@aspidites
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
aspidites
ParticipantI don’t have a problem with fish swimming in their native environment. To say otherwise would leave out the possibility of scuba or snorkeling shots.
So, me in the cage. Great White trying to get in the cage…..
Participantaspidites is a bad influence on my bad habit. 🙂
Glad to be of service 🙂
ParticipantCongrats Rav
ParticipantU-Man, I’ve also got the 70-200L f/2.8 IS and the 1.4 teleconverter and can vouch for what everyone’s said. It’s what I used for all of my youth football shots. You lose a stop with the 1.4x TC (2 with the 2x TC), but I never really found that to be a problem and it takes great shots. Of course, you’d have to decide if 280mm is enough zoom for your purposes.
I differ from aspidites in my percentage of use of it, though. I use my 24-70L f/2.8 as my normal walk-around lens and most of my non-football shots are with it.
On the 7D the max without the 1.4 would be 320mm f2.8. With the 1.4x it would be 448mm f4. With the 2.0x it would be 640mm f5.6 but I don’t know how well the 7D’s foucus would be with the 2.0x on it. I think that only the pro bodies keep all the focus areas active with the doubler on, with the prosumer bodies only the center focus will work. At least that is how it is on my 5D.
I have a 7D and 5D Mk II. I use the 7D out in ‘the wild’ because of the 1.6X crop. With my 70-300 IS DO f/4.5-5.6 I can get out to 480 mm. But it’s a bit slow. And, honestly, it’s just not as sharp as I would like. I’m sure that part of the equation comes from (frequently) shooting from a boat that is never quite still.
Do y’all think I would get better results from the 70-200L with a 1.4x extender?
Like CISS the 24-70 is my go-to lens on the MkII, The 17-55 is on the 7D.
Yes I think you would get better results from the 70-200 f2.8. It is a fast lens even with the teleconverters on it.
This is SOOC with with the 1.4x 70-200 on my 1D mark II N
http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i447/aspidites2001/Pictures/_X0U8016SOOC.jpg
this one is SOOC with the 2.0x
http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i447/aspidites2001/Pictures/_X0U7821SOOC.jpg
These are with the older tech. The pictures I have seen out of my friends’ 5D Mark II with the 70-200L f2.8 II and the 1.4x III are amazing.
My next purchase is going to be the 70-200l f2.8 II, 1.4x III, and the 2.0x III.
ParticipantU-Man, I’ve also got the 70-200L f/2.8 IS and the 1.4 teleconverter and can vouch for what everyone’s said. It’s what I used for all of my youth football shots. You lose a stop with the 1.4x TC (2 with the 2x TC), but I never really found that to be a problem and it takes great shots. Of course, you’d have to decide if 280mm is enough zoom for your purposes.
I differ from aspidites in my percentage of use of it, though. I use my 24-70L f/2.8 as my normal walk-around lens and most of my non-football shots are with it.
On the 7D the max without the 1.4 would be 320mm f2.8. With the 1.4x it would be 448mm f4. With the 2.0x it would be 640mm f5.6 but I don’t know how well the 7D’s foucus would be with the 2.0x on it. I think that only the pro bodies keep all the focus areas active with the doubler on, with the prosumer bodies only the center focus will work. At least that is how it is on my 5D.
ParticipantI have 3 strong shots as well. You never know what resonates with voters. Never count yourself out.
You’re right and I have seen way to many good shots on here to think I can throw up 3 pics and walk away with it. When you are dealing with farkers you never know what will happen 🙂
[/img]ParticipantThanks for the feedback.
/I still don’t know what I will get for a long lens. :/
If I had to choose one long lens it would be the 70-200 f2.8. I would say I use that lens on 80% to 85% of all the pictures I have taken.
ParticipantI have had the 70-200 the longest and it is the lens I almost always start out with on the camera. The thing is extremely sharp. It is the lens I took the eagle pics with. A friend has the new version and the pictures with that one are sharper than my 500.
I love this lens, I would marry it and have it’s babies if nature and the State of New York would allow it. I carry this and my Sigma 24-70 with me all the time. I would love to trade up to the Canon 24-70L, but I choke on the price.
I’d love to upgrade to the new version of the 70-200, but can’t justify it right now. Maybe if I get the wedding jobs I’m quoting for this spring.
ParticipantI carry 3 telephoto’s in my camera bag.
Technically, there are probably four:
70-200mm
500mm
135mm
100mm macro
(plus possibly the 24-70 at the long end)(The definition of a telephoto is a lens in which the distance from the front element to the imaging plane is shorter than the focal length of the lens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto/)
Yep that’s right, I’ll blame it on a rough day at work. I read the question as what L zoom lenses that I use.
Gonna have to quit reading fark while I’m debugging code. 😕
ParticipantThat is a loooong story about why I switch from nikon to canon after shooting nikon film bodies for about 20 years.
I read the story with joy in my heart. I’m not joyful because of your bad experience. I’m joyful of the platinum lining of that black cloud. 🙂
Do you have an ‘L’ telephoto for your Canon? Any recommendations?
I carry 3 telephoto’s in my camera bag. The 16 – 35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, and the 70-200 f2.8.
If you are planning to get a new 7D you need to add the 1.6x cropping factor you get from that sensor, which I figure you already know.
Of those lenses I use the 70- 200 the most for wildlife(includes people) and some landscape.
The 24- 70 is my primary landscape lens/ close in people lens.
I don’t use the 16-35 that often, but when I need it…..I need itthe other lenses that I normally carry with me.
65 mm Macro f2.8
100 mm Macro f2.8
135 mm f2.0 (portrait lens)
500 mm f4.0 (Stuff I don’t really want to be to close to)
2 1.4 teleconverters
2 teleconverter
extender ringsI have had the 70-200 the longest and it is the lens I almost always start out with on the camera. The thing is extremely sharp. It is the lens I took the eagle pics with. A friend has the new version and the pictures with that one are sharper than my 500.
ParticipantThat is a loooong story about why I switch from nikon to canon after shooting nikon film bodies for about 20 years.
Oooh, you can’t just say something like that and not provide details! Us Canonites need all the fodder we can get in the perpetual war with those heathen Nikonians. 😉
Well you asked for it. Here it is.
The wolves and the tiger shoots were taken with a D1X which in my opinion is the second worst digital camera I have ever shot with. The D100 took the top spot. I was thinking of switching from slides to digital in 2004. During this time and I had bought the D100 to see if I wanted to switch over. I had the D100 for 11 months; Nikon repair had it for 7 of those.
The last time it crapped out was when I was in Yellowstone for a three week winter workshop and then we were going to Minnesota to photograph the tiger at an abandoned airfield. The second day into the trip my D100 started doing the same thing it had done twice before and I was left standing in subzero weather with a $2000.00 paper weight attached to the 600 that I had rented for the trip. I was planning to get either the 500 or the 600 and wanted to try them out.
I call Nikon support to let them know that my camera had quit working for the third time. After an hour that got me nowhere the tech had the nerve to tell me I should consider purchasing a pro body. I told him to reread my file and explain to me if he thought I was dumb enough to spend $6000.00 on a 5 megapixel, 3 FPS, and could only take 8 raw images before the buffer was full PRO BODY when they couldn?t keep my $2000.00 camera working for more than 20 days at a time.
A friend that was on the trip with me was a contracted Nikon pro and he let me use his spare D1X for the rest of the trip. I had also brought a film body and a couple of bricks of Provia 100 on the trip and I switched between the two for the next 4 weeks of the trip.
Once I got back I shipped it off to Nikon for repairs again and sent a letter to the VP in charge of the repair center to explain why I was going to take his support persons advice and buy a pro body, but that it would say Canon on it. The D1 at the time sold for $5,500.00 had 4.5 mega pixels, 8 FPS, and could hold 18 raw images before the buffer was full.
It took them 3 months to get the D100 back to me. During that time Canon released the D1 Mark II and I bought that one instead.
I didn’t abandon Nikon, they abandoned me.
Participantand Happy B-Day Rav
ParticipantB’s
http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i447/aspidites2001/Pictures/DSC_4499.jpg
http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i447/aspidites2001/Pictures/_I6R44005x7.jpg
http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i447/aspidites2001/Pictures/DSC_4990bloodywolfonelk-1.jpgYou know, with those animals “Wild Things” is SO your contest. The rest of us are vying for 4th, 5th, etc.
That last–wow.
Damn I envy you those.
Thanks Rav but I?m not real sure about me owning the Wild Things next week, there are plenty of people here that shoot wild life as well or better than I do. That and I still haven?t decided what to put in that one. I figure I?ll put this one in, but I have no idea what else to enter. I?m not real happy with either the charging tiger or the bloody wolf.
That is a loooong story about why I switch from nikon to canon after shooting nikon film bodies for about 20 years.
If I can get my slide scanner fixed or replaced this weekend then I’ll have the slides from the Yellowstone and the tiger shoots that I can use.
http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i447/aspidites2001/Pictures/DSC_4629_Tiger_1.jpg
ParticipantParticipantCool Els. I shot two this weekend of the same girl I was going to save for ‘intimate portraits of strangers’ but I think one fits here and one there slightly better.
I see the pop link on this, but no picture in the post?
-
AuthorPosts
