FunkyBuddha
Tuned by Slick Nick
- :
- 2003 Spicy Orange MSP
blown out highlights is a condition of improper exposure, not a bad lens. I've never heard anyone complain about the 17-55.
Word! Oh well...different strokes.
blown out highlights is a condition of improper exposure, not a bad lens. I've never heard anyone complain about the 17-55.
blown out highlights is a condition of improper exposure, not a bad lens. I've never heard anyone complain about the 17-55.
I'd take the 10-22 over the 8-15 I think. On the crop frame, 10mm was about as wide as I would want to go on a regular basis and the quality drop-off on the edges of the frame at 10mm was quite noticable
Couldn't disagree more. Even my 50, which is known to have brighter highlights wasn't as bad as this thing. All the lenses I've ever used weren't as bad. You're absolutely right, though. Different strokes. I'm glad I got something I WANTED and so did the person on the other end.![]()
8-15 fisheye for diving would be amazing. I'd love a 10-22, but I would like to eventually make the jump to full frame, so no more efs lenses for me.
I'd ruin my shorts if I got a 400mm f/2.8II.
I don't understand the 70-300 unless it costs about $700 new. Otherwise, it just doesn't make sense.
A budget 70-300 2.8 would be sick! but then it would put the 70-200L outta business.
Not the best photo I've ever taken in my life, but it shows nuetral contrast. It has sun and shadows and neither are too blown out. This is straight out of the camera.
![]()
This has been PP'd but it's not blown out, colors are great - Canon 35L
![]()
Here's an entire album from the All Mazda Meet... I PP'd them, but I still has to turn the highlights way down. And I have a MOPAR show I need to upload to show my point a little more.
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v468/Domino81/MAZDA%20OCC%20MEET/