savas_kyprianides
-
Posts
803 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by savas_kyprianides
-
-
<p>Strange that a fast lens for landscape is incapable of mounting filters, such as ND or ND grad, something that a photographer might miss for certain effects or circumstances. Despite it's specs, its limitations make it somewhat of a specialist lens.</p>
-
<p>Glad my lens doesn't do that. Send your in to Canon to see if they can figure it out.</p>
-
<p>24-105 kit lens is a good start towards learning what you favorite focal length in a prime might be. You have at your disposal 24, 35, 50, 85, 100mms. Retaining 24-105 as a one lens travel solution is a path many have done.</p>
-
<p>I'll take that as gospel. ST-E2 is in the drawer and now I'll give it a spin again with an enlightened viewpoint.</p>
-
<p>Before I do that, I want to improve my memory to reset all other settings from the night before. I lose more shots to that than a mode dial miscue.</p>
-
<p>I don't get using a grip and a hand strap. Once you go portrait, you have to pull your sweaty hand out of the hand strap and hold the vertical grip without it. Swapping back, you have to hold the camera in the left hand as you snake your hand back into the hand strap for landscape orientation, or just give up and hold the strap in between your hand and the landscape grip.</p>
-
<p>OP, consider the 50mm macro, for its double purpose.</p>
-
<p>No one mentioned what kind of food. If the OP wants to shoot a buffalo or deer, a different lens is in order.</p>
-
<p>Sell the lens.</p>
-
<p>You can say that again!</p>
-
<p>The 70-200 2.8 weight advantage is when it's mounted, relieving the camera bag of that weight. The equivalent range in quality primes not only weighs more than that 70-200, the prime collection winds up weighing you down more as two lenses remain in bag as you have the third mounted. Of course, there's more to it than weight, such as usage and image quality. But don't count out your fast 70-200 zoom to soon.</p>
-
<p>For me, going long is a once a year affair when the annual air show arrives. Absent that, I am no where near 400mm. So, a 70-200 with TC makes sense and avoids a 100-400 closeted 99.9 percent of the year.</p>
-
<p>I like that flash unit, the 270.</p>
-
<p>Most posts concerning sound is about the opposite. Photographers want to know what they are hearing and whether it indicates something is broken.</p>
-
<p>I love the info within it, but the book needs a good editor. Some passages are a burden to read. Strunk and White needed here.</p>
-
<p>There has to be a better word than pretentious.</p>
-
<p>I use a filter if and when there is something in the air being blown toward the lens. Otherwise, they stay in the bag.</p>
-
<p>
<p >For what it’s worth, a good version of the MK1 works very well, the new version notwithstanding. These were shot over the weekend with a 1.4 converter attached to it. No sharpening applied. Yes, they look well in larger versions of the jpegs.</p>
</p>
<p ><img src="http://SavasK.zenfolio.com/img/s10/v16/p466758292-3.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p ><img src="http://SavasK.zenfolio.com/img/s6/v5/p443932868-3.jpg" alt="" /></p>
-
<p>Good. Now get yourself a rain resistant camera bag. And/or one of the raincoats they make for cameras.</p>
-
<p>Maybe locate your ceiling studs and place the poles there.</p>
-
<p>DPP software solves all of the issues with 24-105 noted in the preceding post. 24-105 on FF is just such a useful range.</p>
-
<p>The OP's wet lens is basically totaled. Heartbreaking.</p>
-
<p>Mark, maybe rent the 2.8 and haul it around for a weekend. Even if they don't have the newer version for rental, you'll get a feel for the handling.</p>
-
<p>Great, thank you all.</p>
NYC trip, and I don't know what lens to bring/buy
in Canon EOS Mount
Posted