drfl

Sounds good. I haven't shot print film in a while and just got my 20d so the lab thing isn't an issue. I did have a lab botch up a bunch of slides once when I used the yellow-blue "A" filter. Needless to say, I have since found a better lab. Thanks.

I currently have a cokin blue-yellow filter in the 'A' Style. I

recently purchased two new lenses, one with a 67mm and the other with

a 77mm filter size. I am moving the the cokin 'P' holder style. I

am planning on purchasing a gold/blue filter for my upcoming trip to

montana/alberta. Should I spend the $180+ for the gold/blue Singh-

Ray (I have 2 of their Grad ND filters), or should I stick with the

$34 cokin. Generally, I would normally go with the Singh-Ray, but I

believe Cokin was first to the market and may have an ok product

here.

Chris,

 

I would definantly appreciate that. I assume you are referring to the Canon TC?

 

Thanks!

Jose,

 

If you have a place around that rents lenses, I highly recommend renting the lenses to see how they perform on your body. When you get ready to spend the money, it is well worth it. Usually, this is not very expensive and very informative. If you don't have a place around that rents the lenses, keep doing what you are doing, scour the web. There are many opinions and many ideas and finding the one right for you is time consuming, but in the end worth it.

I agree with Bob, have you tried the lens on a different body? Everything I have read has pretty much put the f/4 and f/2.8 at about the same sharpness, just that the 2.8 has the added stop for a greater range. I have had no problems with my f/4 and for what I do (mainly outdoors and landscapes) do not require the extra stop, or IS, or the empty pocketbook. I have attached a photograph of my cat that exemplifies the detail I was able to achieve in her white fur utilizing the 70-200 f/4 at f/4 indoors with natural light.

Jim, I've got the tripod, A Silk Mini Pro, not very stable, but very, very light, and better than having no tripod at all (I tend to take the 10 mile - all uphill hikes when I travel to NPs). I've got ok shoes, I've got an ok bag, got a polarizer, and a couple of Grad ND filters. I just got back from the photo store where they assured me that all TCs they carried (Tamron, Promaster, Canon) were essentially the same. Funny, I didn't feel assured. Do you have any photographs you can upload where you used the 1.4x, I would love to see one? I think I will probably still bring the 18-55, but leave it in the car as a backup lens, and not lug it up the mountain. I'm still interested in the Tamron vs. Canon discussion as the Tamron would allow me to purchase an additional lens/filters (Singh-Ray ND) for my trip.

I have found this lens to be very sharp, one of the sharpest I have ever owned. As a test I tried it on my cat to see how well the detail in the white fur came out as well as it's bokeh. Attached is the photograph.

I have considered going with a different brand rather than a Canon, but there is very little technical information w/ examples that I have found comparing the different brands. The information I have found on the Tamron Pro is that on a lens of f/4 or slower that the image quality is no better than that of the regular Tamron. Is this typically true and how does it compare optically with the Canon. Additionally, the 50 prime will be my next lens probably followed by the 10-22mm ef-s so if I can get the prime now with an equalivate TC I would be very interested in doing so.

In a few months I'm taking a 14 day trip to Glacier NP, Banff,

Jasper, etc. and I am taking along my 20d, my 17-40 f/4l, 70-200

f/4l, and 18-55 ef-s lenses. My question is this. With the crop

factor of the 20d will this set of lenses do the trick or should I

also incorporate a canon 1.4 extender for wildlife. Is the extender

worth the money to capture wildlife, or is the degredation noticeable

at the long end. Unfortunately, I cannot afford the a longer lens

before the trip, but I might be able to get the 1.4.

I have the fortune of owning both the 20d and the 17-40 f/4l lens. While I can't speak to the 10D, I love my 20D. The 18-55 lens kit that comes with the 20d is ok, but I found it quite soft and not very contrasty. It wasn't until I purchased the 17-40 less than a month later that I realized what I was missing. I think if you could wait and get both that would be the way to go. Otherwise, think about what you do, because the 17-40 is a heck of lens and worth getting with a 10d or a rebel.

I too have noticed this trend recently. One day I had a 2/2 on one of my photographs and the next day it was gone. I understand that some people would not like a photograph and rate it low, its their perogitive. My rating system may be different than others. For instance, if you can point a camera, shoot a picture, and get it developed, I think that you should at least get a 3. This doesn't mean I overrate photographs, but some individuals believe that if you aren't Ansel Adams your pictures are poor in quality. When I look at the ratings I try to look at it in a diffent light. If I have 3 6s and 4 5s and 1 1 I know that the majority somewhat appreciated the photograph. I wish Photo.net displayed the mode of the photographs, that would definantly help. I am here to improve and learn, in fact in almost every critique request I say as much. Photo.net is a forum for photographs to learn and grow, and I want it to be used as such.