Elinchrom users only- whatcha got? (Mark II)

FJ LOVE wrote in post #11458422
what do you think i live in an igloo ?

you must have a huge garage to fit a 40' softbox, the one i was looking at was 20'

pffft 20' thats kiddy stuff.

Canada eh ? probably and ingloo.

TwoShoes wrote in post #11457845
Nice shot Sheldon,

P.s I think I want whatever job you had / have, the lenses fund seems to flow freely

sigma pi wrote in post #11457867
Along with the modifiers

TwoShoes wrote in post #11457878
You realise when he sold the 200L (1.8) that he'd never have to worry about money for modifiers again.

Modifiers are extremely cheap when compared to high quality lenses. The lowest priced L is about the same as any of the indirects.

No fancy job here, just another cubicle jockey in the corporate world. Although my cubicle is now at home, since they closed our office and sent us all to work out of our houses. Not a bad gig!

Most of the lens purchases have been my very understanding wife allowing me to "play" with our savings account. Buy a used lens, shoot with it for a while, sell it when I get bored or realize that it's not the right lens for me. If you make good decisions on which ones to buy (the cheap ones!) then sometimes you actually come out ahead when you sell it, and that can pay for another lens... or more importantly another modifier.

sigma pi wrote in post #11456753
Congrats!!
HAHA I bought the gel holder before I had gels
Yeah finding people to shoot is hard for me

I have 70-200L II If you were closer I would let you try it.

If only! I think being able to try one in person would really tip the scales.. especially knowing i'll be more flexible in the few weddings I have lined up next year.

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.

I've heard that too, which is why the 135L isn't as unique to me anymore. If I can get the same level of sharpness + zoom, then its a tougher decision to hold onto the 135L..

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.

My main reason of choosing the 135L back then (apart from price) was fast AF as well. One of things I want to expand into would be dance photography and I've used an old 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) and I found it hunted a lot and didn't give me enough light without bumping ISO quite high.

How is the AF on the new mark II? Would you say its close to the 135L? I know IS won't help with dance photography but for everything else, heck yeah.

the AF seems great/fast 99% of the time. In low light, not good
this is on a 7D

babymilo wrote in post #11458801
How is the AF on the new mark II? Would you say its close to the 135L? I know IS won't help with dance photography but for everything else, heck yeah.

The AF on the 70-200 II is very good. I might give a slight edge to the 135L, but I've always thought of them both as being very fast focusing lenses. In low light the extra aperture stop of the 135 helps out the AF system, so that will make a difference too.

I think I'm more than addicted now. I went to the beach with my missus yesterday and found myself taking down a copy of Vogue, Culture, Vulture and another Australian fashion magazine with some post it notes and tagging the poses / ideas that I liked

I love how many things you can learn with this "hobby"

sigma pi wrote in post #11458935
the AF seems great/fast 99% of the time. In low light, not good
this is on a 7D

Nice, that's to be expected I guess...still the 70-200 may outperform the 135L in some cases in low-light due to IS..

Sheldon N wrote in post #11458958
The AF on the 70-200 II is very good. I might give a slight edge to the 135L, but I've always thought of them both as being very fast focusing lenses. In low light the extra aperture stop of the 135 helps out the AF system, so that will make a difference too.

Sweet, that makes the decision easier in the head...but not the wallet... How will I justify (and find!) the difference in 135L resale value and a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II....

TwoShoes wrote in post #11459036
I think I'm more than addicted now. I went to the beach with my missus yesterday and found myself taking down a copy of Vogue, Culture, Vulture and another Australian fashion magazine with some post it notes and tagging the poses / ideas that I liked

I love how many things you can learn with this "hobby"

Awesome idea, I'm hoping Melbourne's summer actually arrives so I can try that out myself too

YAY I FINALLY GOT MY QUADRA HEAD BACK!!!
70 days later
thanks to everyone for the support! \

The start of our Summer has been horrible, but we've now had three rain free days in a row, quite suprising.

I tihnk the Lumix Lx3 is my calling card for a compact, as the X1000 is looking at being released around the $1000US mark, which is about $650 more than the lx3 currently is. I could sell my Toki 11-16 to fund it, which is now TOO wide for my 1ds.

korrektor wrote in post #11459105
YAY I FINALLY GOT MY QUADRA HEAD BACK!!!
70 days later
thanks to everyone for the support! \

Congrats!

Now no more flailing or dragging it by the heads.

korrektor wrote in post #11459105
YAY I FINALLY GOT MY QUADRA HEAD BACK!!!
70 days later
thanks to everyone for the support! \

Well, it's about time!!
Is all well now?

korrektor wrote in post #11459105
YAY I FINALLY GOT MY QUADRA HEAD BACK!!!
70 days later
thanks to everyone for the support! \

Congrats!

korrektor wrote in post #11459105
YAY I FINALLY GOT MY QUADRA HEAD BACK!!!

ME TOO! Must be the day for it

TwoShoes wrote in post #11459106
I could sell my Toki 11-16 to fund it, which is now TOO wide for my 1ds.

No such thing.

Sheldon N wrote in post #11459124
Congrats!

Now no more flailing or dragging it by the heads.

+1

Concept testing for a possible Christmas photo idea. In previous years I've tried to shoot strobe against ambient indoor light (fireplace, Christmas tree, etc) to get a shallow depth of field "glowing tree" shot. Always a PITA since studio strobes can't really get down that low in power. Used speedlights, double diffused through umbrellas/scrims etc. Too much setup work and hard to get a soft but well defined light with a scrim.

Thought I'd try the 74" Octa, but with the Pocket Wizard MiniTT1/FlexTT5 on a 580EX II so I could just use autoexposure. Used a mess of ball bungees to get it to stay put.

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.

The 135 is just a brilliant lens.
Many will says its too long or doesn't have a zoom (it does, they are on the end of your legs) but after using it you find yourself looking for situations where you can use it.
It's one of those lenses you would be hard pressed to regret buying...

I'm hanging out to get home and give it a workout with my new Eli gear