Any photographers in here?

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
 
blown out highlights is a condition of improper exposure, not a bad lens. I've never heard anyone complain about the 17-55.

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. :)
 
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

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.
 
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. :)

what are you talking about "brighter highlights?"

There's the light that goes into the lens getting projected onto the sensor. I don't see how a lens could make the highlights brighter or everything else darker. But hey, if you're happy I guess that's all that matters. Next time you want to trade an awesome lens, let me know.
 
Certain lenses have brighter highlights than others. It's not just all about the sensor or settings on the camera body. For example, the 300 f/4L I used is very nuetral by comparison to the 35 f/1.4L. This can't be new information. :shrug:
 
I've heard of lenses passing more contrast to the sensor, but never brighter highlights. Show me an example of what you're talking about.
 
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.

Ya..for sure..I kept the 10-22 because of the 50D. But I think I'll stay crop sensor for now. I dont' see the advantage in my shooting styles for a full frame at this point in time.

I use a 8mm Peleng fisheye...and 8mm is dope! I already have a 10-22 so I wouldn't be getting a 8-15 anytime soon. The other lenses look wicked though.
 
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.
 
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.
 
4927481941_2cb715b14a_b.jpg
 
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.

IMG_2657.jpg


This has been PP'd but it's not blown out, colors are great - Canon 35L

k2mkoz.jpg


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/
 
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.

IMG_2657.jpg


This has been PP'd but it's not blown out, colors are great - Canon 35L

k2mkoz.jpg


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/

so are you complaining that the sky is blown out and also the reflections of the sky in the cars? lol. fact of life. You can't compare a shot of a baseball player with no sky in it to shots of shiny cars. It looks like the one of the probe was taken near sunrise or sunset. Softer lighting = less blown highlights.
 
I'm not complaining at all. I just know that never got what I was looking for out of that lens. Simple as that.
 
I brought my camera to the RUSH concert last night. We had decent seats so I thought I could get some decent pics. All the signs around said "No Professional Cameras" well my Canon is considered an upper level P&S so I thought it'd be OK so I started shooting. The captures were looking really good on the LCD so I shot more. Sure enough, one of the crowd security guys pulled me over halfway through the first set. He said one of Rush's security had told them to get me. WTF?! (hand)

They didn't make me delete the pics or leave or anything, just told me to put it away. I got 60 pics before though so I'm happy. Can't wait to PP and post the results here!

Apparently, no PROFESSIONAL cameras (interchangeable lenses) means no cameras at all.
(no)(thumb)
 
I usually take my camera to sporting events when i go and the hockey rink (joe louis arena) says nothing over 55mm so my 18-55 is ok and i bring my 55-200 in my pocket. football field (ford field) says nothing over 50mm and will pat you down if you try and sneak anything in. so the detroit lions suck and i cant even take pics of their sucking. Yet you can bring in a non interchangeable lens camera with an 11x optical zoom...
 
weird. I went to a dolphins game and no one said anything about my camera. I guess they're just happy to have butts in seats.
 
Back