What camera do you own?

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by SJS

I have just bought the f/2.8 Mk II so I would strongly urge you to consider the f/4 not just because it costs half but also because it weighs half !!

By all accounts it is a great lens.

If you go with the f/2.8 (either version though MkII is heavier) be prepared to carry your tripod with you all the time if you are going to carry it outdoors.

I already have the 15-55 IS and the gap between 55mm and the 70 of my 70-200 is great yet I am considering buying a 24-105 for many occasions when I may not want to lug the one and a half kilo of 70-200 along.

I would strongly suggest renting both the lenses (f2.8 and f4) and trying them out for a couple of days each extensively before deciding.

Mark II is a little out of my price range at the moment, and by all accounts (Canon photography forums) the Mark I 2.8 produces some very good images. Not too worried about the weight, I'll buy a monopod and tripod anyway though.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by SJS

How much is the student price ? And who is eligible ?

Will depend on your country mate. But in Australia, for instance, you are eligible basically if your a student or teacher, at any level, as long as your degree/course is longer than 6 months.

Prices are so much cheaper.

For example, I plan on getting Lightroom three. Normal price is $A507, but student price is $139.

Education Software

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Got_Spin

Mark II is a little out of my price range at the moment, and by all accounts (Canon photography forums) the Mark I 2.8 produces some very good images. Not too worried about the weight, I'll buy a monopod and tripod anyway though.

If weight doesn't bother you sure go for the f/2.8. Mk I is a very very good lens. It is so good that most people felt it couldn't be bettered.

[pasag]

Look fantastic SJS. What settings did you use on the first one?

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by SJS

If weight doesn't bother you sure go for the f/2.8. Mk I is a very very good lens. It is so good that most people felt it couldn't be bettered.

All I needed to hear

Don't think weight will be too much of an issue since most of my shots are taken in the one or two same spots with pretty much no walking around while shooting involved. - Plan to do mostly surfing and landscape shots

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by SJS

Why does photoshop cost the earth ?

I have no idea!

You probably only need Elements though, not the full program. How much does elements cost out of interest?

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by SJS

I have just bought the f/2.8 Mk II so I would strongly urge you to consider the f/4 not just because it costs half but also because it weighs half !!

By all accounts it is a great lens.

If you go with the f/2.8 (either version though MkII is heavier) be prepared to carry your tripod with you all the time if you are going to carry it outdoors.

I already have the 15-55 IS and the gap between 55mm and the 70 of my 70-200 is great yet I am considering buying a 24-105 for many occasions when I may not want to lug the one and a half kilo of 70-200 along.

I would strongly suggest renting both the lenses (f2.8 and f4) and trying them out for a couple of days each extensively before deciding.

I've got the f4, it's argued in some camera forums that the f4's are actually the sharpest of the 70-200mm Canon lenses, but I'd go for an f2.8 if I had the choice (and money) again...there have been a few occasions where I've been at festivals or concerts and the f4 just isn't enough to get shots of performers without them blurring. It' s a great lens for taking shots during the day though.

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.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Langeveldt

Nice shots mate, I particularly like this one. The light pole directly behind is a little bit distracting though, it's unfortunate as he's in the perfect spot...and so is the pole!

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by NZTailender

Been meaning to post some photos for a fair while now...



Film scanner at school hasn't been cleaned properly in 5 years it seems...

Nice mate! Really like this one, it looks like the forest is on fire! (It's not is it!?)

Are these with a holga?

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by SJS

By the way, I tried to do some close up (not macro) work with my 70-200 since I do not have a macro lens. The results were not bad and could have been better if I had a tripod.

Very nice SJS, really like this one with the colours and the drop through the leaf.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by pasag

Look fantastic SJS. What settings did you use on the first one?

Thats an interesting one. The light was very bright for a change in Shillong where it is cloudy 95% of the time and I had the sun at my back so the flower was very well lit.

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.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

I've got the f4, it's argued in some camera forums that the f4's are actually the sharpest of the 70-200mm Canon lenses, but I'd go for an f2.8 if I had the choice (and money) again...there have been a few occasions where I've been at festivals or concerts and the f4 just isn't enough to get shots of performers without them blurring. It' s a great lens for taking shots during the day though.

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.

I am definitely going to buy the 100mm macro but want to go with the extension tubes first (maybe on my 50mm f/1.8 or the 17-55) but the Kenko tubes I ordered hadn't arrived by the time I left for Shillong. In fact they came today and those idiots have sent me those meant for Nikon :-(

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 :-(

[Son Of Coco]

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

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Langeveldt

I usually hate taking photos of people, but I need more strings to my bow as a photographer..

Lovely !!

[NZTailender]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Nice mate! Really like this one, it looks like the forest is on fire! (It's not is it!?)

Are these with a holga?

Yup, that was with a Holga. Loaded a 35mm film the wrong way round so it was being exposed through the emulsion, which gave everything a redscaled effect.