Any photographers in here?

[judman13]

Look like Ken Block edition shoes lol

 

[Outlawstar98]

Yep they are I LOVE them! Im thinking about buying another pair.... no lie...

 

[FunkyBuddha]

well, I just called B&H and ordered my new 55-250 lens. if I'm not happy, I blame you guys.

Ha..I didn't say anything. I told you to get the 70-200 F4 IS haha.

 

[AllyMazda3]

well, I just called B&H and ordered my new 55-250 lens. if I'm not happy, I blame you guys.

the canon 55-250IS? i have it. use it all the time.

 

[judman13]

You should post in here more often ally.

 

[Breeegz]

+1

 

[gr?]

what do you guys think of this lens? I want to get a decent telephoto zoom for nature photography and other general use.

You're better off waiting & saving for the 70-200 4.0L non IS. Buy used and save a few bucks. You'll appreciate the constant max aperture regardless of the focal length. You can't beat the sharp images from any of the Canon 70-200 lenses, in addition to the quick autofocus, minimal chromatic aberration and vignetting.

 

[kickniteasy]

Well after a lot of research and time fretting I've decided to get the Nikon D90 instead of the D300. I just can't justify the $700 extra. I'm picking up a D90 and Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 HSM lens and am still coming in $300 less than just the D300, lol. I can't wait for the new toys to arrive.

 

[FlyinHawaiian]

You're better off waiting & saving for the 70-200 4.0L non IS. Buy used and save a few bucks. You'll appreciate the constant max aperture regardless of the focal length. You can't beat the sharp images from any of the Canon 70-200 lenses, in addition to the quick autofocus, minimal chromatic aberration and vignetting.

Only think I didn't like about the 70-200 when I used it was the lack of telephoto flexibility. Personally, because I'm mostly a noob and need the least number of lenses to do the most jobs, I prefer a wide telescopic range. 70-200 was just too narrow for me. As of now I'd prefer to get a better short-lens anyways. Any suggestions?

 

[not yellow]

some good old 35mm film.

italy

san francisco

london

 

[FlyinHawaiian]

I may have mentioned that I am working in Washington DC now. I take the train in every morning and between that and walking around the city, I get to see some cool things:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/25174230@N03/3767099749/" title="DC Architecture by flyinhawaiian071, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3564/3767099749_54c556fdd8.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="DC Architecture" /></a>

The Amtrak Acela
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/25174230@N03/3767145607/" title="Twin Bullets by flyinhawaiian071, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3572/3767145607_7a6fe4fa94.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Twin Bullets" /></a>

A little history about the next picture:

The NS 30 car is an office car for Norfolk Southern. It is a heavyweight observation car built in January, 1927 by the Pullman Company. The car was used by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he was governor of New York and later during his presidency. Central of Georgia Railroad bought the car in 1944 and named it Savannah. Norfolk Southern acquired the car, named it back to Marco Polo and parked it where it resides in Washington DC's Union Station.

I need to retake this photo to get it a bit more sharp. I look like a weirdo, dressed in my suit taking pictures with a tiny PnS of an old railcar, just after getting off the commuter train... But who cares when the setting is THAT cool?

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/25174230@N03/3767944448/" title="Sitting in Waiting by flyinhawaiian071, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3442/3767944448_abcb919eb2.jpg" width="333" height="500" alt="Sitting in Waiting" /></a>

 

[gr?]

Only think I didn't like about the 70-200 when I used it was the lack of telephoto flexibility. Personally, because I'm mostly a noob and need the least number of lenses to do the most jobs, I prefer a wide telescopic range. 70-200 was just too narrow for me. As of now I'd prefer to get a better short-lens anyways. Any suggestions?

Problem solved. (and carry a 2nd body with a wide angle zoom )

Ultra wide, wide zoom, prime?

 

[FlyinHawaiian]

I wish I had money... Why do I have such expensive hobbies!!??!?!!??

Flying = $$$$$
Cars = $$$$
Photography = $$$


And can someone 'splain to me how ^^THAT^^ thing works. Remember I'm still a photography n00b here...

 

[TheMAN]

yachting = $$$$$$

 

[not yellow]

knitting =

 

[gr?]

I wish I had money... Why do I have such expensive hobbies!!??!?!!??

Flying = $$$$$
Cars = $$$$
Photography = $$$


And can someone 'splain to me how ^^THAT^^ thing works. Remember I'm still a photography n00b here...

1.4x teleconver
200 mm x 1.4 = 280mm

You lose 1 stop, so a 2.8 lens max aperture is now 4.0 max aperture
With a 2x converter, you lose 2 stops, so a 2.8 will have a max aperture of 5.6

 

[FunkyBuddha]

Only think I didn't like about the 70-200 when I used it was the lack of telephoto flexibility. Personally, because I'm mostly a noob and need the least number of lenses to do the most jobs, I prefer a wide telescopic range. 70-200 was just too narrow for me. As of now I'd prefer to get a better short-lens anyways. Any suggestions?

17-55 2.8 IS
85mm 1.8
50mm 1.4
28-105 F4L
16-35mm

 

[judman13]

If you got a 17-55 and a 70-200 I promise you that you will not miss the difference in between!!

And the constant 2.8 will make up for "short comings" you may find.

 

[FunkyBuddha]

If you got a 17-55 and a 70-200 I promise you that you will not miss the difference in between!!

And the constant 2.8 will make up for "short comings" you may find.

That's my plan. I have the 24-70 now. Next up is the 70-200 2.8

 

[AllyMazda3]

do you guys all shoot with full frame bodies?