My 70-200 is my most used and most loved lens. I bought a 200mm f1.8 a little over a year ago. Touched the paint up and sold it for $300 more than I paid. It was interesting, but I never felt like it was a replacement for my 70-200.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Call me crazy....So if you are going to get a light meter.... Get a REALLY good one that will tell you more about your light than the camera will.
Cool shots TexPhoto I especially like the first picture.+1 Absolutely cool!
Sorry i was away, I was using an after market flash extension cord, I was around 120th I think and yes I had a B&W pro filter on.
Hmm, makes me think less of B&W pro filters. Those things should be multicoated to prevent this.
Sorry to be obtuse here, but when light hits surface of the glass on both surfaces, there is reflection, and refraction. But in the glass there is transmission and absorption. Some light will always be lost to being absorbed. It makes heat. So
Even the best multicoating won't completely stop this phenomenon. Think of it this way: if you can *see* a piece of glass, that necessarily means it reflects some incident light, otherwise it would be completely invisible to you. To be immune to this phenomenon, you'd need a glass that would look invisible and fail to show any reflected light over a wide range of viewing angles.
The fact that the flash is throwing a ton of light directly into the lens at an angle that is not image-forming virtually guarantees that there will be a lot of veiling glare. That non-image-forming light bounces off the lens sub-barrel and diaphragm, comes back out, hits the filter, and because it's a macro shot, ends up forming a very nice detailed ghost of the inside of the lens.
Sure, without doing something more drastic, such a reflection is pretty much guaranteed. I'd love to see a filter like this with a nanocoating. Where multicoating can cancel out enough reflections to allow up to 97% transmission, that's still 3% reflection. A nanocoating, on the other hand, can simply prevent reflections entirely, resulting in 99.95% or better transmission. I bet a nanocoated UV/protect filter would have handled this situation nicely.
Combine all this 3 images to give a single shot HDR RAW.
But I really wonder if this lens will out resolve a 70-200 f2.8 IS II? This is one of the sharpest lenses in the world. I would put my money there, add a 1.4X converter III and shoot my pants off.
It would be better to have a native 300 at 2.8 then a 280 f/4 via tc. That said, I think the 70-200 2.8 + tc might be better for the OP simply because he has a limited budget and needs to shoot indoor and outdoor sports. Another alternative could be to get both a used Sigma 70-200 2.8 for ~$650ish (or the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC) and a used Canon 300 f4 IS for ~$1000 and get decent coverage indoor and outdoor with native FL's and apertures. Either way would be cheaper than the 120-300 2.8 and have a bit more versatility, even if its not ideal for dedicated field sports shooting.
An enlarger is a projector for film, right? So why not take a digital projector (of the sort used in offices to project Powerpoint slides), set it up aimed at the wall, set the photo file to 'inverse' (or is the setting actually called negative?) and you then can adjust the distance until you have the right size image you want. Focus properly, tape the paper holder to the wall, put in your print paper, and you've rigged up a digital enlarger.
Proceed normally from there.
Decades ago I would turn my enlarger head 90 degrees and tape the paper to the wall so I could get massive amounts of enlargement. Same deal here.
Would that satisfy the urge to go analog from digital (cheaply)?