Any photographers in here?

[FunkyBuddha]

Makes me wonder why I have a SLR

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082005canong9.asp

 

[LEXi73]

laraw whats that your shooting with a 10-22? Some great shots!


I just got some new gear yesterday! cant wait to get out and give it a shot!

Canon 40D
Canon 17-40 f4 L
Canon 100-400 IS L
Canon 580ex II

Going to trade the 100-400 for a 70-200 sometime in a few months...not sure what version to get yet.

 

[NVP5White]

*** feel free to correct me if im wrong******

with a macro lense your going to have a lower f-stop. this means that you wont be able to focus on the whole image if you wanted to. so you can use it like a normal lense.... you'll probably wanna back up some as it will naturally appear as if its zoomed in a little.... but if your wanting to have the whole image in focus... it would be a MUCH longer exposure than using a kit lense or a "normal" lense.

Also @wmbeaver

A macro lens is the same as any other lens except for the extended focusing range. It also designed with more focusing precision then a normal lens. For Nikon, the Micro-nikkors are generally the sharpest lenses they make.

I use my 60mm f/2.8 as a normal lens when I need to use the larger aperture. The pictures are great and I don't have to make any special adjustments because its a macro lens. My 60mm macro takes the same picture as my 18-70mm lens at 60mm.

As for a 70-300mm macro, I would be hesitant to give up a Nikon 70-200mm lens (highly regarded as one of Nikon's best) for a long zoom lens. The greater zoon range results in design compromises that will decrease maximum image quality. Also, the added utility of a 300mm macro is limited unless you are shooting exotic subjects that require greater working distance. My preference would be to keep the 70-200mm lens and get a 105mm micro-nikkor. You can safely get the pre-VR version since you'll be using it mostly on tripods. Plus the price has [probably] come down after they redesigned the lens to include VR.

 

[gr?]

Going to trade the 100-400 for a 70-200 sometime in a few months...not sure what version to get yet.

2.8L IS

 

[323]

i got the dopest lens. 5mm-1000mm macro is usm f1.2L lol. and its fisheye from 5-17mm

 

[Ki||ian]

I finally finished the mods on my front end and snapped some photos with my dads point and shoot.

God I need to get my own equipment now that I can't use the governments stuff!

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdcorum/2431750177/" title="2003 Mazda Protege5 (Modified) by SDCorum, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3154/2431750177_c82ccac8e4_o.jpg" width="882" height="1080" alt="2003 Mazda Protege5 (Modified)" /></a>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdcorum/2432513934/" title="2003 Mazda Protege5 (Modified) by SDCorum, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2383/2432513934_843dfe7135_o.jpg" width="897" height="1080" alt="2003 Mazda Protege5 (Modified)" /></a>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdcorum/2431700925/" title="2003 Mazda Protege5 (Modified) by SDCorum, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3235/2431700925_f95ff752c7_o.jpg" width="1080" height="683" alt="2003 Mazda Protege5 (Modified)" /></a>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdcorum/2432514066/" title="2003 Mazda Protege5 (Modified) by SDCorum, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3264/2432514066_ca7a14f8e7_o.jpg" width="1080" height="672" alt="2003 Mazda Protege5 (Modified)" /></a>

 

[Ki||ian]

i got the dopest lens. 5mm-1000mm macro is usm f1.2L lol. and its fisheye from 5-17mm

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!(stooges)

 

[FunkyBuddha]

2.8L IS

W3RD

 

[323]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!(stooges)

lol

 

[LEXi73]

2.8L IS

W3RD

I know that thats the best but not sure if i can drop the extra 500+ on the IS. I was looking to get the 2.8L at least along with the 17-55IS 2.8L


here is one i took today testing out the 17-40L

 

[mountjonas]

for the canon users, what do you think of the 50mm f1.8 lens? i'm seriously considering it for $86 on amazon right now.

 

[Ki||ian]

Woa..... $86?! I was gonna go with the 1.4 but I might get the 1.8 now! Check the reviews on B&H or Adorama and see what people think.

www.bhphotovideo.com
www.adorama.com

 

[mountjonas]

yeah, i was pretty shocked at the price. my boss told me about it and at first i didn't really want it because it was a prime lens. but i saw some of the submitted photos on amazon and was quite surprised by range of shots that came out from it.

so the most common complaint (if you can call it that) is the build quality. but then eveyone goes on to say that for the price, it still can't be beat.

 

[clicknext]

Hey I've got a question about photographing cars.

Generally it's considered good to turn the wheel so that the rim faces the camera. And it's also usually good to point the wheels in the direction that the road is flowing, if there is one (ie, it's better when the car doesn't look like it's about to turn and drive off a cliff). What if these two are opposite each other in a particular setting and you have to pick one? Which one do you think looks better?

 

[Ki||ian]

Rims facing the camera looks better. Most of the time, unless the car is moving, it does not matter too much if it looks like it is going to drive off the road.

 

[323]

the 50mm 1.8 is a good lens. its a lil noisy but not squaling high like its previous version which came in a metal mount. i have the 50mm 1.8. its a fun lens, and eh u cant go wrong for about 80 somtin dollars

and i cant find any samples. they're all at home

and of course if you want USM, FTM and better build quality, u can go with the 50mm 1.4. my friend has the 1.4 and its pretty cool but i dont mind the 1.8 either

 

[Ki||ian]

I think I'm gonna go with the 1.4.

 

[323]

yeah the 1.4 has better build quality.

but i i found some pix

 

[LEXi73]

I have a 1.4 and i love it. Built better, better Brokah, better focusing, more $$. Here is one with my 1.4:

 

[323]

yea if ur budget allows for the 1.4 go for it