For fish

gus · January 23, 2005

Mate if your quick...you will be able to see the top 5 photos here. If it 24 hours old it goes to thumbnail.

All are canon 70-200 F2.8 L with 2x TC...

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=12999

gus · January 23, 2005

Or mate you could just cough up $1K for a canon 400 prime (they are still white you know) . Just have a look at the low light & shutter speeds this guy is pulling

specialy that red one of the kite surfer.

Samples : EF 400mm f5.6 L USM

http://www.pbase.com/aloha_frances/400_l_56

Same again but with a 1.4 TC (talk about bang for buck)

http://www.pbase.com/ricardomaui/400mm_plus_14_tc

.

Andy · January 23, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Or mate you could just cough up $1K for a canon 400 prime (they are still white you know) . Just have a look at the low light & shutter speeds this guy is pulling specialy that red one of the kite surfer.

Samples : EF 400mm f5.6 L USM

http://www.pbase.com/aloha_frances/400_l_56

Same again but with a 1.4 TC (talk about bang for buck)

http://www.pbase.com/ricardomaui/400mm_plus_14_tc

.

the sailboarders are ok... the bird is o.e. and he's got a bit of spy shooter in him

gus · January 23, 2005

andy wrote:

the sailboarders are ok... the bird is o.e. and he's got a bit of spy shooter in him

what do you mean 'spy shooter' andy ? taking pics of girls ?

Andy · January 23, 2005

Humungus wrote:

what do you mean 'spy shooter' andy ? taking pics of girls ?

yeah, i mean that's just voyeur shooting, kinda silly imo..

wxwax · January 23, 2005

Humungus wrote:

what do you mean 'spy shooter' andy ? taking pics of girls ?

One thing to remember, there's a reason why the faster lenses are more expensive. Take that 400 5.6, add a 1.4x, and try shooting in heavy overcast. No-way you can get those crisp shots, IMHO. You'll be lucky if they're in focus. I've put a 1.4x on a 300 f4 and had a terrible time with autofocus in a fast moving game with mildly overcast skies. Even the 300 f4 by itself is no picnic for sports. The extra light a 2.8 lens gives you can make a big difference.

gus · January 23, 2005

andy wrote:

yeah, i mean that's just voyeur shooting, kinda silly imo..

Yeah... not my cup of tea either. But the others are worth getting some info out of.

Just to confuse the issue more fish.
http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=7391

gus · January 23, 2005

wxwax wrote:

The GDP of a mid sized pacific nation a 2.8 lens gives you can make a big difference.

fixed it for you mate

At least drugos can buy their stuff..we however just window shop.

wxwax · January 23, 2005

Humungus wrote:

fixed it for you mate At least drugos can buy their stuff..we however just window shop.

I know. That's why I'm cursing your name. You're making me think about things I don't want to think about. 2.8 prime is out of reach. And I know the limitations of the slower lenses, wouldn't be happy. But Yosemite and a tripod are on my mind.

gus · January 23, 2005

wxwax wrote:

I know. That's why I'm cursing your name. You're making me think about things I don't want to think about. 2.8 prime is out of reach. And I know the limitations of the slower lenses, wouldn't be happy. But Yosemite and a tripod are on my mind.

Tripod ?...ha...im using fish's head.

gus · January 23, 2005

You dont have to be a 'red ring'd white lens' snob waxy

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4687&item=3868457015&rd=1&tc=photo

I have read good things about it.

.

gus · January 23, 2005

Come on mate...just imagine those littl' birds in this...& look at how cheap it is.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=48552&item=3868353068&rd=1&tc=photo

.

Andy · January 23, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Come on mate...just imagine those littl' birds in this...& look at how cheap it is.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=48552&item=3868353068&rd=1&tc=photo

.

'gus... may i make a suggestion? get your 20d, and a coupla lenses.. like a 17-40 f/4L, a 50 f/1.4 for lowlight, and maybe a 28-135 i.s. for walking around... when you get to yosemite, you can try out any number of lenses from the heaps of glass that we'll all be carrying

gus · January 23, 2005

andy wrote:

'gus... may i make a suggestion? get your 20d, and a coupla lenses.. like a 17-40 f/4L, a 50 f/1.4 for lowlight, and maybe a 28-135 i.s. for walking around... when you get to yosemite, you can try out any number of lenses from the heaps of glass that we'll all be carrying

Mate i will do something & im not know to do things by halves. Im going to see the bank just before i leave. Dead a long time 'eh !

Just happy bouncing around in waxys head atm.

fish · January 23, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Mate if your quick...you will be able to see the top 5 photos here. If it 24 hours old it goes to thumbnail.

All are canon 70-200 F2.8 L with 2x TC...

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=12999

Nice shots. It's a great lens...no question about it. It's going to take me awhile to get my skills up to the point where I can fully exploit it.

fish · January 23, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Tripod ?...ha...im using fish's head.

That's what YOU think.

luckyrwe · January 23, 2005

andy wrote:

'gus... may i make a suggestion? get your 20d, and a coupla lenses.. like a 17-40 f/4L, a 50 f/1.4 for lowlight, and maybe a 28-135 i.s. for walking around... when you get to yosemite, you can try out any number of lenses from the heaps of glass that we'll all be carrying

I notice there is no mention of 1Ds camera bodies in there...

Andy · January 23, 2005

luckyrwe wrote:

I notice there is no mention of 1Ds camera bodies in there...

well, yeah, he started thinking rebel about a moon ago... so we've moved him up somewhat

pathfinder · January 23, 2005

andy wrote:

'gus... may i make a suggestion? get your 20d, and a coupla lenses.. like a 17-40 f/4L, a 50 f/1.4 for lowlight, and maybe a 28-135 i.s. for walking around... when you get to yosemite, you can try out any number of lenses from the heaps of glass that we'll all be carrying

Andy - Can 'gus be assured of this list of stuff being available on demand in the store when he arrives in SF? Some of Canon's lenses and bodies can be hard to find in the local photo stores and some are not always in stock even at B&H or Adorama. I would hate for 'gus to arrive anticipating purchasing "x" and not finding it in the store. Should he perhaps make his arrangements via mail or phone before he leaves Oz so there is no disappointment? Fish - are you sure everything is available locally in SF? What if he wanted a Tamron 200-500 Di lens for EOS mount?

And yes, I am sure 'gus will be able to try out most of Canon's lens lineup while he is in Yosemite.

GREAPER · January 23, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Mate i will do something & im not know to do things by halves. Im going to see the bank just before i leave. Dead a long time 'eh !

Just happy bouncing around in waxys head atm.

I would like to point out a couple of things Humungus. Even though there have been some great wildlife shots posted here recently from yosemite, When I was there last year the only wildlife I saw was a couple of scraggly deer eating near the gift shop and a brief sighting of a coyote playin in traffic.

What you will see at yosemite are narrow canyons with imposing peaks, waterfalls of various sizes, breathtaking rivers, forests and cliff faces. cascading streams, winding roads and other beautiful scenic sights.

The widest lens I had with me was 28 to 80 mm zoom. I will not make that mistake this time. The valleys are narrow and the cliffs are high. If you want that great reflection in mirror lake, you better have somthin wide.

pathfinder · January 23, 2005

GREAPER wrote:

I would like to point out a couple of things Humungus. Even though there have been some great wildlife shots posted here recently from yosemite, When I was there last year the only wildlife I saw was a couple of scraggly deer eating near the gift shop and a brief sighting of a coyote playin in traffic.

What you will see at yosemite are narrow canyons with imposing peaks, waterfalls of various sizes, breathtaking rivers, forests and cliff faces. cascading streams, winding roads and other beautiful scenic sights.

The widest lens I had with me was 28 to 80 mm zoom. I will not make that mistake this time. The valleys are narrow and the cliffs are high. If you want that great reflection in mirror lake, you better have somthin wide.

17mm? or wider still?

GREAPER · January 23, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

17mm? or wider still?

I'm hoping 17 will do because nothing wider is in my price range.

I have about three choices at my local shop I am looking at everytime I go in, but I haven't decided which one yet. I need the cash first....

fish · January 23, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

Fish - are you sure everything is available locally in SF? What if he wanted a Tamron 200-500 Di lens for EOS mount?

I don't know about SF...unlike Andy, I'm not a big city kinda guy. However, I'll be happy to buy it all at San Jose Camera for him and tote it over to Yosemite.

Or...he can use my ship-to address if he wants to order from bhphoto.com.

However I can help out, I'll be glad to do so.

fish · January 23, 2005

andy wrote:

'gus... may i make a suggestion? get your 20d, and a coupla lenses.. like a 17-40 f/4L, a 50 f/1.4 for lowlight, and maybe a 28-135 i.s. for walking around... when you get to yosemite, you can try out any number of lenses from the heaps of glass that we'll all be carrying

I kinda agree....but kinda not.

Definitely get the 20D...that's a no-brainer. I'd skip the 50/1.4, but you'll need a lens or two for shooting. The 28-135 IS is an okay lens, but it's not an "investment", if you know what I mean. If you can swing it, I'd recommend the Canon 24-70/2.8L as your primary lens. If you really want to cheap-out, I'll sell you my Tamron 28-75/2.8 (see flea market). I'd personally skip the 17-40...I'm not that impressed with it. If you want to get a long lens, you're going to have to think hard about it. I'd recommend the 70-200/2.8L IS, but it's going to cost more than the 20D body. As andy mentioned, I'm sure you'll be able to try out a bunch of lenses at Yosemite, but don't waste your money on cheap crap.

Sorry if this comes off as brusque, but I'm still hurtin' over my iPhoto adventure. Plus I got a nail in my RT's rear tire today. :cry

Andy · January 23, 2005

fish wrote:

I kinda agree....but kinda not.

Definitely get the 20D...that's a no-brainer. I'd skip the 50/1.4, but you'll need a lens or two for shooting. The 28-135 IS is an okay lens, but it's not an "investment", if you know what I mean. If you can swing it, I'd recommend the Canon 24-70/2.8L as your primary lens. If you really want to cheap-out, I'll sell you my Tamron 28-75/2.8 (see flea market). I'd personally skip the 17-40...I'm not that impressed with it. If you want to get a long lens, you're going to have to think hard about it. I'd recommend the 70-200/2.8L IS, but it's going to cost more than the 20D body. As andy mentioned, I'm sure you'll be able to try out a bunch of lenses at Yosemite, but don't waste your money on cheap crap.

i sugg the 28-135 becuase 'gus is, after all, on "scholarship"

.. seriously, the 24-70L *much better* gus and go for it, but the 28-135 is an incredibly useful lens, i've gotten superb results with it. and for $350 it's a steal (see flea market

)

now... as to the 17-40 f/4L... please, take a look at mahesh thapa's galleries he shoots mostly with this lens, now on a 1Ds Mark II. for wide, it's a great value.

mahesh. 'nuff said on the 17-40L

fish wrote:

Sorry if this comes off as brusque, but I'm still hurtin' over my iPhoto adventure. Plus I got a nail in my RT's rear tire today. :cry

$5 says sid pops in with a wise-ass comment about this

gus · January 23, 2005

Ok..flights booked

via NZ

(for 3 whole hours)

Tks fish on the offer to get my stuff for me. I have completely changed course midstream now that im off to the US & gear is cheap & this is an opportunity to do something ive only threatened my family with...buy decent gear.

My father always said "Its only expensive if you have to buy it twice" so i need some serious finance shuffling to happen here before i go. If i decide on some 'big' gear fish.. i will paypal you (i will have to get an account 1st) & would be greatfull of your offer to drive it up to yosemite for me whilst i bash mailboxes with a baseball bat from the window of daves rental SUV.

I just went to a shop & saw a nikkor f2.8 300mm...(not that ive decided on nikon at all) but man...the sheer size if it

I saw tripods there for $1K fer christ sake. Didnt know it gets as bad as that. Not one 20D in town to look at but felt a D70...felt reeeaaalll gooood.

Andy...front & centre ...................................with cap !

whats wrong with the EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 you suggested the other day ? I took a good look at it & i do like a wide shot.

gus · January 23, 2005

GREAPER wrote:

I would like to point out a couple of things Humungus. Even though there have been some great wildlife shots posted here recently from yosemite, When I was there last year the only wildlife I saw was a couple of scraggly deer eating near the gift shop and a brief sighting of a coyote playin in traffic.

What you will see at yosemite are narrow canyons with imposing peaks, waterfalls of various sizes, breathtaking rivers, forests and cliff faces. cascading streams, winding roads and other beautiful scenic sights.

The widest lens I had with me was 28 to 80 mm zoom. I will not make that mistake this time. The valleys are narrow and the cliffs are high. If you want that great reflection in mirror lake, you better have somthin wide.

I was actually thinking this greaper from the shots ive seen of the place on the net. I really like a wide angle but they can be a bit of a luxury not unlike a fisheye dont you think ?

What do you recommend ?

gus · January 24, 2005

Ok...now to really show my ignorance.

Speed of the glass aside...why wouldnt you buy a 17-85 over a 17-40 ? I mean it has both the wide & more than twice the reach ?

fish · January 24, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Tks fish on the offer to get my stuff for me. I have completely changed course midstream now that im off to the US & gear is cheap & this is an opportunity to do something ive only threatened my family with...buy decent gear. My father always said "Its only expensive if you have to buy it twice"

Your dad's a smart man.

Not one 20D in town to look at but felt a D70...felt reeeaaalll gooood.

I don't really care whether you buy Canon or Nikon...you have to buy what feels right. I highly recommend you fondle a Canon side-by-side with a Nikon before making a decision. I'd personally recommend Canon, but it's your money.

If you decide to go Canon, here's what you should plan for:

Canon 20D body $1,379.95 (now at bhphoto)
Canon 24-70/2.8L $1,139.95 ($45 rebate on top)
Canon 77mm UV-1 filter $34.95

Subtotal $2,554.85

Shipping to me $28.55 (ups 3day)
===============================
Total $2,583.40 USD

Add about $100 to the body price if you want the 18-55 kit lens. And you'll need some sort of bag, of course.

Seamus · January 24, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Ok...now to really show my ignorance.

Speed of the glass aside...why wouldnt you buy a 17-85 over a 17-40 ? I mean it has both the wide & more than twice the reach ?

I'm interested in this reply as I'm thinking along the same lines, why buy a 17-40 and a 24-70 when one lens could do the job.

review here:

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-location.shtml

Andy · January 24, 2005

17--85
the 17-85 is okay but it's not fast, so they added i.s. i've not used it, but seen plenty of pics. i'd stay a way.

For fish

Comments