daniel flather

<p>My 50D's autofocus is great, 99% of errors are user fault. I only use the centre focus point. I use the focus and recompose method, but if you are shooting at f1.4 it takes practice to achieve in focus shots.</p>

<p>What lens(es) are you using, any other information you want to share?</p>

<p>Yes, thanks for finding that link for us Scott. I can never find it when I need it, time to bookmark it. That 200/2 would look good on my camera. :)</p>

<p>The 200/2L in theory would be good, but there is a review out there (can't seem to find it) that tells us the 200/2 is not optimal for star photos; the lens has too much coma. If I find the link I'll post it this thread.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Wd7I">Whats the point in buying DSLR</a> ?</p>

<p> I guess the answer is: So you can insure it.</p>

<p>What happen? All your base are belong to us.</p>

<p>Slick, I debated the 1.2L vs. the 1.8, I went for the 1.8. Saving money for a different bokeh king. :P</p>

<p><em>So that's about 12 lenses then?</em></p>

<p>Yes, that would be about it. Damn, must be more like $1m+ per stadium, with all the bodies and extras. I saw a fan in the stands with a 70-200 and camera mounted mic.</p>

<p>Anyone else notice all the cameras on mini tripods behind the net with remotes?</p>

<p>I'd wait for the new <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/new-canon-speedlite/">Canon 680 EX</a> to be released before jumping.</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

<p ><em>Faysal already has a 50mm, that is close enough to an 85mm, the added flexibility and range the zoom gives would make me prioritise that.</em></p>

<em> </em>

I also have the 50/1.4 in addition to my 85/1.8. The 50mm will do, but at f1.4 it's too soft versus the 85/1.8. The 85/1.8 at 1.8 is amazingly sharp for f1.8. my 50/1.4 has to be stopped to f2.0 —or more— to equal the 85mm.

Also the bokeh on the 85 is <em>better</em> versus the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8. I've owned multiple copies of the 50/1.8 Mrk 1 and 2.

 

 

<p> </p>

<p ><em> </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6095207">Faysal Akbik</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 12, 2010; 01:06 a.m.</p>

</em></p>

<p> </p>

<em> </em>

<p ><em>Daniel, what stopped you from using the 70-200 as a portrait lens? </em></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p > </p>

 

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Can't buy both, had to make a choice.</p>

 

 

<p>I've used the 70-200 f4 and it's a GREAT lens, but I bought the 85/1.8; I'll admit I love shallow DOF. What you really want is the 200/2 and the 70-200 f4 IS.</p>

<p>A wide angle lens is nice too.</p><div></div>

<p>Damn PNET compression...and color cast, wtf?</p>

<p>The 85/1.8 at 1.8 is amazing, sharp and great bokeh. </p><div></div>

<p>I saw one of these being used on the sidelines of the pitch at South Africa's World Cup.</p>

<p>Like the new 135mm F1.8L IS? Or the 300mm f4L IS Mrk2? Or the new 600mm f4L IS Mrk2 with the new 5 stop IS? </p>

<p>Cool.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Correction: Watching.....</p>

<p>Watch France vs. Uruguay online at work, there must be 100k+ of white lenses around the pitch.</p>

<p>Camera manufactures can sell the full frame for more, it has nothing to do with what it costs; cost and worth are not the same.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Shoot RAW, you can convert later and —delete the RAW. Your sample photo is very soft too.</p>

<p><em>A 1-Page manual with usual warnings is the other included item in the box. </em></p>

<p>LOL</p>

<p>Wow you people, the 2.8 is already the slow and light version; the real 200mm is f2.0 at 2.5 kilograms.</p>

<div></div>