erin_brown2

<p>I did take some shots with different exposures as I was specifically playing with exposure! LOL I will have to go through those and see what the effect was. I do not use a hood or a filter. I am sure the lens was wide open. I tried to get closer to get a better shot without having to zoom in so far but he was way too interested in the camera when I as closer and I couldn't get him to focus on the splash, which is the part he was enjoying so much. I really appreciate your input here and your help. This has been one of the nicest forums I've been on--where people are genuinely trying to help! Thank you for that! Also, because of where we live mornings and evening are still way too cold for much play outside. My new (used) lens will have a hood, so it will be really fun to play with that!</p>

<p>So what is a good tripod for use with that set up? I have no idea what would be too cheap. I ended up ordering a used 70-200 f/4. I found a used 2.8 IS mki but didn't move quickly enough and it sold. But I think this is better anyway because it gives me the flexibility to buy another lens in the nearer future. I really take a lot of close ups of flowers and insects. Do I need an actual macro lens or can I get by with something like the 100-400?</p>

<p>I can't upload a photo to my response, I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. I did upload it to my profile. I also thought I had already responded to this, LOL.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your responses. I think I will play with the setup I have currently and see what I can do for improvement. However, I still want a new lens. lol</p> <p>I added a photo to my workspace (I think!)...would love feedback on how to improve it. I think the subject is too dark but I wanted to expose for the background as well, so I think it ended up a good middle ground. There is blur in the helmet but the splash looks okay. Its my son--real boys wear purple when they get muddy! haha</p>

<p>I am leaning toward the 100-400 at this point. There is a used old model on B&H...is the old model going to give me the results I want? Its SO old, lol, and that's why I was shying away from the older one. I obviously can't afford the new version. Thanks so much for all your input! Very very helpful!</p>

<p>My reason for not considering the tamron 150-600 at this point is that the canon 100-400 cropped to 600 had the same image quality and crispness as tamron...based on internet reviews I have done. And because I do want the wider angle on the low end, I am hesitant to give up that 50 mm. I don't think it was shutter speed, but I am just learning this camera. However, I think I had the shutter speed as fast as it would go for the few shots I took two days ago that really irritated me and set me on my renewed mission to buy a new lens (I've been lusting for quite some time). It could be my holding technique but I don't want to have to set a tripod up...that also doesn't seem feasible with kids but maybe I'm just being hesitant because I've never really gotten used to that idea. </p> <p>Maybe renting is a good option. I am also considering buying a used 70-200 f/1.8. That looks like a great option--I am just SO hesitant to buy used, having been burned in the past by that.</p>

<p>Well then maybe its technique help I need...although I still suspect its the lens and not OE. Not all pictures are blurry but any of the action shots are. My stills are crystal clear. I'm not sure what to change to make the action shots more crisp? Is the 70-300 just not a great lens? That's the one I've really been leaning towards...</p>

<p>I appreciate your response but I just can't afford $3000 in lenses right now. I want one upgrade that will suffice for now...in a $1500 price range. Of course I would prefer an unlimited pocketbook, but that, unfortunately, is not my situation at the present time. lol</p>

<p>I recently purchased a 7d ii. It was an upgrade from my first model rebel that I purchased when they first came out. I have the kit lens that came with that, a 55-250, and that's it. I am going to buy a new lens in the very near future but have yet to decide. I mostly shoot wildlife and my kids (rodeo, wrestling, track, etc), with some portrait photography thrown in. I can NOT make up my mind. I often wish I had both a wider angle lens (for landscape) and I wish I had more zoom (always missing a good wildlife shot because the kids are with me and I'm not free to just ditch them to get closer, and noisy kids often screw up any attempt I might have at getting closer anyway). The biggest thing I don't like about the current lens is the terrible image quality--it seems blurry almost all the time. I guess that could be my own fault but with action shots, it almost has to be the slow to focus of the lens, right? I don't want to be changing lenses all that often. Anyway, I am considering the Tamron 16-300 but it seems like I would have the same problem with IQ on it, right? Or would it be enough better because its a newer lens? I am also thinking maybe the Canon 70-300 EF lens, or the old Canon 100-400 EF lens with another lens for the wide angle/portrait shots. Any thoughts on the combo that would give me the biggest bang for my buck and the best quality image? I'm sorry for my ramblings. So much running through my head.</p>