Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by oliver, Apr 7, 2006.
this lens is the shiiiizznit
Werd, Had mine for about a month now, i love it.
I just got back from my honeymoon, so i havent had a chance to mess with many of the pics i took with that lens as of yet...
Check this one out though
this lens is sofaking hot.
i might pick one up for 550.00, hoping to talk it down to 500
buy it used
and generally, no 2.8 no care
i love the range but i'd want it in 2.8
Had the 16-35L, returned it, got this. Very nice piece of glass.
further proves my point that great gear != great photographer
ahahah thats mean
You guys might wanna do some research on the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Many people compare it to the 24-70L and many tests have shown it to be very close in sharpness for much cheaper.
on the Tamron. I was comparing it against my 70-200 f/2.8L IS and the Canon is a bit sharper but the Tamron produces nice contrast and good sharpness. Underpriced at $330-350 new.
he was on vacation.. i doubt he was going for the artist look.. i think he was just trying to capture the moment for his family so they could look at the picture later on. and not everyone is a professional. everyone is learning new things all the time.
my friend just got the 17-40L lens.. i mean it's a nice lens and all. but i'm content with my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I like the f/2.8. i DO wish mine was more wide angle though. maybe down the road i'll buy a wider lens. but for now.. i got 3 lenses and i'm happy with all 3.
tamron 28-75 f/2.8
canon 50 f/1.8 II
canon 70-200 f/4L
They're kinda different animals, but some quirks with the 70-200 2.8 range:
The non-IS is apparantly sharper due to the considerably less internal groups - makes sense, however it is an older design with slower AF to the IS (from what I have read)
I have the 14-40 f/4L rented right now and I love it. I can't decide what to do about buying this lens, or getting the 24-70mm f/2.8L and then buying a wider lens like the 10-22 or such.
If you shoot indoors or other low-light conditions, you'll be wishing you bought the 24-70 f/2.8L
yea, that would make a big difference when i go to shoot concerts and stuff. Damn, looks like i gotta spend the extra $$$
Depending on where they give you access, the 85 f/1.8 is about $300 with good reach and is a fast lens. If you need more reach, the 135 f/2.0 is $900-1000 ($750-800 used).
17-40 is ill
i can handhold it sharp to nearly 1/2 of a second, so you dont really miss the extra few stops
nice lens for the money
well thats a bit better than most people, and is really only a function of focal length, with your 1/2 second a 2.8 would still let in twice as much light. So for concerts definately go 2.8 or a big flash, 1/2 sec is some serious blur.
The bass and vibration from the concerts will definatley not allow you to handhold @ 1/2
rented a 17-40 L and it just came in last night. Haven't gotten much shooting done with it. Figures no rain for weeks, then when the lens comes it pours