joel_p

<p>Hasan, ...the 24-70 is a fine zoom lens. <br>

What do you mean by "dull"? Did you expect better colors, more contrast, sharper? <br>

Your photo seems fine given the conditions. At the risk of stating something you probably already know, to make it all a bit more exciting you may want to shoot in better light (i.e. stay away from midday sun to capture more shadows/contrast; shoot on a day with a more interesting sky; move the horizon away from the centre of the frame; and perhaps compose your photo to better highlight specific point(s) of interest. <br>

Cheers,<br>

joel </p>

<p>Paul,<br>

The cheapest alternative option might be to try the Canon 50mm 1.4. That should give you 80mm on your 40D, which is good for head and shoulder portraits. I find that many of my keepers are shot with this lens. It gets quite a bit of flack from users, but it is one of my favs. For what it's worth, I have the sister lens of the 85/1.8 (the 100/2.0) but I prefer my 70-200/2.8 for portraits as I don't like the 100mm wide open. Wrt to the L lenses, i recently rented the 85/1.2II and while it is awesome in terms of large aperture possibilities, I am not sure that the added benefits are worth the USD 2000+ price tag.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

joel</p>

<p>I have the 7MDH and like it. It will hold the equipment you have but not much more. I have my 24-70 mounted on my 5D - my 70-200mm is too long. If you stay with Crumpler, better get the next size up.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Massimo,<br>

These aren't bad. I also don't love the processing as it makes some of the photos of the baby in the grass too monotone for my taste). Ironically, I don't mind the family shots (esp. 5, 9, 10) although mom has a tendency to tilt her head too much (I would rather have her hold the baby a little closer and higher). <br>

Cheers,<br>

JP</p>

<p><em> Will a $2 wrench do the same job as a $25 wrench? Is a $10 bottle of wine as good as a $50 bottle?</em></p>

<p>Mark, but is the difference b/t the 2 versions as large as your post would have us believe?<br>

I am anxiously waiting for Canon to announce an improved 50/1.4 and/or 17-40L, but I am in no hurry to upgrade my already excellent 70-200/2.8. (but not having tried the Mark II, ignorance might indeed be bliss.....) <br>

<br /><br>

<br /></p>

<p>As already suggested, the reach of the 70-200mm might be an issue for baseball. I recently shot at a tennis match (from the 5th row) and had to use a 1.4 extender for quite a few of my shots. <br>

There are a few comparisons of the two lenses (photozone.de did one recently and they do indicate the Mark II is a bit better). Having said that, the Mark I version is a great lens, one of the sharpest I own - I have the non-IS which goes for around 1100USD. The answer probably depends on how much it will hurt to spend 2500USD. As a compromise you could think about getting the Mark I, and the 135mm 2.0 for an excellent lighter weight portrait lens.<br>

Cheers,<br>

joel</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>For travel, I typically carry my 17-40, 50mm 1.4 and either the 70-200/2.8 or the 100mm 2.0. The latter option is lighter, but sometimes I wish I had more range on the long end. You obviously cannot go with either lens, but do you really need the 1.2 for your travel purposes? (the 85mm 1.8 is meant to be quite good for 1/6th of the price). </p>

<p>Thanks Andrew/Brooks. </p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

joel</p>

<p>Dear all,<br>

Perhaps a bit of a newbie question, but here goes. I have PS CS3 and Aperture 2 and use them about 30/70% respectively. I don't have any plug ins but am now interested in purchasing several (e.g. Photomatix, Autopano). To my understanding, they are often available separately for PS and for Aperture. I am leaning towards getting them for PS as I use that more for making more elaborate changes to my photos. Is there any specific advantage to purchasing the plugins for either PS or Aperture? I will also upgrade to CS5 at some point (and perhaps to Aperture 3 as well) - to my understanding, most plugins will easily transfer between version upgrades?...(64 bit compatibility notwithstanding). Please correct me if I am wrong. <br>

Any insight would be most appreciated.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Joel</p>

Jacobs or stores like Fixation in Vauxhall tend to have decent pricing. Anything significantly less than their prices is indeed probably too good to be true.

Andrew, I use a Hoya R72 filter which works great for me, so no comment on B+W or coating vs non-coating. I can say though that I wouldn't stack an IR filter with anything else (why would you considering that virtually no light passes throught the IR filter - the R72 filter on a 5D yields about 20-30 sec exposures at f/7.1 in midday sunshine. I am not sure about the combo of pol and IR filter, but the IR filter will give you lots of contrast and I don't see glare as too much of an issue either.

I love my 70-200 2.8 non-IS (on a FF camera). It produces better images than my 100/2.0 at that focal length. You may also be able to get a decent deal on a used copy now that the mark II IS version has been released.

<p>It's hard to covet that which you have never tried.....so, go to your nearest rental place and get a copy of the 17 TS, 35/1.4, 200/2.0, or anything 300+. You will be back knocking on Canons door before you know it. </p>

<p>thanks again guys. I considered the 3 series Gitzo but I know the additional weight would discourage me from taking it on trips (which is where i use it most), so I got the 2542L. In terms of the heads, I was a little weary of the weight of the Arca Swiss and the Kirk BH-1, whereas the max load of the BH-3 is limited to 15lbs - which left the RRS and Markins.....turns out the RRS is hard to get in the UK and they have apparently some issues shipping to the UK, which finalised my decision....I went with the Markins M10 with dedicated plates/knob release. My wife will probably kill me when she sees the credit card bill, but hopefully it will be worth it!<br>

Cheers,<br>

joel</p>

<p>Thanks for your insights. <br>

Rachel - the BH-40 was my front runner as well. Hector/Ted, I like the BH-55 head and the AS, but wouldn't that be a little bit of a mismatch on a relatively light tripod like the G2542 and my limited load requirements? </p>

<p>

<p >Hi all,</p>

<p >I recently sold my Induro C-113 tripod. It was a decent tripod but I got nervous when I recently mounted a 300mm 2.8. So I am now contemplating the Gitzo 2531. </p>

<p >My question is about the ball heads. Arca-Swiss, Markins, RRS and Kirk are cited on this forum as best in class. Given that my max load requirements should never exceed about 12lbs, (and I value a light tripod for traveling) which one would you recommend? I am trying to decide between the RRS BH-40, Markins Q3, the Kirk BH-3 and the AS Z1-sp. I haven’t found a store in London, UK which carries all of these, so I may need to buy sight unseen.</p>

<p >I shoot mostly landscapes, so ability to add on panning equipment at some point would be useful. </p>

<p >Also, any opinions regarding the merits of a knob quick lease vs lever release, and universal vs dedicated camera plates (e.g. Markins and RRS) would also help my decision. </p>

<p >Alot of questions I realize, but any insight would be most appreciated. </p>

<p >Cheers,</p>

<p >Joel</p>

</p>

<p>Thanks guys, I used the term "friend" to steer the conversation towards the merits and uses of the lens and price. I don't know this person, but the offer is a local one. After I asked to have the lens checked by professional (reasonable request for a lens of this price, no?), I have not heard back from him. It may indeed be a scam (quality is not mint, or worse, stolen equipment).....or somebody snatched it up before I had a chance to close the deal......JP</p>

 

<p>thanks guys. Since I can't definitively tell whether the lens is in mint condition as stated and given large amount of cash changing hands, I asked to have it checked by third party - haven't heard since...perhaps indeed too good to be true. - JP</p>

<p>Hi, my friend is selling his canon 300mm 2.8 IS for a good price (1800USD). I am a serious photo hobbyist, but don't earn any cash doing this, nor am I an avid wildlife or sports photographer (beyond documenting my daughter's soccer progress). I own a 5dII and have among others a 70-200/2.8 and 1.4x. Does it make sense to treat this lens (in mint condition) as a longer term investment or would it amount to throwing alot money down the drain (in these crap economic times)? Probably no correct answer to this, but any recommendations (e.g. on resale value, uses beyond nature/sport, better lens options, etc.) would be appreciated.<br>

Cheers,<br>

JP</p>

 

<p>one lens only, i would go with 24-105. But ideally the least amount of kit I would go with is 17-40/16-35, 50 prime and 70-200.<br>

Cheers, Joel</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

What is your favorite creative accessory (hard or software)? What do you recommend?<br>

(I still enjoy using my R72 infrared filter to create new takes on common landscape subjects)<br>

Cheers,<br>

joel</p>

 

<p>Tried this lens at the Canon showroom. Can't imagine having much use for it in traditional landscape setting as your background would be too far away. Would be good for close urban shots though (think subway, markets, etc.) where this ultra wide perspective can create some unique shots (with anonimity).<br>

Cheers,<br>

joel </p>

<p>The DP review was very flattering indeed....but their impression of the non-IS lens was similarly so. Mark, i did exactly what you suggested and found quite a few portraits done at 2.0 and 2.4...more than I thought. I will likely keep my 100 2.0 and go for the non-IS macro. </p>

<p>The DP review was very flattering indeed....but their impression of the non-IS lens was similarly so. Mark, i did exactly what you suggested and found quite a few portraits done at 2.0 and 2.4...more than I thought. I will likely keep my 100 2.0 and go for the non-IS macro. </p>

<p>thanks guys.<br>

Biliana, nice shot.<br>

Sam, my 100/2.0 suffers from some pretty bad vignetting wide open but I do appreciate the ability to go to 2.4 or 2.0. Don't know whether bokeh would be better on the 2.0 vs 2.8 macro. Perhaps too early to tell.<br>

Cheers, JP</p>