dhhensler

<p>The recently released Canon S90, which is comparable to the G11, minus the hotshoe and half the size, also allows RAW capture. Cheers!</p>

<p>Buy the new Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with VC (Vibration Control)... You'll get the fast 2.8 you want and the luxury of the VC or IS which isn't on the 17-35... Total cost about 650... Good luck, Cheers!</p>

<p>Ashley,<br>

I second Gil's recommendation of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with VC. I've had this lens about 2 weeks and can't imagine not owning it. Good luck! Cheers!</p>

<p>Daniel, <br>

I second the apparent consensus about a 100mm length being more practical than 60mm. To offer a budget concious solution, I would recommend you at least consider the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro. Gets good reviews for the price. Cheers!</p>

<p>Henry,<br>

I have not had the luxury of using this lens. Also, I think that you mean the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Being that this lens is EF-S, it is not compatable with FF EOS cameras. What camera do you currently own? An alternate lens would be the recently released Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with VC (Tamron's version of IS). Cheers!</p>

<p>I simply love that both Adorama and B&H have people who monitor the forums for these types of issues. Just another reason I keep going back to both of these suppliers for all my photography needs. Thanks Adorama & B&H!</p>

<p>Just to echo what Dan says...learn to master the "M" on your 450D.. That is the key to unlocking the photog within! Cheers and good luck!</p>

<p>I don't have it on my 40D, but the more and more my wife asks me about getting a video camera for our nieces birthday parties and our international travel the more I'm curious about it. I do agree that trying to be a still and video photographer at a wedding seems beyond daunting to the point of inane... but whatever the client wants is the motto of some.. Cheers!</p>

<p>I'm sure more seasoned photogs will weigh in with much better input, but I'm wondering if the DOF difference between 2.8 and 4.0 is the root behind what you're seeing? Not sure.</p>

<p>RT,<br>

I think the 85 f/1.8 fits in as it is fast, and on the 1.6 it is about as close as you can get to the traditional portrait lens. Many consider it one of Canon's hidden L lenses. Good luck! Cheers!</p>

<p>It wouldn't be a stretch to assume those kids are going to take some of the lessons you've taught them with them for the rest of their lives. Thank you for being a good role model and mentor to such deserving young people. Congratulations!</p>

<p>Tamron introduced the 17-50 f/2.8 with VC (Vibration Control) for 650. I got my copy on Monday but haven't been able to get out of the office before dark yet this week. Not sure if many would consider 27'ish "wide" on a 1.6, but it was a logical step for me at least.</p>

<p>They seem a tad underexposed, but otherwise nice action shots. Just my two cents. Cheers!</p>

<p>Ah yes, whenever a lens recommendation is needed the "L" proponent come out in force oblivious to the fact that most non-pro's will never be able to afford such luxuries. However, we need more info. What does she have now and what is your budget. Cheers!</p>

<p>Avijit,<br>

I just received my copy of the 17-50 VC last night. I have never used the 17-55 before so I cannot speak to it's quality, although it seems to be highly regarded on Pnet. I wasn't able last night to take many test shots with the 17-50, but I hope to have some up by the weekend. However, I felt the build quality seemed decent to good and the lens felt nice in my hands. Not sure this helps, but I wish you luck in your choice. Cheers!<br>

-David</p>

<p>Just to weigh in. I bought a refurbished 40D from Adorama back in February. 20,000+ actuations later and the only problem is the beginnings of the dreaded shutter release button stick. I'll probably send it into Canon when I can no longer deal with the frustration. However, I'm immensley satisfied with the refurbished route and with Adorama in general. </p>

<p>Yeah, his work was the topic of another post a few weeks ago. <br>

http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00Uni8</p>

<p>Man, I hope he got the name and number of that leopard seal... cause if she isn't busy she can come feed me whenever she wants! hahahaha</p>

<p>My Tamron 17-50 VC just shipped from B&H... Should be here early next week! I'll post up some samples and give my less-than-expert opinion later on!</p>

<p>I wish I had that much "decent equipment".... LOL...</p>

<p>Agree with previous posters, seems this is more an exposure issue than it is white balance. The lesson reading many Pnet forums has taught me is always expose to the right, you can recover the shadows later, but don't blow the highlights. At least I hope I got that right! Cheers!</p>

<p>Another vote for Lightroom over any of the Photoshop suite.. Once you've mastered Lightroom, you'll probably want Photoshop anyway. Good luck.</p>

<p>I've used my local Costco before for some quick and dirty 4x6's my wife wanted and didn't have any problems with them changing the tones or using auto correction software. Has anyone else had good luck with a printer that is ubiquitious to all of us? Cheers!<br>

David</p>

<p>Martin,<br>

Is that the default setting for "Burn full-size JPEGs", because I have used the feature a few times and my photos were sRGB? Or it is possible that I changed the default. Now I'm not sure! Sorry for the digression.<br /> <br /> I get the idea that the OP may not be saving new versions out of Lightroom, but instead just using the same files in Windows Viewer?</p>

<p>Mostly center point, but occasionally I'll let the camera pick. Like Scott above, I like to focus, lock, and continue with my exposure settings. It all depends. </p>