Elinchrom users only- whatcha got? (Mark II)

Dr.Pete wrote in post #11456770
The 70-200 Mk2 is an AMAZING lens. I've heard the same about the 135, but you're right--tack sharp goodness at f/2.8 through the whole range is awfully nice too.

Yeah I am not going to lie. This lens + my camera's decent high ISO make me look good. It is all equipment making the difference.

Sharp as hell. But i heard the 135L is one of the best lenses. I kind of want to try it out.

sigma pi wrote in post #11456782
thats a manikin right?

are you just making sure before falling in love

FJ LOVE wrote in post #11456804
are you just making sure before falling in love

I am only in love with KRB's

Bave wrote in post #11454908
86" PCB Silver PLM with Elinchrom speedring on the way. I bought it because of the hot model images he has in the PLM ad: http://www.paulcbuff.c​om …9/Images/plmv2a​dright.jpg

Isn't that his wife?

SuperHuman21 wrote in post #11456638
LOL, that's disturbing.

sigma pi wrote in post #11456782
thats a manikin right?

True on both counts?

babymilo wrote in post #11455669
I'm juggling with whether to keep my 135L or trade up for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. The 135L is a great lens bit the flexibility of the zoom is tempting.

I've got both, and they are both really stellar lenses. The only reason to keep the 135L over the 70-200 II is if you need the fast aperture for shutter speed or shallow DOF, or if you want a physcially smaller/less obtrusive lens. The 70-200 II is basically just as good as the 135 from wide open all the way through the range. Plus the image stabilization will let you shoot handheld in much lower light conditions than you could with 135L, despite the faster aperture.

If I had to only keep one, it would definitely be the 70-200 II.

Dr.Pete wrote in post #11456763
I'm no expert, but isn't an ad supposed to make it look like the product helps you take reasonably well-lit shots?

That's what they say

SuperHuman21 wrote in post #11456973
That's what they say

LOL.. yeah, that's generally the idea.

Sheldon N wrote in post #11456966
I've got both, and they are both really stellar lenses. The only reason to keep the 135L over the 70-200 II is if you need the fast aperture for shutter speed or shallow DOF, or if you want a physcially smaller/less obtrusive lens. The 70-200 II is basically just as good as the 135 from wide open all the way through the range. Plus the image stabilization will let you shoot handheld in much lower light conditions than you could with 135L, despite the faster aperture.

If I had to only keep one, it would definitely be the 70-200 II.

Canon EF 300mm f/4 L
Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS

wow previously owned. What were you doing with those?

sigma pi wrote in post #11457121
Canon EF 300mm f/4 L
Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS

wow previously owned. What were you doing with those?

Senior portraits, of course.

http://cgi.ebay.com …ashes&hash=item​2a0c8d7c61

http://cgi.ebay.com …ashes&hash=item​2a0c8d7e9b

I found those on ebay. I have no connection with that listing

I am bidding on the second one

sigma pi wrote in post #11457121
Canon EF 300mm f/4 L
Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS

wow previously owned. What were you doing with those?

well it would be apparent it took him three tries to get it right in the 300 mm range, i went straight to 2.8 IS

TMR Design wrote in post #11457130
Senior portraits, of course.

senior citizens portraits?

He could seem them when tehy were seniors in high school if you added up all that focal length.


http://cgi.ebay.com …ain_0&hash=item​3a61288188

http://cgi.ebay.com …ain_0&hash=item​3a61287b7a

You missed the 200 f/1.8 on that list. That one was my fave.

I have to confess, I did try portraits with all of those lenses. The 300 and 600 were especially difficult, way too hard to have any engagement with your subject.

Heeeellooooo! Looook over heeere! Smiiille!!

Sheldon N wrote in post #11457232
You missed the 200 f/1.8 on that list. That one was my fave.

I have to confess, I did try portraits with all of those lenses. The 300 and 600 were especially difficult, way too hard to have any engagement with your subject.

Heeeellooooo! Looook over heeere! Smiiille!!

hahaha, i've done a few myself when i got my 300, definately worked better outside for candid shots

Sheldon N wrote in post #11457232
You missed the 200 f/1.8 on that list. That one was my fave.

I have to confess, I did try portraits with all of those lenses. The 300 and 600 were especially difficult, way too hard to have any engagement with your subject.

Heeeellooooo! Looook over heeere! Smiiille!!

Actually maybe you are joking but it's quite true. Even with just the 200 F2, i have to YELL at couples to do things. So far away.

Skyports still work though, so that's good.

Hehe... all this talk about the 600mm lens reminded me of this photo. I got the lens right when my youngest daughter was born, and wanted to show off the scale of how huge the lens really was.