[M_Six]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

perhaps this would be more appropriate for you guys?

I bet Badger uses one of those to store his, ummmm, long lens.

[Chewy734]

more like pancake lens.

[M_Six]

So lots of slack, eh?

[Weebl]

Originally Posted by M_Six

I bet Badger uses one of those to store his, ummmm, long lens.

Chewy borrowed it from Badger, no rental involved

[M_Six]

So the rented 70-200mm F4L IS went back today. I'm ashamed to say I took less than a dozen pics with it. I just couldn't find things to shoot with it. It's too slow to use indoors and I really didn't have a need for that range outside this week. The rental experience was useful, though, in that it showed me that if I bought a 70-200 it would sit unused in my bag quite a bit. On the other hand, I used the 135L quite a often when I rented it. It was fast enough to use indoors and just "short" enough to use in my living room for shooting the cats. I'm now thinking I might wait on a 70-200 and get the 135L first. Maybe with a 1.4x TC to give me range when I need it.

This was the second time I rented a 70-200, although the first was non-IS. I didn't shoot much with that one either.

[Weebl]

How many cats do you have???
I thought I might have had you beat but it looks like you are close.
I looked at your randomography and it looks like primes suit you well. I don't have the luxury of being able to frame with mine by moving.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by Weebl

How many cats do you have???
I thought I might have had you beat but it looks like you are close.
I looked at your randomography and it looks like primes suit you well. I don't have the luxury of being able to frame with mine by moving.

The standard answer is "too many." Although they're all "family" now. I just wish we had a real basement. Ours is a very nicely finished walkout that is as much a part of the house as the upper level. It'd be nice to separate the litter boxes from the rest of the house.

The cats are constant targets. Some pose better than others. A couple will run and hide when they see the camera. Not sure why. It's not like I've used the flash on them.

[panicos81]

Originally Posted by M_Six

So the rented 70-200mm F4L IS went back today. I'm ashamed to say I took less than a dozen pics with it. I just couldn't find things to shoot with it. It's too slow to use indoors and I really didn't have a need for that range outside this week. The rental experience was useful, though, in that it showed me that if I bought a 70-200 it would sit unused in my bag quite a bit. On the other hand, I used the 135L quite a often when I rented it. It was fast enough to use indoors and just "short" enough to use in my living room for shooting the cats. I'm now thinking I might wait on a 70-200 and get the 135L first. Maybe with a 1.4x TC to give me range when I need it.

This was the second time I rented a 70-200, although the first was non-IS. I didn't shoot much with that one either.

this was very helpful.. (regarding my previous enquiry )

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

So the rented 70-200mm F4L IS went back today. I'm ashamed to say I took less than a dozen pics with it. I just couldn't find things to shoot with it. It's too slow to use indoors and I really didn't have a need for that range outside this week. The rental experience was useful, though, in that it showed me that if I bought a 70-200 it would sit unused in my bag quite a bit. On the other hand, I used the 135L quite a often when I rented it. It was fast enough to use indoors and just "short" enough to use in my living room for shooting the cats. I'm now thinking I might wait on a 70-200 and get the 135L first. Maybe with a 1.4x TC to give me range when I need it.

This was the second time I rented a 70-200, although the first was non-IS. I didn't shoot much with that one either.

Looking at your excellent Randomography blog, almost every shot there could have been shot with a 7D/f4 combination. I think most people are afraid to push the ISO up where it belongs. I don't own a single lens faster than f/4 and have even had success shooting concerts (however, if I routinely shot concerts I'd probably invest in an f/2.8). Stuff around the house and outside in evening light are all shot at f/4 and smaller.

Still, if you didn't use the lens, then you shouldn't buy one.

Try pushing your ISOs up on your 7D and continue to expose to the right and see if the camera isn't better than you give it credit.

Dave

[Weebl]

My bid is seven furry felines..... who eat/poop/Dr. visit one Canon 5DIII every year.
Is that too many?
I'm not going to include the fosters.

Dave,
Mark just got the 7D so his high ISO ability just got better vs where it was before.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by Weebl

My bid is seven furry felines..... who eat/poop/Dr. visit one Canon 5DIII every year.
Is that too many?
I'm not going to include the fosters.

Dave,
Mark just got the 7D so his high ISO ability just got better vs where it was before.

"Fosters," eh? That means cats that show up at the door and Wifey finds an excuse to keep them. We have 3 cats we intentionally acquired and, ahem...many more we've been "fostering" all their lives. Add to that a bunch of outdoor cats with shelters and the few that live in our heated tool shed.

Wifey was so devoted to one that she spent a new 5D Mk III trying to save her from cancer. It was a losing battle, of course.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Looking at your excellent Randomography blog, almost every shot there could have been shot with a 7D/f4 combination. I think most people are afraid to push the ISO up where it belongs. I don't own a single lens faster than f/4 and have even had success shooting concerts (however, if I routinely shot concerts I'd probably invest in an f/2.8). Stuff around the house and outside in evening light are all shot at f/4 and smaller.

Still, if you didn't use the lens, then you shouldn't buy one.

Try pushing your ISOs up on your 7D and continue to expose to the right and see if the camera isn't better than you give it credit.

Dave

Yeah I know, Dave. I'm happy with what I can do with the 7D in low light. But I was just not comfortable with the 70-200. For one thing, and I know this might sound dumb, it was too unwieldy. Mounted on my 7D it was a pain to get out of the one bag I own that would fit it mounted. I normally leave the 24-104 mounted, so unless I needed that extra reach, I wouldn't be using it much. And I never need such reach in the house. Even out and about I found I was framing things within the 24-105's range. The 135L is almost exactly the same size as the 24-105, so no handling issues there. And with a 1.4x TC, I'd have a 200mm+ range lens at f2.8 (albeit w/o IS).

[Weebl]

Originally Posted by M_Six

"Fosters," eh? That means cats that show up at the door and Wifey finds an excuse to keep them.

Wifey was so devoted to one that she spent a new 5D Mk III trying to save her from cancer. It was a losing battle, of course.

I'm the one finding the excuses and she goes along with it.
I know of one that a friend "aquired" after she spent some <3 MkIIIs on it.

I guess if you ever get the zoom and change your style of pictures you take then you'll just have to get another bag. My 300 just barely fits attached in mine and 90% of the time I have all the time in the world to get it out. I'll lay it across the top if I attach the 1.4x.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Yeah I know, Dave. I'm happy with what I can do with the 7D in low light. But I was just not comfortable with the 70-200. For one thing, and I know this might sound dumb, it was too unwieldy. Mounted on my 7D it was a pain to get out of the one bag I own that would fit it mounted. I normally leave the 24-104 mounted, so unless I needed that extra reach, I wouldn't be using it much. And I never need such reach in the house. Even out and about I found I was framing things within the 24-105's range. The 135L is almost exactly the same size as the 24-105, so no handling issues there. And with a 1.4x TC, I'd have a 200mm+ range lens at f2.8 (albeit w/o IS).

Looking at your scenics, with a few exceptions, you tend to shoot at a medium focal length. The 24-105mm is good for that.

I would have been interested to see you compare your processed IQ between the 24-105mm and the 70-200mm at around 90mm. My 70-200mm has better contrast and detail so it's my go-to portrait lens. Still, if you seldom go beyond 100mm it makes little sense to own one.

Dave

[dawiyo]

Originally Posted by Weebl

My bid is seven furry felines..... who eat/poop/Dr. visit one Canon 5DIII every year.
Is that too many?
I'm not going to include the fosters.

Are you starting a militia?

[Weebl]

mebe

[Chewy734]

Rumor: the next Leica M camera will have a black and white sensor and no LCD

interesting... maybe it'll cost less than the $7k M9.

[dawiyo]

It'll probably cost more 'cause it's "unique".

[M_Six]

From POTN's Market Watch:

Use coupon code MRN318 to save 10% and get free shipping on refurbished Canon Lenses and Flashes at the Canon Store.

[The1]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Yeah I know, Dave. I'm happy with what I can do with the 7D in low light. But I was just not comfortable with the 70-200. For one thing, and I know this might sound dumb, it was too unwieldy. Mounted on my 7D it was a pain to get out of the one bag I own that would fit it mounted. I normally leave the 24-104 mounted, so unless I needed that extra reach, I wouldn't be using it much. And I never need such reach in the house. Even out and about I found I was framing things within the 24-105's range. The 135L is almost exactly the same size as the 24-105, so no handling issues there. And with a 1.4x TC, I'd have a 200mm+ range lens at f2.8 (albeit w/o IS).

don't forget even when the 135 is with the 1.4tc it's it's still a faster lense then the 200mm F4, so you may not really need the IS if you're shooting a lot of shots at the wider end of things.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by The1

don't forget even when the 135 is with the 1.4tc it's it's still a faster lense then the 200mm F4, so you may not really need the IS if you're shooting a lot of shots at the wider end of things.

It's all about comfort. Me, for example, I've never been comfortable with a 135mm. It's longer than I usually shoot portrait and it's too short for almost any critter, other than pets that let you relatively close. I remember borrowing my brother's in the 1960s, at a time when I had a 200mm preset f/3.5 Pentax lens. It just didn't match what my eye was looking for.

All this talk about speed drives me crazy, since I started in the Kodachrome 25 era, then "graduated" to Ecktachrome 200. I had a 50/1.4 and a 200/3.5 and longed for a 35mm (24mm and 28mm was extravagent in those days). In 1969 I served in the Army with a pro photographer that had something like a 30-70mm Nikkor zoom and fell in love with the concept of a competent zoom, but there were few to be had in those days.

Now, my default ISO on my 7D is ISO 800. If the sun's too bright, I'll usually stop down rather than reduce ISO (except for landscapes). As we see earlier in this thread, I'm never too reluctant to push on up to ISO 6400. The 5D3 will free me to go a stop or two higher with ISO. If I were shooting a lot of indoor basketball or stage work, then I'd consider an f/2.8, but that's pretty rare for me, so f/4 really does do the trick 99% of the time.

Yet, people are still gaga over fast lenses. I'm going for fast cameras instead and really enjoying the flexibility of zooms. I've shot lots and lots of images with primes and still do with my 500mm, but I don't miss them at all. Using my 70-200/f4 for a portrait lens doesn't get a second thought and I'm not wishing for some 85/f2 that I dreamed about back when I was shooting at ASA 25, 50 and 200.

So... I get it and I don't. If a 70-200mm seems clumsy and inconvenient, then it IS clumsy and inconvenient. (I walk miles most weeks with one literally slung around my neck, so I've grown imune to its bulk and feel naked without it when I'm in the woods). The part I really don't understand is the big desire to get fast, shorter focal length primes. They seem like a relic of the past to me except in a few, special purpose situations.

Dave

[Chewy734]

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM - $1234.05+Tax w/ Sears Card @ sears.com

Use coupons:

SAVEMORE
Up to an Extra $25 off Purchases of $50 (expires 3/22/12 11:59pm)

SEARS2012
$5 off $50 Purchase (expires 12/31/12 11:59pm)
(excludes great price items, clearance, special purchases, introductory offers, electronics, entertainment, automotive, power tools, custom/personalized jewelry & watches, Celestial Star Diamond, appliances & select brands)