), got it framed and gave it to her.


I still think Canon's 35L and 135L are a bit better though.. I acquired the 35L half a year ago and it has been MAGNIFICENT.

I could have sworn you said you never, ever, ever shoot a wedding

Lightstream wrote in post #7171096
There has actually been a time when I considered going D700, but the glass held me back. Not to say that Nikon has no good glass, but over the years I have come to love the specific lenses I use.

Ditto - glass is what holds me back...

belmondo wrote in post #7171748
I'm in an Apple Store in San Diego.
Your weather here sucks, John.

I see I have a lot of work to do here.

Catch you all later.

ooohh, have fun!

Greg_C wrote in post #7172981
I first lens that went onto the camera was the 85L but a O'Dark o'clock last night it really didn't do it justice. We're going to a BBQ for lunch today so I'll get to play more with other lenses and fast moving kids.


One for you recovering arachnophobs:p spider was about the size of thumbnail.

Ewww

ibdb wrote in post #7173036
Somebody go pick Permie up off the floor.

Me, I just went to my kids' classes today. The oldest is in the middle of a science project. Each group of four kids has a bowl with frogs, a bowl with Fiddler Crabs, and a bowl with millipedes. I took some shots of their crabs so they could see them closer up than the cheap plastic magnifying glasses they had. This one is a little smaller than a quarter.


The frogs posed too much of a flight risk to take the top off their bowls. And they were just getting the millipedes today, so they weren't ready to shoot yet.

A bit different from the silk worms we used to keep.

So do you have to get every leg in focus when you shoot millipedes???

Greg_C wrote in post #7173106
A bit different from the silk worms we used to keep.

So do you have to get every leg in focus when you shoot millipedes???

Considering how dark their bowls were, what with all the leaves and dirt in them, and how dark the millipedes were, combined with how dark the classroom was (so the millipedes would be more active), I think I'd be happy if any were in focus!

I tried shooting the crab with natural window light only. ISO 1600, f/16, 1/20th was best case. I really ought to have fired up the flash, but I was trying to shoot during class and be as little of a distraction as possible. If I try the millipedes, I'm definitely using flash.

ibdb wrote in post #7173134
Considering how dark their bowls were, what with all the leaves and dirt in them, and how dark the millipedes were, combined with how dark the classroom was (so the millipedes would be more active), I think I'd be happy if any were in focus!

lol

ibdb wrote in post #7173134
I tried shooting the crab with natural window light only. ISO 1600, f/16, 1/20th was best case. I really ought to have fired up the flash, but I was trying to shoot during class and be as little of a distraction as possible. If I try the millipedes, I'm definitely using flash.

I think you went the right way. You probably would have got some shiny reflections from the body with a flash.

Woolburr wrote in post #7173069
Wait Tracy....given your new option....there is only one lens that jumps to the top of the pile...the Tamron 17-50.....very nice lens on a 20D.

oops...I just made a deal with Bearleealive to take the 17-85 he had for sale. I am so excited!