"He's [Michael Clarke] on Twitter saying sorry for not walking? Mate if he did that in our side there'd be hell to play. AB would chuck his Twitter box off the balcony or whatever it is. Sorry for not walking? Jesus Christ man."RIP CraigosKnowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad
Prices are so much cheaper.
For example, I plan on getting Lightroom three. Normal price is $A507, but student price is $139.
Look fantastic SJS. What settings did you use on the first one?
Rest In Peace Craigos
"What is this what is this who is this guy shouting what is this going on in here?" - CP. (re: psxpro)
R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
"There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball
The gap between the 55mm and 70mm of you telephoto isn't too many steps on foot though SJS. Am currently considering adding the 17-55mm or 24-70mm f2.8L to my bag at the end of the year (if I can spare the cash)...will probably go for the 24-70mm, but that could change. Could also sell the 70-200mm f4 and move up to an f2.8...am thinking the 24-70 and just getting closer is the way to go though.
Personally I'd go for the 100mm Macro if I were you and just use it as a prime lens to shoot slightly longer distance than the 55mm if you didn't want to lug around the 70-200mm. That way you get a lens you wanted anyway. If you have the cash for the 24-105mm though then I've heard it's also a great lens.
Last edited by Son Of Coco; 27-09-2010 at 09:36 AM.
I wanted the aperture wide open (2.8) at ISO 100. So the speed was pretty fast at 1/1250th of a second.
The second one with the two buds, on the other hand had the flowers in the shade and with the same aperture settings I had an ISO of 500 and a speed of 1/250.
I prefer to shoot the still object shots in the AV mode which allows me to set the aperture and the ISO settings (one can leave the ISO on auto to) while the camera decides the speed.
I have ben thinking a lot about this 24-105 and 24-70 business.
Clearly the 24-70 is the better lens but it really is a focal length range meant for the full frame. For the crop body the wide angle end of 24 (effective 38mm) is too long. I have the 17-55 (effective 27-88) which is really meant for and doing for the crop body what the 24-70 does for the FF. Once I go for a full frame, I will surely buy the 24-70 - hopefully they would have an IS version by then :-)
The 24-105 is a long shot consideration.
My present combinations of 10-22 (effective 16-38) , 17-55 (27-88) and 70-200 (112-320) are good enough to cover any and every exigency once I add a second camera which I am doing next month (a 550D).
My only issue is with a walk around lens. India is a great place for street photography and I find the 17-55 a bit wide even on the crop body and the 70-200 too heavy besides being a bit too long at the lower end of 112 mm effective.
Thus the 24-105 will fill just this one need (if I do buy it). I also like the fact that it has IS. I really appreciate the cutting out of soft photographs from camera shake.
If I had a full frame camera just now, I would not have needed another lens. The 70-200 on a FF is perfect as far as the focal length range is concerned. The weight of course is an issue but what you get performance wise and with its superb third generation image stabiliser would have made it worthwhile but the 70 of the lower end becomes 112 with my 7D and thats a real dampener.
I will get reduced to using the 70-200 for indoor portraits and sports, bird and wildlife stuff only and that would be under utilisation unless I do a lot of that stuff which is not the case right now :-(
I kind of get the argument that the 24-70mm is meant for the full-frame, but it's an argument that still confuses me a little, as basically everything you put on a crop camera is magnified by 1.6. So whether it's the 24-70, the 10-22, the 17-55, the 50mm, the 70-200mm, or anything else, it's focal range will still be magnified by 1.6.
To my way of thinking, if you have a 10-22mm and a 70-200mm then the 24-70mm fits perfectly in between those two. I do understand that, on a crop, the 24-70mm might be a bit too narrow a focal length at some point when you're walking around. But then I guess these are the decisions we make when we choose which lens to use for a certain situation.
The downside to the 24-70mm is that it's pretty heavy by all accounts. I'm not sure, quality-wise, that it's too far ahead of the 24-105mm either. People have written good things about the latter lens.
I think you'll probably find other uses for the 70-200 too SJS, they make for quite nice people shots and if you go to any events they're fantastic. I wish I had one! haha
Last edited by Son Of Coco; 27-09-2010 at 06:15 PM.
President of SKAS - Kat is King | Proud member of CVAAS - One of the best | LRPLTAS - Rosco rocks!
R.I.P. Fardin & Craig
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)