mike_sinquefield
-
Posts
129 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by mike_sinquefield
-
-
<p>And for God's sake, DO NOT buy a 3rd party lens to protect that filter. They just don't offer the same protection as a Canon L. Also, the Canon L lenses (most) will help keep weather off of that filter!<br>
THis made my morning, thanks!</p>
-
<p>THanks Larry...I might just have to check that one out...I'm about 15 minutes from Cartersville.</p>
-
<p>My favorite of getting ready for Halloween! Waiting for facepaint to be applied...</p><div>
</div>
-
<p>I don't use those two lenses, but I frequently use my 28 1.8 and 50 1.8, and not often wide open. Most lenses work best when stopped down slightly, so I frequently use them at f 2.0 or f 2.8. An f 2.8 lens, I typically use at f 3.5 or higher. There are other reasons for these lenses, such as more light coming in through the lens for focusing. And of course, if you need f 1.4 or f 1.8, you have it! Can't do that with a 2.8 lens...It also depends on what you are shooting. The pic you posted would likely not be as effective with less dof, as the farthest eye would be more out of focus, and that's typically not what you're looking for...Keep on using your lenses as you are. You certainly did not waste any money!</p>
-
<p>70-200 f 2.8, at ISO 1600 sounds about right. My daughter was 6 at her last recital, and that's what I used (about half way back in the auditorium, using a monopod). Here's an example...</p><div></div>
-
<p>John, the basics of Lightroom are actually pretty simple to learn. It's very intuitive. I would highly recommend that along with the new camera...</p>
-
<p>I would get the 28 1.8 AND the 50 1.8 (since the 50 is only around $100). That way you have both focal lengths covered, and despte the plasticy feel of the 50, it is a great little lens. Save up to upgrade to the 50 1.4 later...</p>
-
<div></div>
-
<p>I gave my wife one earlier this year. So far, print quality is excellent. It was easy to set up, and it's a good deal at $85. Can't speak for longevity yet, though.</p>
-
<p>I'm glad I'm not the only one with this issue. A couple of weeks ago, my 7 yr old had Field Day at school. I took over 700 shots that day (a new record for me). I think I'm in the 15,000 range now that we have 2 kids. I used to ONLY shoot landscapes and inanimate objects, now I've almost forgotten how to do those. I'm trying to get back in with macros and flowers now, but it's tough when I look over and see them, all ready to be photographed yet again!</p>
-
<p>I've never shot with the Canon. I own the Sigma (vers 1). I have no complaints whatsoever with that lens. WHen I am outdoors, that's usually what is on my 40D. The Canon might be a slight touch sharper/better contrast, but I have been MORE than happy with the Sigma, as there have been times I needed the 2.8 indoors (Dance recitals, etc.). As for speed of autofocus, the Canon could be faster, I don't know, but the Sigma is pretty darn fast...</p>
-
<p>One more response for you...unfortunately, jsut an "Agree with the above"...I have the 28 1.8 and the 50 1.8. THey both get a lot of use on my camera. I also would agree a 430EX would be a good addition as well.</p>
-
<p>COmpletely agree with above...Rent a decent DSLR and a 70-200 f2.8, and practice ahead of time. Monopod helps too...</p>
-
<p>You can also consider the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I have the first version, and have been pleased with it. From what I understand, the II version is better, and still around $800. Resale won't be as good as with the Canon, but it will still deliver excellent images. I would also suggest for sports, buy a cheap monopod.</p>
-
<p>1. Used parents camera at 12, when I came home, they hid it from me (couldn't afford processing all the film...I went nuts). Bought my first at 25, Canon EOS Rebel.<br>
2. No...always enjoyed having one, but didn't have one for years.<br>
3. Not necesarily lost, just wishing I had it with me.<br>
4. Took a night class at local Tech college<br>
5. Had a couple of breaks-from age 12 to 25, then again from about 1998-2003 (2003 when my first child was born...been shooting like crazy since).<br>
6. No.</p>
-
<p>I'm just a rank amateur, so no $ coming in, but as far as value, it's close between my 50 1.8, and my Sigma 70-200 2.8. They have both gotten a tremendous amopunt of use, along with leadin in total prints made...However, I suspect if you ask me this time next year, I will add a 3rd to the battle, my new Tokina 100 2.8 macro. I'm just getting into the macro realm, and am enjoying it immensely. The Tokina is pretty much glued to my 40D right now. </p>
-
<div></div>
-
<div></div>
-
<p>I haven't used either of these 2 directly, but I have a Sunpak PZ42X that I am very happy with, and for the same price as the 270EX you have listed above. It is similar to the Canon 430EX I also have. You might want to check out that as well. All I've heard about the 270EX looks pretty good, I just wanted more manual control, so went with the Sunpak.</p>
-
<p>The 50 with tubes would work fine...I 2nd the Kenko tubes. That gives you more versatility. Here's a show I took with my 50 f1.8 with a tube (25mm, I think).</p><div></div>
-
<p>I would also suggest that you consider buying 2...I have a WD 500Gb drive I keep attached to my PC to backup every time I shoot. Then I periodically also backup to a USB powered WD 500Gb drive that I keep in my office away from home. The docking station mentioned above should work, then just get 2 cheap hard drives..Keep one nearby and one off-site.</p>
-
<p>Might want to get a monopod as well...THat will help tremendously with the weight...I use one with my 70-200 a lot. Not always necessary, but very helpful. You don't have to spend a ton on one either...</p>
-
<p>I will say the 50 1.8 and extension tubes works for me...I also use a 40D, and that combo (I use live view most of the time) works wonderfully!</p>
-
<div></div>
Full Moon Solstice Lunar Eclipse Amazing Photos on PN
in Casual Photo Conversations
Posted