richard_lyman1

<p> So I'm shooting landscapes on the top of a cliff in Maine this weekend when a gust of wind blew over my 5D which was mounted at eye level on a tripod. It fell and landed on it's back the eye piece taking the brunt of the impact. Surface, solid granite. My 17-40L sheared off at the mounting ring bounced a few times and rolled over the edge (900ft.) into oblivion. I was horrified to say the least. I now have a mounting ring with 2 broken plastic tabs and a sheared screw. I found this to be a very odd way to break. When I put my 24-70 on the 5D it read 00 as the f/stop # like it does when no lens is attached. I packed up my gear and hiked down thoroughly depressed, thinking I had lost body and lens.</p>

<p>This morning I examined the damage more closely and there is a deep gouge in the metal above the eye piece. A scuff on the side and a scratch on top LCD. I put the 24-70 on again and at first it felt sticky like it wouldn't fit properly but after a few tries it was operating smoothly, and more importantly the f/stop display was working as was auto-focus. I downloaded the pictures on it then used it all day. It appears to be fine. I'm pretty impressed that it survived a 6ft fall onto solid rock, blown over by a 30 mph gust of wind and had nothing more than cosmetic damage. The 17-40's performance however was less impressive. That thing popped apart like a rotten melon, and it took no direct impact. It's still under warranty but I'm sure Canon wouldn't cover anything like that. I'm going to miss that lens. Any suggestions on a replacement? Maybe a Sigma or something? I'm to disgusted ( mostly ay my own carelessness) right now to drop another seven hundred on another 17-40L.</p>

 

<p>No, I play guitar "righty", throw a ball "lefty" throw a frisbee "righty". It never even occurred to me that cameras were left or right handed. They just are.</p>

<p>Holy Crap, I never noticed this lens has a rear element filter holder! I have to try this! </p>

 

<p>Doug,<br>

Please consider the mountains of coastal Maine, particularly Camden Hills State Park, and Acadia National Park. They have pretty low elevations ,and yet offer unbelievably beautiful and stunning views. Camden Hills has Mount Battie, which has an auto road, roughly 1000 ft. and literally steps from your car you can look straight down over incredible panoramic vistas of Penobscot Bay. I believe Acadia has a similar situation with Cadillac Mt. not sure about an auto road there but the park in general has amazing beauty easily accessible by car. The White Mountains of NH, Green Mountains of Vermont and even the Berkshires in MA are beautiful if not as dramatic as their Western counterparts, but there are many opportunities that could work within your restrictions. Also the Appalachian chain in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, i.e. "The Smokies" are beautiful and have elevations that work within your restrictions. I remember the first time I drove through the Appalachian chain being stunned at how beautiful they were, and thinking "how could I have not known about this, they're right here!" </p>

<p>Additionally, Petite Jean State Park in Arkansas is beautiful and mountainous within your elevation restrictions, many views accessible by car or very close. A little more of a Western feel and has a gorgeous waterfall you might be able to manage, though it's a bit of a hike. Can't recall the exact name of the park, but in Lawton Oklahoma there is an incredible park with Mount Scott. I think it's 1200 ft. and sticks up out of the plains, rugged and a real Western feel. Buffalo living wild in plain sight. I love this place, drive right up and I swear you can see 100 miles!</p>

<p> I can help you out with that Mike. I've got a 5D a 50D and all L glass to play with. I live in Beverly, MA about 20 miles North of Boston. Might have to be on a weekend depending on my schedule. I might be able to save you some time by suggesting you just go for it. Unless a large LCD and the more modern menu system are a big deal, I find the older 5D far better. Depends on your use. If your a landscape guy, just do it. Sports, macro, wildlife 50D may be better. Plenty of beautiful places to shoot around here too. Bring a spare memory card use my 5D and take home your card to see results. You will see a difference!</p>

<p> I'm lucky enough to have a very good camera store nearby here in Massachusetts. Hunt's in Melrose. They are more expensive but not by hundreds. I buy from them because I want there to be a brick and mortar store in existence. Some things I can't buy online based on reviews. A $1500 camera body? I need to access the menu and feel the ergonomics. An $1800 lens? I want to put it on my camera and look through it before I lay out the cash. I can't even imagine buying a camera bag or a tripod without seeing it and trying it. The last camera bag I purchased I brought all my gear in and tried several brands and styles before I found the right one, even then it was a hard decision. The salesman was most gracious. I've purchased items off the internet here and there without incident, but it'll never replace a physical store, well stocked and staffed. I'm willing to pay the extra 5% or so. </p>

<p> I just asked this exact question in the help forum yesterday, check over there:)</p>

<p> Toss the whole box into a wood chipper and record the results with video. Post on YouTube I want to see it!</p>

<p> This release makes no sense to me at all. Why make minimal improvements on a lens that has absolutely stellar performance, when there is a real need for IS on the 24-70 2.8L that people have been complaining about forever. I'm sure they have reasons, but what their customers want apparently isn't one of them. I suppose some one is excited about this, but they'd sell a hell of a lot more 24-70's with IS than they will these. Perhaps I'm over reacting but I actually find this insulting.</p>

<div></div>

<p> Nice work, I like the color tonality which is warm, in what is obviously a cold location. Interesting contrast and nice use of perspective.</p>

<p>Excellent question John, one I've been trying to get to the bottom of myself. Check out this link.<a href="http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/printing-and-output/print-like-ansel-adams.html">Print Like Ansel Adams</a>. I've improved a lot midtone contrast using these suggestions although I'm still skeptical of the whole workflow detailed here.</p>

<p> You really touched on a pet peeve of mine. Be it a house smack in the middle of beautiful landscape. Trash. Cell towers. Lobster pots (Maine). Graffiti on rock formations, and a new one, windmill farms, which I find particularly ugly, despite their benefits, if you're a landscape guy you're going to run into this a lot. Unless you have the resources to travel to remote locations, you have limited options on what to do about it. As others have suggested above, creative framing, just making the intrusive object the subject, or editing are your only options. I don't go crazy with Photoshop, but I have learned to appreciate it's value. I do not find it morally reprehensible to digitally remove trash from a photo. Putting it there in the first place is what I have a problem with. JDM states it eloquently...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I prefer to think of it as restoring the natural balance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> For the life of me I can't understand why using the current tools and technology to achieve a desired artistic result is considered some form of deception. In art school we called this " artistic license". I had no objections to it as a painter with brush and canvas, and I have no objection to it with a camera and software. It's all a means to an end and how you got there is only relevant to you, the curious, and those who love talk s@#$. The only acception is advertising, journalism and science, where accuracy is crucial. Visual manipulation is as old as sight. If the scene isn't what you visualized, slap on a 70-200, and change your visualization. Adapt to the scene. If you can't then find a new location.</p>

<p> Thanks Fred, I wasn't using another program but trying to quote another poster within the same thread. I'm aware of the double RETURN key to separate paragraphs.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Then put your cursor anywhere within the text of the paragraph you want to become a BLOCK QUOTE and hit the quote marks in the menu bar. That should turn ONLY that paragraph into a block quote, with a gray background.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK I got it now. Thanks Fred!</p>

<p> O.K. I'm feeling really stupid right now, but I can not figure out the block quote option when posting in the forums. I ran a quick search in this forum but nothing that specifically addressed my question. I tried highlighting the text I wanted to quote and copying it. I ended up with all the text that I had written block quoted. What exactly is the proper procedure for performing this seemingly simple task? I tried every possible combination I could think of but the results were always a mess of things I didn't want quoted, quoted, and vise-versa. Thanks for your assistance.</p>

<div></div>

<p>5-D (I think the D is for dust), Blow it off just about every trip, deal with the rest in PS. 50D none at all, but it's a backup and doesn't get the use.</p>

<p>I run into this problem occasionally too, I usually opt to keep the horizon level and let any man made false horizons be askew. The first two work for me the third looks incorrect.</p>

<p> Everyone... I laughed so hard through all of your responses, it was very therapuetic. Thanks for all the input. It is good to know that other people deal with s*** like this too.</p>

<p>I want to respond to everyone, but my time is limited. It seems The Tamron is the leading contender for me right now. That focal range is where I narurally shoot and I desperately need something to fit the bill. I'll upgrade later after I complete this recovery program for people who spend money irrationally. Thanks for the support.<br>

Richard</p>

<p>Ed, you know I was researching those a few months ago and couldn't find them in stock anywhere, are they easier to find now?</p>

<p>Thomas, heh heh, I do live in SW Florida the natural habitat of the cougar! Unfortunately I don't drive a convertable Corvette, or Mercedes which seems to be the required bait.</p>

<p> Paul, exactly, I more than paid for my half and in fact had loaned her money several times to the tune of nearly a thousand dollars. That was irrelevant though because being female she assumed she was right and I'm an idiot on whatever topic was under discussion. She actually accused me once of neglecting our relationship and being grossly irresponsible because I left I light on. I was threatening the financial stability of the kids we don't have, the marriage that didn't exist, for a college fund for them that..... my god I can't even discuss it. Needless to say she was not quite right in the head and I'm better off with just my camera.</p>

<p>Well this is the Canon forum so to bring it back on topic, yeah I'd love that 5DII, but everything I mentioned I purchased this year, I started out with a 450D and a kit lens, perhaps she has a point! At any rate I'm happy with my bodies for now, but that gap in my focal range bugs me and I'm barely surviving after taking a massive paycut a few weeks back. A 5DII at $2700 is out of the question right now. I really need to fill that gap in the middle of my focal range, but I don't want to put a s*** lens on my 5D as the 50D is serving backup and telephoto use for now.</p>

<p> Bob, never owned a Tamron or Sigma, but have put them on my camera in stores, they seem well made and at $420 if it's even near comparable IQ (I hate that term sorry) that would be the answer.</p>

<p>Mike, damn straight doesn't nag either!</p>

<p>Scott, yeah but the 24-105 is still a grand unless I've missed something and I hear it's not that great at the wide end. Why the hell won't Canon make a 24-70 ish 2.8 with IS in the L series? Why Canon, why?</p>

<p>Steve, now there's an angle I hadn't considered. But what if she wanted to borrow my 70-200 in return?</p>

<p> I have a 5D and a 50D, with a 70-200 2.8L, 50mm 1.8, and a 17-40 f4 L. Obviously I need the middle focal range and if I had the loot I'd be at B&H right now getting the 24-70 f2.8 L. However, I spent so much money on camera gear this year it literally ended a 5 year realationship with my now x girlfriend. But to hell with her, I need a lens for that middle focal range and even I can't justify another grand for L glass. Any suggestions on a cheaper alternative in a roughly equivalent focal range to the 24-70? I'm looking for a sharp lens with with a constant 2.8. or something of the sort. Sorry for another which friggin lens should I buy post.....</p>

<p> Hmmm, sounds like a pretty good plan except that I agree with John that the difference between 105 and 135 is not worth it. I like his suggestion of the 70-200 f4L but that's probably going to put you over budget with the 17-50 /2.8 but not by much as long as you don't get the IS version. There's always the 70-300 4.5/5.6 IS, that's a decent lens, won't blow your socks off, but it's not bad at all. You'll need good light for any of these telephotos though. The Canon 50mm 1.8 is a really sharp lens for an incredible price might want to try that too.</p>

<p> I think Canon makes a 55-200 but I've never heard anything about it, so I'm assuming that no news is not good news.</p>

<p> I just did a friends wedding for $300. I guess I'm the "friend who is good with a camera". I told the couple I am not a professional and have never shot a wedding before. They insisted I do it anyway. At least I have semi-pro gear and put a lot of thought and preparation into it. Did my work rival a seasoned pro's? Of course not, but the results were very good, the couple was ecstatic and I got paid for doing something I love. Everybody was happy in this case. I hardly think they'll be sueing me for bad pictures.</p>