randy_samos

Peter -

I'm using Microsquish Explorer (6.0) and the last line I can get to on the page is:

"The lens hood is another dust collector, but on the same token does actually help with"

/r

If you're usually a prime guy, and you "want a long lens with beautifull result!" ...

Maybe you should consider a 400/5.6L lens. No IS, but arguably better than any of the zooms you're looking at.

Leszek' links as, er ... links.

<p>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/2002949>www.photo.net/photo/2002949</a>

<p>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/2002943>www.photo.net/photo/2002943</a>

<p>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/2002945>www.photo.net/photo/2002945</a>

<a href=http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3135620-md.jpg> Bubble Boyd </a>

<p>

Taken with the 135/2L

I agree with Camilla. The light is failing, and I've got to run or I'd take a shot with the (pre USM) macro and the 135 for you. I'm assuming you have the pre USM macro also, given that you said it's slower to focus. (though ... the 135 is _fast_)

Reality is that in any normal shot that either could handle, you would have to do some serious comparison shooting and pixel peeping to detect the diference in sharpness.

But (again, as Camilla pointed out) the bokeh may be a tot smoother on the 135, and the faster aperture gives you a shallower DOF. Since I have both, I use the 135 for most everything, and the macro just for when I need to get real close ... or when it's the only one of the two I have with.

/r

I've not used the 180 macro, but have the 100 macro. I have also used the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 & 135/2 with extension tubes. Not only are the primes with tubes less flexable, they simply do not work as well. Not for macro at least. I (strongly) suspect that you'll find the same when you compare against your 180 macro.

Also - the 135/2 will get rather long and front heavy (read very unwieldy) if you use the 135mm of extension tube you need to get a 1:1 shot.

Has anyone mentioned yet how unflexable the extension tube setup would be? They (tubes) work very well. But they're a stopgap method compared to an actual macro lens like your 180.

BTW - Yes - the 135/2 is a _VERY_ nice lens.

/r

Why do you need to stop it from working that way?

If it pasted directly into the background layer, you'd lose the ability to reposistion it after pasting it in. Get it where you want, and if the extra layer bothers you just flatten the image.

If you'd rather not bother with the layers dropdown after each paste, you could probably use the actions pallete to assign the flatten operation to a function key.

/r

Inge is right. PS should create a new layer each time you do a paste operation. If you don't switch to the background layer in the layers pallete before you make a selection (or you don't switch to a layer that has some image data in it in the selected area), you should get the message you're seeing.

Next time you paste, check the layers pallete. Not only should you find a new layer, but the PS 'focus' should be on that layer, not on the original.

/r

For an extremely similar kit (in size at least) I just picked up a <a href = "http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lowepro-Toploader-75-AW-Review.aspx"> Lowepro 75 AW </a>, a <a href = "http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lowepro-Lens-Case-1W-Review.aspx"> lens case 1W </a>, and a <a href = "http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lowepro-SlipLock-Pouch-50-AW-Review.aspx"> Sliplock pouch 50 AW</a>.

<p>

The camera fits nicely into the holster case with the 70-200/28 mounted, 17-40/4 in the 1W fixed to one side of the case, and the pouch fixed to the other side with the 1.4X, 50/1.4, & hood for the wide angle zoom (hood for the 70-200 stays inverted on the lens). 550 flash fits into the top part of the front pouch. While I'm only using a 10D, the 1D with booster should fit fine - it's sized more for that anyway.

<p>

(Also picked up a <a href = "http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lowepro-Lens-Case-4-Review.aspx">lens case 4</a> case so I can carry the 300/4 across the other shoulder.)

<p>

It's a tot heavy when filled, but not too bad. Like I said - I've only just gotten it all, so don't have much field experience. But - the shoulder strap is long enough (just barely) to cross carry the bag which takes a lot of effort out of it. It also seems just a bit cumbersome to open/close the zipper while using a shoulder carry, but I might not be used to it yet. By and large, EXTREMELY well made and fits just what I wanted it to.

<p>

One issue that could be thought of as a drawback, is that if you're a believer in "security through obscurity" (I'm not) then this bag is not for you. There are zero consessions to covering it up - this screams camera bag.

<p>

But then ... when the bad guys see you pull your 1D out of your diaper bag they figure it out pretty quickly anyway. :)

<p>

/r

Oops - you said 50 & 100 for primes.

Yup - those will fit, hooded or not.

Sorry. :)

/r

I don't think the F2 will hold all that you want. It's for sure too short to hold the 70-200 (f2.8) vertically.

You *might* be able to put the rest of your stuff in it, if you only use a two lens insert in the bag and put the cameras on either side of it. I say that being unsure how large the Mamiya with the 65 on it is.

Another potential probelm you might have with the F2, depends on the primes you intend to carry. The Domke lens inserts are of a fixed size. A 135/2L with hood will *just* barely fit into one. Two lenses of that size probably wouldn't fit next to each other in a two lens insert. Im guessing that an 85/1.2L would be right out of the question.

/r

What kind of "game" pictures are you talking about?

Old men playing chess by the boardwalk?

A football game?

The latest video release at the arcade?

Posturing between boyfriend/girlfriend on a date?

The lens I'd recommend for a beginner wouldn't be a zoom, but a 50/1.8. The lens performs wonderfully and only costs about $70 new from most of the New York mail order houses.

After using the 50 for a while, you'd have a much better idea of what focal length(s) you are missing and can then research a zoom of some sort if that's what you want. And once you've gotten the zoom, you'll still have the 50/1.8 in your bag for an available darkness lens.

/r

From the all of the reviews, and the hundreds of threads/comments on the 70-200/4 L lens on this board, it's supposedly a _very_ sharp lens.

The non L version must be something new.