Tupperware Photography & Red Ring Tinfoil (14)

Woolburr wrote in post #7846537
Or rent Rebel Without a Cause.....that is about as 50s as you can get.

True.

Blackboard jungle will give some insights into the seamier side of the 50s.

Another good one!

Cars played a big part in the social scene in the 50's. Posing your model in, on, or around a 50's model car would be a nice touch.

My beloved Bulls just lost in game 7 to the Celtics

One hell of a good series though, game 6 was unbelievable.

Permagrin wrote in post #7844295
I really enjoyed both those lenses. The 24-70 was my other work horse and the 24-105 was my preferred walk around lens.

basically my 70-200F4IS and the 24-70 were the lenses I made my $ with. This year however, work is slim around here. So I have no idea what will be the nikon $. I'm assuming the same two. However I'm not looking forward to lugging the new 7-2 around for 6 or 7 hrs at a whack.

It's true. I was thinking about that the other day. With my d700 (not so much the D300...it's more like my ds2 as far as iso ability) 2.8 is not a necc. at all. It's really rendered aperture moot. I can shoot at mostly whatever I want because the high ISO is so usable. Because the D300 isn't, I still need fast lenses. And frankly, nikon doesn't have an F4IS anyway...their lineup is SO WEIRD.

Ah, thanks for the very honest appraisal of the D300's ISO performance. I heard them claiming it 'very close to the D700' but I bet it's like 40D and 5D. The 5D pwns the 40 at ISO 3200. Full stop. (yeah I have both and use both and shoot both at events.. it's painfully obvious when you start postprocessing in LR with images sorted by capture time.)

Nikon comes from a background where their high ISO was not always useable and hence f/4 was not a priority. Their 'value' offering was the 80-200/2.8, with good image quality but a conventional DC motor instead of SWM. Not that light either. Their VR has not always been leading the pack either.

Now you know why I am reluctant to leave, because Canon really has all the glass I've come to love. Like the new Starbucks campaign goes...... "Because compromise leaves a really bad aftertaste."

Permagrin wrote in post #7844336
I'm so serious here. They post a shot that would have been nice if they'd focused properly but instead the subject isn't in focus and people say "ooh lovely shot" and the like.

I know this is a generalization and usually I stay away from those...but I'm seeing a trend over there...usually hobbiests with $ to spend buy the gear...very few working people. And an amazing amount of lack of ability (again, not everyone...but a goodly amount). And the weird thing is that no one seems to notice the plethora of oof shots (it's like a twilight zone)....gosh I wish potn had a nikon section.

No, this happens on POTN too. Many of our well-respected contributors, who CAN actually shoot, have noted the one-eye-in-focus problem while everybody else drools about it. I recall a number of posts saying "Better shoot your portraits at f/4, because of the one-eye problem at 1.4" while the lightweights rant on and on about the aperture. As I've always said, those who claim to shoot 'ambient light only' and decry flash only do so because they fear the flash. There are very few who can tame the beasts wide open.

That's why I kinda like my 135/2, it has enough DOF that it helps reduce the one eye problem, while retaining a large aperture. I like the 85/1.2L but wouldn't buy it because I don't feel that I'd do justice to it.

Permagrin wrote in post #7844617
yeah...I've met a lot of "zealots" lately. The funny thing is I see many of those here (they are just called fanboys). Mostly I ignore them since nothing they say is reliable

There is a 70-300 (or maybe it's a 75-300...I can't remember) that appears to be quite acceptable IQ-wise in the nikon camp (it's light and sharp and has VR though it's not fast...I've thought about picking it up...it's btw $400-$500 used so really affordable). Much moreso (quality for price in this range) than the canon equivalents. Maybe that's the one he was talking about.

What's weird is that while they have zealots (truly believe this is "the brand and only the brand and every one else is deluded") and we have fan boys (guys that feel they must justify their purchases by making only what they own the best...though not necc. believing it because they keep changing gear and suddenly it's the best), I rarely meet snobs here. I see a lot of that on the other sides (the Leica boys are the worst). Since I have no personal bond with my gear, I think I'm pretty objective...and it's really sickening.

I mostly do what you do and avoid conversations unless I either need to know something or post a photo.

Nikon's 70-300 VR is good value. Real SWM (like I say "real USM" vs micro USM), decent VR, light weight.

I no longer argue with the zealots - even in our own EF/EOS forum. I just let them say what they say, that the 1D is the holy grail, that there is no place for f/4 zooms, and so on. Occasionally I write 'ten commandment' lists in RRTP to mock them.

While I was pretty on about the 200/2.0, the 5DMk2, and the 17 TS-E last night, I was actually weighing the downside of unbalancing my system again. My current system is totally balanced - and it is nice.

Let me illustrate using an example.

I buy the 5DMk2:
-- Need bigger CF cards. Buy bigger CF cards.
-- Need Lightroom 2 because LR1 does not process 5D2 RAW.
-- Need different batteries, and cannot exchange between 40D/5D.
-- 40D will get less use, making me wonder what to do with the EF-S glass.
-- EF-S glass gets sold, wasting $$.

So that's an example of how one purchase can unbalance my whole system.

200/2.0:
-- Bank account and credit line gets unbalanced.
-- Big time disaster

So far, the TS-E is the one that will cause the least disruption since it will complement the system nicely without disturbing it too much.

The only thing I wonder, is how am I going to protect the TS-E effectively. I have one problem with fireworks: I like to get so close that occasionally I am at risk of hot ash flying. I have one Hoya filter with marks on it, and one 28mm WA converter (for HF100 video rig) that has a spot thanks to the wind blowing downstream in a way I didn't expect.

Let the zealots crap on with their anti-UV-filter stance, but that's definitely not MY stance.

Jaymz wrote in post #7844980
I just can't really contribute to the gear discussion. All I have owned is what I still own. 20D, 50D, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 IS and both kits lenses. I am still considering the 300 2.8 with 2x or 400. Also thinking about a 5D, to see what the hype about full frame is all about.

I have the money but I can't buy something without justification to myself that I need it or it will help me accomplish something I can't do now. Otherwise I feel too guilty about wasting money.

Buy the 5, feel the power, your glass is MADE for full frame!!

Oh and yeah. Fast glass. Most people don't realize what a challenge it is to shoot FAST (on the fly), at unpredictable distances (meaning, not sports events), get your subject completely in focus, and get nice bokeh. When you have time it is much easier.

Hence my preference for f/4.. it covers up some of my focusing mistakes and 'slop' when the action doesn't even let you blink.

And outdoors f/4 has nice bokeh anyway

My priority is focus first, bokeh second.

gary88 wrote in post #7847158
My beloved Bulls just lost in game 7 to the Celtics

One hell of a good series though, game 6 was unbelievable.

That sucks...any team that beats the Celtics is ok in my book!

umm ok, I know I don't come here that often any more but I thought you lot might like to know that I brought a new lens yesterday.

Many many years ago I got the 28-135 lens, this was back in the day when there was no such thing as the EF-s lenses and on the 10D. It was a nice lens and I got some good use out of it. but yesterday I had traded my sigma 100-300 F4 and the 28-135 in for the 24-105 F4 L lens. so far only 24 hours old in my hot little hands I already love this lens. nothing like the build of a L lens.

I don't have any photos to post at the moment, but as soon as I get something I will post it

I also a new focusing screen, the one with the grid on it. and a new tripod. the center part can move out which is going to help with the marco world.

see ya soon,

Hey Mark....we thought maybe you ran off to Australia or something! Looking forward to some shots with your new toy....congrats!

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #7847313
umm ok, I know I don't come here that often any more but I thought you lot might like to know that I brought a new lens yesterday.

Many many years ago I got the 28-135 lens, this was back in the day when there was no such thing as the EF-s lenses and on the 10D. It was a nice lens and I got some good use out of it. but yesterday I had traded my sigma 100-300 F4 and the 28-135 in for the 24-105 F4 L lens. so far only 24 hours old in my hot little hands I already love this lens. nothing like the build of a L lens.

I don't have any photos to post at the moment, but as soon as I get something I will post it

I also a new focusing screen, the one with the grid on it. and a new tripod. the center part can move out which is going to help with the marco world.

see ya soon,

The 24-105 was the first lens I got when I switched to digital. It's such a great all purpose lens.

Woolburr wrote in post #7847375
Hey Mark....we thought maybe you ran off to Australia or something! Looking forward to some shots with your new toy....congrats!

haha, not likely. Aussie isn't that wonderful.

NZ is way better.

poppie guy wrote in post #7847407
The 24-105 was the first lens I got when I switched to digital. It's such a great all purpose lens.

well the build qualtiy between L and non L lenses is quite a jump. on the 135 at the long end, there was some movement in the barrel. but with the L, none what so ever.

But I do wonder how good the lens hood is with this lens. on the 135 it was a bigger hood.

I've had mine for several years now...I would say the hood functions as designed...

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #7847313
umm ok, I know I don't come here that often any more but I thought you lot might like to know that I brought a new lens yesterday.

Many many years ago I got the 28-135 lens, this was back in the day when there was no such thing as the EF-s lenses and on the 10D. It was a nice lens and I got some good use out of it. but yesterday I had traded my sigma 100-300 F4 and the 28-135 in for the 24-105 F4 L lens. so far only 24 hours old in my hot little hands I already love this lens. nothing like the build of a L lens.

I don't have any photos to post at the moment, but as soon as I get something I will post it

I also a new focusing screen, the one with the grid on it. and a new tripod. the center part can move out which is going to help with the marco world.

see ya soon,

There ya go....now you understand the power of the L.

poppie guy wrote in post #7847407
The 24-105 was the first lens I got when I switched to digital. It's such a great all purpose lens.

It is, however I must qualify that at least for my purposes, I'd use it on FF and film. On crop it's not that hot. I prefer a very wide starting focal length, in other words, 24mm x 1.0 (not 1.6)

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #7847444
well the build qualtiy between L and non L lenses is quite a jump. on the 135 at the long end, there was some movement in the barrel. but with the L, none what so ever.

But I do wonder how good the lens hood is with this lens. on the 135 it was a bigger hood.

The hood is adequate. It is more for impact protection than anything else IMO.

If you are really concerned, and if you are shooting on a crop camera, the EW-83J (better known as the 17-40/16-35 'alternative hood' for crops) works fine.

Actually the EW83J works fine on full frame as well, but I like the smaller hood. The lesser-informed will scream "but it will vignette", the owners of the hoods who have both platforms simply stick it on and take a few shots and try it out. Curiously, it works. I don't 'dress up' the lens to look impressive

Lightstream wrote in post #7847520
There ya go....now you understand the power of the L.

It is, however I must qualify that at least for my purposes, I'd use it on FF and film. On crop it's not that hot. I prefer a very wide starting focal length, in other words, 24mm x 1.0 (not 1.6)


The hood is adequate. It is more for impact protection than anything else IMO.

If you are really concerned, and if you are shooting on a crop camera, the EW-83J (better known as the 17-40/16-35 'alternative hood' for crops) works fine.

Actually the EW83J works fine on full frame as well, but I like the smaller hood. The lesser-informed will scream "but it will vignette", the owners of the hoods who have both platforms simply stick it on and take a few shots and try it out. Curiously, it works. I don't 'dress up' the lens to look impressive

I had gotten so used to the 17-40 that when I used the 28-135 it was a let down. Hence the upgrade. I am going to only buy Canon, while Sigma and Tamron are ok, they are just that. Ok.

I would love a FF camera. but I am disappointed by the 5Dmk2. the AF could have gone thru a upgrade. But still FF is still in my future. So that's why I got the 24-105, with the 17-40 most of my shooting needs are covered.