-=5D CLASSIC admirers, assemble! (4)

icebat wrote in post #10900331
Here's some more smoosh for you tiff.

35L wide open

*swoon*

icebat wrote in post #10900331
Here's some more smoosh for you tiff.

35L wide open

Wow great shot!!!

JMS803 wrote in post #10901726
Very cool idea.
----
Another one from yesterday.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/joesoriero/4986​660807/

Man, that gives "pick your nose" a whole new meaning. Love that bokeh!

geno.ca wrote in post #10900533
Nice, Sean!

Cdeming wrote in post #10900639
Thanks!

That is smooshtastic! Love it!

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10901154
I'd never have guessed you can have "Razor-Sharp Smoosh!"

JMS803 wrote in post #10901726
Very cool idea.
----
Another one from yesterday.

http://farm5.static.fl​ickr.com/4104/49866608​07_a06ed5a885_b.jpg

sevillafox wrote in post #10902137
*swoon*

Tawcan wrote in post #10902168
Wow great shot!!!

Thanks for all the comments everyone. I really appreciate it.

One more from yesterday.

Reflections

I can't believe you took a photo of this nosey old bastard!

JMS803 wrote in post #10901726
Another one from yesterday.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/joesoriero/4986​660807/

hahaha you guys are ridiculous

Am considering selling my 17-55 lens and buying a new lens for my 5d. I'm currently using a 50mm f/1.4 lens as my main lens (rediscovered a love for primes since I bought the 5d), a 70-200 f/4IS (feels like a different lens compared to when it was on the 400d), and a 100 macro.

I really need something wider than the 50mm.

I thought about getting a 17-40 but I already have a 10-22mm which I can use on my 400d if I get the urge to go ultra-wide.

I was thinking either the 24-70 or the 24-105. I used the 24-105 briefly a couple of days ago. Seemed like a good lens to have as an everyday walkaround type lens. Set it to 50mm and it seemed to produce identical images to my 50mm prime at f/4... sharpness, colour, contrast seemed pretty much identica which is impressive considering it's a zoom lens.

Would it be worth spending a bit extra on the 24-70? I heard the colours are a bit punchier, and the extra stop might be useful for some shallow DOF. Or should I just abandon the zooms altogether and get a prime? I don't have the money for a 35L unless I either sell another lens or save up until next year.

Quick natural light headshot before shooting with the lights.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

JoYork wrote in post #10903211
Am considering selling my 17-55 lens and buying a new lens for my 5d. I'm currently using a 50mm f/1.4 lens as my main lens (rediscovered a love for primes since I bought the 5d), a 70-200 f/4IS (feels like a different lens compared to when it was on the 400d), and a 100 macro.

I really need something wider than the 50mm.

I thought about getting a 17-40 but I already have a 10-22mm which I can use on my 400d if I get the urge to go ultra-wide.

I was thinking either the 24-70 or the 24-105. I used the 24-105 briefly a couple of days ago. Seemed like a good lens to have as an everyday walkaround type lens. Set it to 50mm and it seemed to produce identical images to my 50mm prime at f/4... sharpness, colour, contrast seemed pretty much identica which is impressive considering it's a zoom lens.

Would it be worth spending a bit extra on the 24-70? I heard the colours are a bit punchier, and the extra stop might be useful for some shallow DOF. Or should I just abandon the zooms altogether and get a prime? I don't have the money for a 35L unless I either sell another lens or save up until next year.

I actually have this same doubt: 20-105 or 24-70?

Not a big price difference, but the 24-105 despite the extra mm in zoom range, also as IS (not much important on a full-frame because 105mm is not that long, but it helps to compensate the lack of f2.8 in low light conditions).

To make me have even more doubts, a new 24-70 version with IS is close to see the light, so I think we should wait a bit for that new lens and then (pending on the price and reviews/opinions) take a better decision.

very nice bob!

bjolly wrote in post #10900909
BTW, I noticed you have the 28-75 tamron and the 17-40 L. I've got the Tamron and I plan on switching to the L for the focal length, but was curious how they compare IQ wise in your opinion?

L blows it away. only reason i have it is because i sometimes need 2 short f/2.8 zooms at churches.....it flares at certain angles and it is only good to 70mm at f/2.8,, not 75mm......im done with aftermarket non canon lens. its going bye bye

Tawcan wrote in post #10903390
Quick natural light headshot before shooting with the lights.

Very nice, Bob

BlackPuma wrote in post #10903393
a new 24-70 version with IS is close to see the light,

Do you have a friend in the know? This may be true but us commoners will only find out when it's actually released.

I had a 24-105 for a while and sold it to get the 24-70. Tony has both and uses them in different circumstances.

It's all about preferences....

umphotography wrote in post #10903846
its going bye bye

Don't forget to delete your comments before putting it into the For Sale threads.

umphotography wrote in post #10903846
L blows it away. only reason i have it is because i sometimes need 2 short f/2.8 zooms at churches.....it flares at certain angles and it is only good to 70mm at f/2.8,, not 75mm......im done with aftermarket non canon lens. its going bye bye

Good to hear! Amen to lens flare issues... The difference between the shot I took last night with my Tammy and the ones I took tonight with my Sigma 150 Macro is obvious. That lens flair can really screw up a photo...
One from tonight, without that Tamron lens flair:

geno.ca wrote in post #10903859
Don't forget to delete your comments before putting it into the For Sale threads.

Is this a requirement? Guess I'd better get busy then...