michael_vassallo

Ok I bought a Canon 100-400 IS and I dont like it. Its not that great of a lens, but I wanted the flexabitity of more then just 400mm prime. I wish I would have gon with the 300mm IS and just used a 1.4x on it O and Im not that imprest with this IS I dont think it works that great I got just a good of shots with my Sigma 50-500mm but they are just a tuch soft. Well thank goodnes for ebay I will probly sell this new 100-400 soon. Im shour I can get almost what I paid for it.

Ok I bought a Canon 100-400 IS and I dont like it. Its not that great of a lens, but I wanted the flexabitity of more then just 400mm prime. I wish I would have gon with the 300mm IS and just used a 1.4x on it O and Im not that imprest with this IS I dont think it works that great I got just a good of shots with my Sigma 50-500mm but they are just a tuch soft. Well thank goodnes for ebay I will probly sell this new 100-400 soon. Im shour I can get almost what I paid for it.

Ok I bought a Canon 100-400 IS and I dont like it. Its not that great of a lens, but I wanted the flexabitity of more then just 400mm prime. I wish I would have gon with the 300mm IS and just used a 1.4x on it O and Im not that imprest with this IS I dont think it works that great I got just a good of shots with my Sigma 50-500mm but they are just a tuch soft. Well thank goodnes for ebay I will probly sell this new 100-400 soon. Im shour I can get almost what I paid for it.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=12049012

I thought someone may like to see this it is the best test with pics I've

seen.It was very helpfull to me in my decision.

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=12049012

The sun was directly in front of me and there was alot of glair that day off the water I was using a uv filter as well. The sun was killing me from any angle I tried.

Hey everyone, I was wondering if I would get sharper better pictures

with the canon 70-200mm f2.8 with a 2x extender making it 400mm or

keeping my sigma 50-500mm. I was thinking of selling it to buy the

canon lens. I like shooting pics of surfing,thats why I got the sigma

lens but I am not that imprest with it. I also want to shoot some pics

of models on the beach and I know the Canon lens would be very nice

for that. Do you think I would get better pics with the 2x extender on

the Canon or the sigma at 400mm. Also will the Canon still be auto

focus with the extender on it.

Thanks Michael

I would have to agree with Peter on all his remarks as well.

I have one and use it with a Canon EOS 20D. It is just ok if you ask me I shot surfing pics with it and in good lighting its ok. I do get quite a few out of focus pics. I want to upgrade to a Canon L series soon. But for the money it not bad. You know the saying you get what you pay for and when it comes to a 500mm lens there is a reason the Canon lens is so expensive this is my sight I have a bunch of pics shot with this lens of surfing most of the time it is not good conditions when I am out shoting surf pics. www.surftribesurfboards.com

I do have a tripod and a mono pod, weight is not any problem I dont mind a heavy lens. Well budget I can afford the 70-200mm f2.8is but that would be it.

http://www.surftribesurfboards.com

Well if I am on the field I will only have about 10feet to work with as far as distance from the subject. But the other shots I would like to do such as the ones on the beach I will have alot of room. So if I can only afford one lens can I do and get the same effects with the 24-70mm as I would the 70-200mm lens. I have considered the sigma lens but like I said I was not that impressed with the 55-500mm I bought so I was wanting to get somthing better but I can only get one. I wish canon website showed a better variety of pics with each lens they sell.

Well I just dont know if that Sigma 24-70mm would make me happy or if I will be frustrated if they are not super sharp.

 

There are a few more pics I took of Deanna on my web site plus pics I shot of surfing on the Gulf of Florida. www.surftribesurfboards.com

Well to start I have a Canon EOS20D it came with a 18-55mm lens and I bought a Sigma 55-500mm for shoting pics of surfing. I must say I am not at all imprest with this lens it is to slow and 1 out of hundreds is sharp. But I guess you get what you pay for and I was afraid to reck a $4000.00 lens out on the beach all the time in the salt air. But back to what I want to do with this lens I would like to shot model on the beach and my girlfriend is a cheerleader for the Tampa Bay Bucs and I would like to shoot from on the field and there is not alot of room down there. Will both lenses give me the same blur or is one better then the other. PS. Thanks for all the advice so far this forum has been the most responsive so far. This is a pic of my girlfriend that another photographer took and he was on the field in front of her.http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/2005/11/29/gallery.cheerleaders/content.4.html

I have a question I am interested in the 24-70mm or the 70-200mm f 2.8

I want to sote pics like this photograper http://www.amaginations.com/

I want to get the lens that will through the background out of focus but I dont want to be 20 feet away from the subject.

I am interested in a new lens and I can't decide which to get the

24-70mm f2.8 or the 70-200mm f2.8 I won't to shot full body pics of

models with alot of background blur. This is someones work I like and

would like to acheave something like. What lens do you think he uses

the most.

http://www.amaginations.com/