scott bean

<div></div>

<p>I absolutely love this lens. I'm using it on a 40D and probably take about 80% of my shots with it. IS works. Great hiking lens.</p>

<p>I can't really add anything at this point that someone hasn't already said, but for me RAW and LR2 is a great workflow and I don't really see how my workflow would be any different if I shot JPEG, so what't the point?</p>

<p>I do think Howard V. makes an excellent point, shoot both types of files for awhile and work with them, see which gives *you* the best results and more importantly, which type of file makes photography the most enjoyable for you.</p>

<p>I'd have to go with the 50mm f1.8.</p>

<p>About 3 years ago, I had my 20D with battery grip and 10-22mm lens on a tripod taking some pictures of a waterfall. I was standing in the water and had my tripod in the water. I had taken several shots, no problems. I turned towards the shoreline to get another lens and out of the corner of my eye I see some movement...it was my tripod tipping over and dunking the whole camera into the stream. It was only under the water a few seconds, but water was everywhere, in the CF compartment, behind the lens, in the battery grip etc. Tried to dry the camera out but no luck. Had to send the camera, lens, and battery pack back to Canon for repair (it is still working now though since the repair). Now if I have my tripod in the water (or near the water!) I don't ever take my hand off it, I don't care how stable it feels or how secure the footing is.<br>

Right after getting my 40D I was back at the same waterfall shooting some pics and slipped an fell in the water. I also had a digital Rebel that had been converted to IR on me at the time. Luckily the cameras didn't get very wet.</p>

<p>Yes, but I can live without it.</p>

I didn't use to think much about the weight of my gear at all...but as I get older it gets more and more important!

 

I recently traded some f2.8 L lenses for their f4 cousins, mainly because of weight (I hike a lot). I should add that a deciding factor in this was that I almost never shot at f2.8 so I figured why carry that weight around in the bigger glass if I'm not using it. If I was using the 2.8, then I probably would have just put up with the extra weight.

200-400 f4 IS...

Need it? No not really...it would be nice to have...as others have mentioned, I have to interpolate files from my 40D to submit to some stock sites, but this is not a major issue right now (I don't do that very often).

 

Want it? Heck yes I want it!

 

Will I get one? Probably not in the foreseeable future unless I come into a lot of extra $$$. I'm very happy with my 40D actually. Maybe when the 5D3 comes out I could afford a 5D2...

Yeah Enfuse is free. It is a really cool plugin for LR. If you want to double process a RAW file with it in LR, just create a virtual copy, process the virtual copy and the original however you like and then use Enfuse to merge the 2 together, works great. Outputs as a JPEG or TIFF file.

 

For me LR and CS3 go together as a nice package, with LR being the "front end" for CS3. I really wouldn't want to use either alone. But everyone has to work out their own workflow.

For me the ability to manage a website from within LR is a major advantage. With some of the plug-ins available now for LR (like enfuse, which is great for combining 2 exposures) and the ability to export directly to 3rd party applications (like AutoPano Pro, Photomatrix, etc) I can use LR as my central software and then do specialized processing in other software. Yeah I could do all that from CS3 and bridge, but again for LR has been a life saver in terms of time and image management.

The only thing that looks interesting to me in CS4 is the ability to combine shots with different focal points in Photomerge to extend DOF. There is some pretty good freeware that does that though so I probably won't upgrade just for that feature.

Not sure what I can add that hasn't been covered already, but I have used both lenses. I started with the 24-70 and then switched to the 24-105. Why? Well for *me* and the type of shooting that *I* do I rarely used the 24-70 at f2.8, I didn't like carrying the weight with me when hiking, and I often wished I had a bit longer focal length. I think the decision really comes down to what type of shooting you do and which lens will work best for *you*. If money wasn't a concern I would have both, though I would still use the 24-105 for most of my nature work and the 24-70 would be reserved for portraits and weddings.

 

As far as image quality, both are excellent lenses.

 

Any chance you can rent both to compare which you like best for your style of shooting?

When I first got my 40D the live view was one feature I thought I might never use. I'm a landscape photographer so I didn't see any use for it except to maybe check focus. However, after reading an article by Rob Sheppard (I believe, maybe it was somebody else) about using the large LCD's on modern digital cameras to compose your scene, I decided to give it a try. Now I use it all the time. I purchased a cheap wireless remote to trigger my camera and now I can step back some from the camera and compose my picture by looking at the back of the camera and the scene at the same time (if that makes sense). I love the grid on the live view as well I'm also using it a lot for macro photography. Of all the reasons I upgraded to the 40D, the live view was on the bottom of my list...now I'm hooked on it.

Enjoyed the story! I can relate, except in my case it is "patchwork" camera bags...

 

Scott

I've got the book and would absolutely recommend it. The first time I read it I didn't really know what to make of it, but I've re-read several times and it always helps me move forward with my photography. It helps me get out of "ruts" and bad habits that I'm stuck, often without realizing that I'm stuck somewhere.