claytontullos

<p>It's the lens that attracts attention.</p>

<p>Most lay people can not tell a difference between the xxd and a xxxd camera, especially if the xxxd camera is black!</p>

<p>Well for any night or indoor games a 70-200 2.8 would be best. As long as you can be on the sidelines and move around it should have good enough reach. If you plan on being stationary the entire game then the 100-400 may be a better option, but be prepared to crank the iso up on the 50d to around 6400 to get good photos in the evening or at night(given the shutter speed necessary and the apature opening on the lens) .</p>

<p>I've shot a night game with my 70-200f4 with my 50d. I had the reach that I needed, I just wish that my lens opened up a bit more.</p>

<p>I use whitehousecustomcolor aka www.whcc.com for all of my printing. They use top equipment, have a fast turnaround time, ship everything 2nd air or faster, and have great prices.</p>

<p>Given the price of a large format printer, limitation on sizes, and cost of ink; I think it is silly for a person these days not to use a printing service.</p>

<p>I know I love my 24x36 and 15x30 prints hanging on my wall.</p>

<p>The bokah in the 1.4 is more rounded/natural while in the 1.8 it is more angular, this is especially apparent when a light is in the background.<br>

Better build quality for the 1.4.</p>

<p>Outside of that they are pretty similar.</p>

<p>You need to clarify what is wanted. Since you don't to portraiture work and this is for a family friend, I would just do it for a nominal fee + whatever the prints cost.</p>

<p>Think of it as practice for any future work you may do. Besides you don't have a great portrait lens.</p>

<p>If you within the stores return policy, I suggest returning it for a new one.</p>

<p>Otherwise contact Canon for an RMA.</p>

<p>The IS won't help you freeze action, it will just help with camera shake. The 2.8 will help.</p>

<p>So if you went with the 2.8 non IS you would save a few hundred.</p>

<p>I'd shoot for a 450d if at all possible.</p>

<p>The 20d is overpriced.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Raw.</p>

<p>Because it is better than jpegs.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>430ex flash with a better bounce card attached.<br>

I'd probably go with a sigma 30 1.4 for a lens.</p>

<p>Fish eye lenses</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=search&A=search&Q=&sb=bs%2Cupper(ds)&sq=asc&sortDrop=Brand%3A+A+to+Z&ac=&bsi=&bhs=t&ci=8454&shs=&at=Lens+Type_Fisheye&basicSubmit=Submit+Query</p>

<p>I have the non IS version.<br>

I very rarely use a tripod with my 70-200 f4l... in fact almost never.<br>

Someone early suggested faster than 1/800 for a clear image. I can handhold with a much slower shutter. I took this image just a few minutes ago, handheld at 200mm iso 1000 f4 1/160th of a second. The sun was setting as I took this picture.<br>

1/160 is pretty consistently sharp, 1/100th is hit or miss with camera shake.<br>

He may have been referring to 1/800th being fast enough to freeze action.<br>

<img src="http://claytontullos.com/images/oregon/50d/_MG_3116.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you are looking for quality, go with the 70-200 f4L. I have the f4L and have zero complaints.</p>

<p>I also have the canon 10-22 which is amazing for landscapes.</p>

<p>If it is any consolation I bought my three lenses over a long period of time. First came the 50 1.8, which was a great learning lens. Next I bought the 70-200f4, which outside of the great image quality and reach made me appear to be a real photographer, not just an amateur (the long white lens). I use the 70-200 for most outside events, it allows for great candid pictures (which to me are the best and most memorable).<br /> Earlier this year I bought the 10-22 and I have found it to be a great lens, but I primarily use it for landscapes and architectural type shots. I have used it for portraiture once, but I found my 50 1.8 to be better for that purpose.<br /> For my next lens, I'm considering something between the 10-22 and the 50 1.8, it is a tough choice. Part of me leans towards a prime like Sigma's 30 1.4 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-30mm-f-1.4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx or another zoom.</p>

<p>Good luck in your decision.</p>

<p>-<br /> Clayton</p>

<p>For when the kids are far away or if they every start playing sports, the 70-200F4L is a fantastic lens. It is <strong>considerably</strong> lighter than the 2.8 version. It weighs about half, depending on which 2.8 you handled.<br /> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

<p>With your budget and quality desires two lenses for $800 is not really going to happen.</p>

<p>I suggest going with the 70-200f4, the image quality is fantastic. Perhaps later buying a quality wide angle. Or reverse your purchase, buy the canon 10-22 or equiv then the telephoto. <br /> The wide angle lenses are more for landscape photography than pictures of the kids (though you can use them for that purpose).</p>

<p>If you are serious about a good zoom portraiture lens the 24-70 is the one of the best.<br /> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

<p>I know with my g9, I had to be in full auto to take pictures underwater with canon's case. It was impossible to adjust exposure or shutter speed while in the case.</p>

<p><img src="http://claytontullos.com/images/hawaii/IMG_0305.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="600" /></p>

<p>Canon's 10-22 is the best wide angle lens for the efs. Equiv to 16-35 on a full frame camera. So if you have the money and are serious about upgrading to full frame, the canon 16-35 2.8 would the same.</p>