Posts: edstubbs | Ugly Hedgehog

SharpShooter wrote:

Ed, that's pretty old tech for $1k. br Now if you... (show quote)

Thank you Sharpshooter. That all I needed to hear. :-)

I have an opportunity to purchase a very good used Canon Eos 1d Marklll, 10 megapixels. Price--$999

This would be a back up for my Canon 60D. It would also be replacing my well used Canon 20D. Any thoughts or opinions would be welcome.

(Main Photography Discussion)

wedding shoots....

cbwriter wrote:

most of what ive read from wedding fotographers suggest including a 70-200 mm lens to their equipment to take along on their wedding shoots...ive done it twice and came away sorely disappointed...i virtually had no use for it what so ever...but relied mainly on my 18-200 mm lens instead...can anyone tell me if and what they might use the 70-200 lens for, what instance?
Roque

Have you ever wanted to take a picture from a distance so as not to break the mood or disturb your subject; the bride, groom, parents, flower girl, etc. A good 70-200, f/2.8 will really come in handy. And if you only have one camera, master the skill of changing lenses quickly and unnoticed. One of the beauties of taking wedding photos are the ones they didn't know your were taking.

(Main Photography Discussion)

lenses choice

Joe Pau wrote:

Just getting into "birding", using a d300s and 800e and looking for a longer range lenses . I have a Nikon 70-300 now but want more range. Looking at the sigma 150-500 or tamron 150-600. Any idea on which one would give the clearest photo at max range. I know people have personal preferences but is there any test that compare them to each other.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=sigma_150-500_5-6p3_os&products=tamron_150-600_5-6p3_vc

Try to above link. If I did it correctly it should work. Other than this site, it is one of the few online sites that I visit for opinons. Hope it works, let me know if you could link on.

(Main Photography Discussion)

GAS: - seems I've also succumbed to the malady.

amehta wrote:

Gear Acquisition Syndrome

Fuel for your photography heart. :-D

Amehta, thank you kind sir. I believe I will be able to sleep tonight.

But unbeknownst to me, until just now, I also suffer from G.A.S. (and to make matters worst, I didn't even know it).

Thank again 😄

(Main Photography Discussion)

GAS: - seems I've also succumbed to the malady.

DannyJS wrote:

Hi dear UHH guys & gals. I've previously read ... (show quote)

I read about 'GAS' before, here in the forum for the first time a few days ago. And just like then, I didn't know what it meant than and I still don't know what it means now. Without making me feel too bad. . . can someone please let me know what GAS stands for (I know it can't mean what I am thinking

😮--fuel for my car? 🚗😂

(Main Photography Discussion)

New 70D and 100 IS USM Macro comming tommorow.

A reliable source earlier today told Canon Rumors to expect some new sensor technology when Canon finally reveals its followup to the 5-year-old 7D. The source didnt share many details, but this is supposedly more than an evolutionary technology something new that will appear in all Canon ...

http://petapixel.com/2014/06/19/rumor-reliable-source-says-7d-mark-ii-will-feature-completely-new-sensor-tech/

Just something I found on my cell phone under FLipBoard blogging. Truth or fiction?

(Main Photography Discussion)

18 mega pixels vs 20.2 mega pixel

lukan wrote:

Would you two please take your personal squabbles elsewhere or simply stop hijacking this thread? This acrimonious banter is ruining the thread for all of us other Hogs. Thank you!

🙏 Amen

(Main Photography Discussion)

Canon lense question

CHG_CANON wrote:

Thanks edstubbs! Glad I could help. I have the EF 200 f/2 and the EF 85 f/1.8 as well as the 135. I would suggest any of these for consideration in addition to the 70-200 zoom. Of course the zoom covers all three, but the IS and non IS f/2.8 lenses also cost the same (or more) than two of these primes combined.

I've learned more from this forum in a week than any of the yearly photography magazine subscriptions I read.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Canon lense question

CHG_CANON wrote:

Thanks edstubbs! Glad I could help. I have the EF 200 f/2 and the EF 85 f/1.8 as well as the 135. I would suggest any of these for consideration in addition to the 70-200 zoom. Of course the zoom covers all three, but the IS and non IS f/2.8 lenses also cost the same (or more) than two of these primes combined.

I've learned more from this forum in a week than any of the yearly photography magazine subscriptions I read.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Canon lense question

CHG_CANON wrote:

Thanks edstubbs! Glad I could help. I have the EF 200 f/2 and the EF 85 f/1.8 as well as the 135. I would suggest any of these for consideration in addition to the 70-200 zoom. Of course the zoom covers all three, but the IS and non IS f/2.8 lenses also cost the same (or more) than two of these primes combined.

I've learned more from this forum in a week than any of the yearly photography magazine subscriptions I read.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Canon lense question

CHG_CANON wrote:

Thanks edstubbs! Glad I could help. I have the EF 200 f/2 and the EF 85 f/1.8 as well as the 135. I would suggest any of these for consideration in addition to the 70-200 zoom. Of course the zoom covers all three, but the IS and non IS f/2.8 lenses also cost the same (or more) than two of these primes combined.

I've learned more from this forum in a week than any of the yearly photography magazine subscriptions I read.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Canon lense question

[quote=CHG_CANON]Thanks edstubbs! Glad I could help. I have the EF 200 f/2 and the EF 85 f/1.8 as well as the 135. I would suggest any of these for consideration in addition to the 70-200 zoom. Of course the zoom covers all three, but the IS and non IS f/2.8 lenses also cost the same (or more) than two of these primes combined.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Canon lense question

amehta wrote:

Yes, the 70-200mm f/2.8 is something of a standard among portrait photographers. The 300mm f/2.8 is very nice for head shots (or larger portraits if there is space), with great perspective and disappearing backgrounds.

I can now see why a 70-200 mm f/2.8 could take great portraits. With the right amount of light, maybe I can try my EF 75-300MM f/4-5.6

(Main Photography Discussion)

Canon lense question

CHG_CANON wrote:

Canon releases updates to their lenses. The II ind... (show quote)

There is so much to learn on this site (thanks to everyone) from those answering questions to those asking questions.

CHG, I went to the site you posted (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/) and was very surprised to learn that the individual on that site actually took and recommended portrait shots using a zoom lense, i.e. EF 70-200, F/2.8 as his favorite. Not to mention 2 prime lense, EF 300 f/2.8L and EF-200 F.2L distance permitting. Without your input, I probably would have never thought to use a zoom of this size for portrait shots. And yes, he did also recommend other lense as well, but these 3 stood out the most to me.