tdigi

If all you did was download the file, but did not run the file, it is not likely that your computer is affected.

 

If you landed at a website that displayed images or ads, there is a small possibility that something was downloaded and/or executed without your knowledge. If you find any files on your system that you can't identify, don't open them. The really nasty stuff shows its face pretty quickly. I would consider making a backup of your important work now and removing the backup files from any connected device, just to be safe.

Thank you. I'm really annoyed that I fell for this. I make it a rule never to click on anything I receive in emails.

I just got this email as well and while looking through the photo.net site I was unable to find a way to cancel. I tried using the form on the contact page and I received an error so i ended up clicking the link in the email. I realized once it downloaded a file that it was a scam. I deleted the downloaded file but now i'm worried my computer is compromised. Does anyone know what can happen from clicking the link?

<p>The 24L II is a specialty lens but I find its probably my most used lens since I use it on crop and full frame ( thanks William W ) along with the 135L ( I too love primes ). I've thought about replacing it with a 24-70 2.8 II but I ended up getting the F4IS version since I could not justify keeping the primes with the 2.8 II and I usually fall back on primes. I've owned the 24-105 and 24-70 2.8 I and I've never really needed or liked a standard zoom. The F4 IS had me curious because of the macro and small size so I picked one up recently. </p>

<p>I feel your pain as I would find it hard to part with any of my main primes ( 24LII, 50L and 135L )</p>

<p>How long have the 24/35 been sitting? I would have a hard time justifying both the L primes with the 24-70 2.8 II. Since you seem to prefer the 24-70 I would say sell them or at least the 24. 35 is very practical and the 35 is dropping in value so its probably worth keeping.</p>

<p>I've stuck with the combo of F4 zooms with fast primes for a while and I think it works well if size/weight is an issue and you don't mind taking multiple lenses. I had the original 24-70 and it was a great lens but I hated the bulk, same with the 70-200 2.8. For the most part I would be fine without any zooms except for maybe an UW like a 17-40.</p>

<p>I would rather have a 24-105 and a good 1.4/1.2 prime over a 24-70. The Tamron looks good but I suspect the autofocus is a step down from Canon. ( thats just from what I hear but I've had Tamrons in the past and the image quality was great, autofocus was so so. )</p>

<p>As good as a 24-70 2.8 II sounds I think for now I'll keep my setup as is. 2.8 would come in handy and maybe later down the road I will get one but I like my 24-105 as well as my primes.</p>

<p>Considering the 24-70 cost ( and bigger filters I would need ) I am not sure I am really gaining enough to make it worthwhile.</p>

<p>Thanks for the input everyone.</p>

<p>It won't much on the Canon front. Nikon, sony etc. will probably do well.</p>

<p>24-105 is so cheap right now it would actually pain me to sell it. Mark, how does the 24-70 compare to the 24 prime?</p>

<p>that link shows the mark 1 but I agree in some ways. I generally do not go by those tests but they do show the 24-70 II is very sharp at 2.8 and closer to primes in image quality.</p>

<p>Yea Robin, the primes are just more fun. I had 24-70 70-200 2.8 and I hated shooting with them. I like zooms at times. I love the 17-40 and 70-300L for outdoors. I would probably be perfectly happy with just 35 and 135 for primes but the 24 is so good and the 50 is so unique. They also make a great combo. </p>

<p>I guess I can almost skip the midrange zoom all together if I wanted. :-}</p>

<p>I've been happy with my 24L&50L/24-105 but there are some good deals on the new 24-70 and I am considering jumping on it. I am thinking of switching my 24-105 for one. From what I have seen the new 24-70 is very sharp wide open and most of the time 2.8 is really all I need most of the time. Thing is I am happy with my setup but the only real downside is I am often switching lenses or having to carry too many with me since my lenses are very specific and all in the same range. A 2.8 standard zoom would make things more convenient. Just not sure I am ready to give up my 24L or even the 24-105 which is great for travel. </p>

<p>I really don't know many people using the 24-70II. just reading reviews? I was happy with the old version image quality but the I did not like the bulk. The new version seemed to address that.</p>

<p>I shoot a mostly for fun, travel but I also do some portraits, events and wildlife/landscapes as well as stuff I use for design and multimedia. </p>

<p>Any advice is welcome.<br>

Thanks in advance. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mark, how do you feel about the 35 on full frame compared to the 24 on crop? Having 24/35/50 seems a bit much but I really always seem to fall back on the 24 on my 60D lately.</p>

<p>I tried the 35L briefly but I always felt the 24LII is a better lens. Sharper, better contrast. etc.</p>

<p>Sarah pretty much said it. Nowadays there are some great 2.8 zooms so the only reason I can see for getting a 2.8 prime is size/weight. If you can up you budget I see the 24LII used a lot for around $1200. IMO its your best choice at 24 because it is very sharp even at 1.4 and 1.4 makes a prime more worthwhile to me.</p>

<p>From what I have seen the 24 2.8 IS lens is very sharp and it is small and affordable and if your shooting video or without a tripod the IS will come in handy. 2.0 would be more appealing to me, the 35 2.0 IS looks nice but on crop that is not at all wide.</p>

<p>The Sigma 18-35 1.8 is worth a look too but I sort of feel the same way about non Canon lenses. Since I like 24 on my 60D so much I have been thinking of adding a 35 and the Sigma 35 is very popular but I feel more comfortable with Canon even though the Sigma is supposed to be better. </p>

<p>I am with you, I generally prefer primes. I have some great primes along with full frame and APS-C bodies and the 24LII gets the most use on my 60D. I just love the combo.</p>

<p>If your budget is $500 I assume your looking at the 24 2.8 IS which I hear is very nice but getting a 2.8 prime seems a little strange unless the small size is your main interest.</p>

<p>24 is really not that wide on a 7D. </p>

<p>I also considered the 20mm Color Skopar to go with my 40mm pancake. Voightlander makes very good lenses, they also have a 40 2.0 that is very good but manual focus is not for me. Overall I am very happy with the 40mm pancake, I've gotten some great shots with it but I really don't mind using a heavier lens most of the time so it usually sits home. </p>

<p>1. Why did you get the L?<br>

- I did not like the autofocus of the 50 1.4. I felt image quality was very good.<br>

<br />2. Did it turn out like you thought? Do you notice any difference?<br>

- IMO if you like to shoot at 50mm its the best Canon option. <br>

<br />3. Do you regret getting the L?<br>

- When I first purchased the L I did some comparisons side by side with the 1.4. I ended up returning the L but after a few weeks I looked through my lightroom and noticed all the 50L photos seemed to stand out to me. I re-ordered it and have been very happy with it.<br>

<br />4. What kind of photography do you do with the 50 L?<br>

- Mostly people shots. Some street type stuff. Low light concert, Events<br>

<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thinktank streetwalker pro is a nice backpack. The lowepro flipsides are also pretty good but not the same quality as Thinktank but its nice how you access the gear. Fstop makes great looking packs but very expensive. </p>

<p>I suggested The Benro Mefoto because its a good value and it folds up really small. I don't think benro is the highest quality but for the price its pretty good. I used to own the Manfrotto 190 but its not as portable or lightweight. Still a pretty good middle ground and a good solid tripod. The 055 is good too but its really heavy.<br /> http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-190XPROB-Section-Aluminum-Tripod/dp/B000N7VPRW/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1378476209&sr=8-4&keywords=manfrotto<br /> <br /> If you don't mind spending some money get something like a Gitzo 2541 and Markins Q10. Its a good middle ground in size/weight and its very stable and easy to use.<br /> <br /> Good luck, picking a tripod is not easy.</p>

<p>I vote to keep travel gear to a minimum. 2 to 4 lenses total and most of time I am out shooting I will only take 1 mounted and maybe an extra lens. It just depends on the trip, all the gear you mention is good. For trips that I just want family snaps I go with my G15.</p>

<p>When using a DSLR the key is also the right bag. IMO a thinktank Retro 7 is pretty ideal and it's great for holding all the extras ( keys, phone, maps etc. )</p>

<p>For travel tripods check out the Benro Mefoto tripods. Pretty decent and very affordable. </p>

<p>In the real world they both look good to me. IMO those test charts are mostly a waste of time. </p>

<p>I too really like the 24LII but a 35 will certainly be more practical and will out perform the 28 1.8. I also tend to disagree that the 35 is too outdated to consider. Many working pro's I know use the 35L but I do feel the 24LII has slightly better sharpness and color but its not enough to pass if 35 if 35mm is right for you. </p>

<p>I hear the Sigma is also very good as is the 35 2.0 IS but I have no personal experience with those lenses. The 2.0 IS seems a bit overpriced but it would probably be ideal for travel. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>G Dan, Sharp is not at all the issue. I am happy with all of my lenses in sharpness but the way my 24L or 50L renders a photo is far different than my 24-105. </p>

<p>I am pretty certain, at least for now, to keep what I have. The filter size you mention is actually 1 reason but the other is I do like the fast aperture. I think if I was buying today I would probably get the 24-70 but I can't think of anything I don't like about my setup, I am even impressed with the quality of my 24-105. I am sure the 24-70 is better but for my uses it probably does not matter much and since I have 2 bodies I often just use 2 primes.</p>

<p>I'll probably stick with what I have. thanks all</p>

<p>I with Mark for the most part but I do some photo work so I do need good gear but I am not looking as an investment or return. More interested in a good solid kit to cover my needs. In my case its more 24/50 primes and 24-105 vs 24-70. <br>

I had the 24-70 ver 1 and I liked it but what I did not like ( bulk, reverse zoom ) has been addressed. Only downsides now are the price and filter size. <br>

If I did the switch I would actually be getting money back but I do loose the compact setup and fast aperture. That is why I would probably pick up some more affordable prime like a Sigma 35.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Robert, I honestly rarely use it wide open. I like it around 1.6 to 2.8 most of the time.</p>