david_huff1

<p>I recently purchased the Leica V-Lux 20 (used it while on a horse) and it is fantastic. The Canon D10 is great for rugged stuff and around (in) water. All that said, I lug my Mark IV basically everywhere - it is worth the hassle.</p>

I am on the endless quest for the perfect bag. Despite a closet full, I haven't found it yet; however the new think tank

retrospective line is as close as I have come. Good luck with your travels.

<p>I own both the 7d and 5dMkII. The 7d stays home. That said, I think the build quality for outdoor photography of the 7d is better than the 5d which is something you may want to factor. But, if you want to do landscapes or low light, the 5d is the choice. </p>

<p>This is perhaps by favorite nude image I have seen on PN:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/10391730">http://www.photo.net/photo/10391730</a><br>

And, here is my favorite "naked" image I have seen on PN:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/10399451">http://www.photo.net/photo/10399451</a><br>

There is an amazing power reflected in each image and inescapable beauty of extraordinary depth, but only one woman is really naked - and obviously, she is clothed.<br>

After reading Julie's insightful contributions, I visited her homepage and I found this on her blog from a few days ago:<br>

In the poetry contest in China by which the Sixth Patriarch of Zen Buddhism was chosen, there were two poems. One said: “The mind is like a mirror. It collects dust. The problem is to remove the dust.” The other and winning poem was actually a reply to the first. It said, “Where is the mirror and where is the dust?”<br>

So, in response to your initial question Lanny, I think the second poet offers the answer. In all of this there is incredible art ... if one is only willing to look. Thanks for the engaging topic.</p>

<p>Yep. Nothing like Christmas in July.</p>

<p>Thanks John, I hadn't seen that thread until now. That was helpful.</p>

<p>Thank you for your views. In response to the body question, I shoot off both a 5D Mark II and a 1D Mark IV if that helps frame your view. My original thinking was towards the 24mm but I still welcome any further views on either. </p>

<p>I think I am ready to take the next step into tilt shift. Looking for views on whether to get the TS-E 17mm f/4L or TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. I am an advanced amateur that enjoys travel/architectural photography. Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Here is what I would do: I would buy the 7D ($1699). I have owned both the 40D and 50D and, although fine cameras, you will be thankful you made the 7D choice due to superior build quality, peformance and versatility over these other two models. I would then buy the 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM (definately the IS version) ($1350) along with the EF 1.4x II Extender ($300). I know that is a little over your budget right now, but in my view this is the best combo for what you describe. I have owned this lens and extender as well as the discussed 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. The down-sides to the 100-400 are comparitive weight and performance, which I know there is a difference of opinon on, but I find to be less than other excellent Canon lenses. When you are able to save a little more, then perhaps add the 10-22. Good luck.</p>

<p>It's heavy and expensive, but if limited to one lens, then I would take the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM. Of course, I would find a way to bring two lens or more ... (and definately include the 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM).</p>

<p>I use the 5d Mark II and have used both the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 lenses. Both are great, but I decided to put up with the extra weight, use the f/2.8, and I love it (mother-in-law got the f/4). Add the 1.4x extender for great results as well and then you have a very versitile 2 (and a half) lens package. <br>

If you just stick with the one lens, I do believe you will be quickly frustrated by focal length when photographing your kids playing sports.<br>

I also have the 100-400 lens. It is very heavy and in my view it does not hold up to the 70-200 f/2.8 even when this lens is used with the extender.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your comments, and especially C U's link to the 500 v. 600 article which I found very helpful. After listening to your comments and studying further, I am now leaning towards the 500, but still have an open mind.<br>

Arash - I look to shoot landscapes primarily, but also enjoy animals and to a lesser extent, birds.</p>

<p>I am a work-in-progress amatuer photographer and I use a 5D Mark II. For my longer range nature shots I have been using the 100-400mm lens with 2x II extender. Having just returned from Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons (and some frustration over light, softness and reach), I believe it is time to make the leap to super telephoto. I would welcome your view on which to purchase:<br>

(A) EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM;<br>

(B) EF 500mm f/4L IS USM; or,<br>

© EF 600mm f/4L IS USM?<br>

My preference would be the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM because of the lower light advantage, however, questions about the true gain over my current lens set-up as well as the appeal of the 600mm reach with the 2x II extender is causing me pause. (Price is not my primary consideration.)<br>

Thanks in advance and I welcome your view.</p>