I missed that until now - what did you get?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
Canon EF-S 18-200mm IS. I bought the 50D+18-200 kit - got it for a pretty good price on the day. I was aiming for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, but in the end when I tried both it, the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 (which I could not afford) and the 18-200mm IS, I decided the Tamron wasn't worth the saving, and I knew I wasn't going to be able to buy another lens in a long time, so I might as well get one that'll cover most things. The kit was £1099, while the body only was £830 at the time, so that's £270 for the lens (it was about £500 separate at the time).
I have to say, the 17-55mm f/2.8 is one classy lens. Aside from the more inferior build quality, it felt a lot like the the 24-105L. It's bright, it's quiet, the AF is snap quick, focus tracking works wonderful. Unless a 5DmkII miraculously finds itself into my hands some time soon, I will own this lens one day.
Interesting choice - did you lose all your glass along with the 40D?
I'm toying with the idea of trading in my 16-35 for either the 24-104 or the 24-70. I've been invited to cover an event in Berlin in a couple of months and need something a little more versatile. I've been playing with the 16-35 and a 2x TC but it is kind of bulky (understatement
).
You may want to consider one of these. Brilliant focal length, and light too. I have the non-OS, non-HSM version and it's ideal for travel. Was I you, I'd keep the 16-35, and rather buy something else you can sell when you get back if you don't like it.I'm toying with the idea of trading in my 16-35 for either the 24-104 or the 24-70. I've been invited to cover an event in Berlin in a couple of months and need something a little more versatile. I've been playing with the 16-35 and a 2x TC but it is kind of bulky (understatement
SubliminalThought
Senior Member
Rumours are abound that Canon will be releasing a 24-70L 2.8 IS soon. I've seen lots of ads crop up recently for 24-70L on outdoor and gumtree. I rented the 24-70 once and tried low light indoor (no flash... it was a ballet rehersal) shooting. It didn't bite me. Some reviews rave about this lens. Different glass for different peeps.
Decided that the 24-105 with IS was better for me, which I use outdoors or indoors with flash. For indoors where I can't use flash, or where I want really shallow DOF, I'll use the 50/85mm 1.8 primes. Much cheaper! and the keeper rater from the 24-105IS is better for my shaky hands.
Decided that the 24-105 with IS was better for me, which I use outdoors or indoors with flash. For indoors where I can't use flash, or where I want really shallow DOF, I'll use the 50/85mm 1.8 primes. Much cheaper! and the keeper rater from the 24-105IS is better for my shaky hands.
mercurial
MyBB Legend
I'd really like to get the Canon 24-105 but my gawd, it's expensive.
I've got the sigma 28-300 but was thinking of maybe something faster throughout the range.
Is isnt as important to me as speed. I've always got the flash anyway.
yeah - but so was the 16-35 which I hope will cover the bulk of the cost.
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
No, just the 24-105L and the 35mm f/2. The 50mm was on my film body at home, and the Sigma 10-20 happened to be at Sigma, otherwise it would surely have been gone. The 70-300 spends most of its time in my bottom drawer.
I'm toying with the idea of trading in my 16-35 for either the 24-104 or the 24-70. I've been invited to cover an event in Berlin in a couple of months and need something a little more versatile. I've been playing with the 16-35 and a 2x TC but it is kind of bulky (understatement
As much as I like the 24-105L, I'd think the 24-70L would make a lot of sense to you, since you have two bodies and the 70-400L. I know that's a popular combo.
That rumour has been going for several years now.
It's worth every penny.
Last edited:
Now that I think about the logistics I might have to go via the UK so renting is a possibility?
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
Yes. Depends how long you're going to be away for though. Renting here isn't cheap (or I haven't found the right shops yet). Calumet has a good line-up, bot they're pricey.
ldmelsa
Executive Member
I want a 24-105 too, but I don't know if my next FF cam will be Nikon or Canon
depends who has the features at the time
depends who has the features at the time
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
Dude, you're tasted the forbidden fruit! Then again, this lens is good enough to save your soul
ldmelsa
Executive Member
You're mistaken.Ooooh, now that's really gorgeous. But I remember from the 'other' thread that were not supposed to just go ooooh & aaaaah, but are also to provide some critique. So mine would be your border. I think the border needs some work.
"The thing with learning from people here is that too often people just want a pat on the back and some smoke blown up their . . . . rather than a critique so there's a limit to what you will learn."
Rouxenator
Dank meme lord
The other thread sure does rulz
Ohnos!!!
I am not a fan of borders. Perfection is when you reach the point where you cannot take anything away from something. Borders are the first thing you can take away on your quest for perfection My grandpa always said shoot it right with skill. Now he was not referring to cameras - but he did have a valid point...
Unless you're viewing the photos as prints or at the very least on a calibrated monitor and with a browser that supports ICC profiles your quest has already failed.Borders are the first thing you can take away on your quest for perfection
Rouxenator
Dank meme lord
We should not bluff ourselves now.
No one prints these 0.2 megapixel jpegs we share here and everyone uses a monitor that shows red, green and blue pretty much the same.
The use of a border can be negated in 93% of all viewing situations. The first thing someone wonders about when they see a border or any other artificial element added into a photo is how much of the rest of the photo is real.
Unless you're a photojournalist who cares what is "real" in the photo.
If you're question the use of borders then you must be speaking from personal experience. Personally I border to make the image stand out on the page.
The difference calibration makes is remarkable. Here's an example of the difference Safari and Firefox interpreted the same image - http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php/photo/745
Anyhow - this is a topic for discussion elsewhere.
Rouxenator
Dank meme lord
I guess you're right - especially taking into account how many photojournalist actually spend time here. This probably belongs in another thread all together.
Rouxenator
Dank meme lord
Firstly, that is a pretty good shot actually. Simplicity and clean shapes (squares&circles) makes for a nice effect. But that is my point of view, obviously everyone has their own take on things
Secondly, I have pictures ranking in the top 12 most interesting shots for about 5 or so different cameras. The only reason they ended up there is because they are fetish pictures for some people.
Secondly, I have pictures ranking in the top 12 most interesting shots for about 5 or so different cameras. The only reason they ended up there is because they are fetish pictures for some people.