PS: oooops..... did not see the penultimate post by the OP.......

It is always better to compare the like with the like. Comparing EF 70-200 f/2.8 II with Tamron 70-300 VC USD is like comparing the Rolls Royce Phantom with a Toyota Camry - and yes there is nothing too wrong as such with a Toyota Camry just as there is nothing too wrong as such with the Tamron. Yes as you can understand by now I have it and love it. I bought the EF 70-300 non-L along with the Tamron and compared them together and decided to return the Canon. The Tamron is optically better than the Canon non-L. I have some photos here on the image gallery
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15606.msg286408#msg286408

The rest is in my facebook and Flickr account. If you want to see go to my flickr page (in my signature)

In conclusion my suggestion is get the Tamron.

cayenne said:

I enjoyed the video...very informative, and I love it when folks show the diagram describing the lighting and model placement!!

One thing that struck me, and is just constructive criticism (coming from a total noob mind you), is that the B&W pic you showed, to me...seemed to have an almost plastic, unrealistic look...and you then mentioned you'd used a bit of skin softener.

I wonder what that shot would look like with less skin softening? Maybe do a version with a bit less and post them side by side on this thread?

Anyway, that was the only thing that caught my eye as a little odd looking..but again, enjoy the video and showing the shoot over all!!


cayenne

Click to expand...

thanks for the feedback champ
once i get home from work, ill post up a before and after. Now that you say it, i think your probably right (and i hate the look of plastic), but when i look at the full res version, it does show a little skin texture.

But thanks again for the feedback, and i will post up the pics

Happened to me once out of 80,000+ photos I took with my 5D mk3. I shot raw+jpg and the artifact only showed on the raw file. The jpg file was perfectly fine. I would upload the files but I don't remember which photo out of the 4tb of files it is.

I am going to be picking up one tomorrow!!!

Hi, I hired the ef-s 10-22 to do a specific job, this lens is awesome. Almost wish I never saw it as it immediately went on my wish list!
I would say you would not go wrong with this lens despite it not being your preferred prime! I keep waiting for the used price to drop, but I don't see that happening until they launch a MKII which i dont see happening any time soon. It would be hard to do as I don't think there is much they could do to improve on this lens except perhaps constant aperture with a lower f stop!
I would suggest you hire or borrow the most often recommended lenses to try for a few days then you will know which one suits your needs / wants.
Good luck with your quest.

Cheers Graham.

That is the closest to a consesus I've ever seen on the Canon Runors forum! Thanks to all who gave me their input, the 15-85 will be it. The 50 f1.8 will be faster in low light and the 70-200 will have the required reach for my needs.
Thanks again.
Patrick

Pi said:

CarlTN said:

That's a tad presumptive, you don't know what I consider sharp or not.

Click to expand...

Aliasing does not exclude sharpness, it is just not a sharp image of the original, it is something else (some call it false detail). Add noise, for example, and it will get even sharper (it will increase the high frequency component).

I never argued about what you, or somebody else, should like. I just call it what it is. Liking aliased images is perfectly legal in this country.

Click to expand...

I didn't say I liked aliases images, I said I couldn't see aliasing in the image. Obviously to you it sticks out, to me it does not. Since you're saying the image "fails", what is it it fails at? You're saying it couldn't be printed larger than 4x6 or something? Or even postage stamp size?

On a side note, you're probably not the one to ask (since you seem to think most people other than you are complete idiots...again something you share with your counterpart)...Anyhoo...in images that don't have enough pixel resolution, but still have "detail" (as in those I've done with the Foveon Generation "1" DP2 camera I used to own)...what is the correct technique for removing the "pixel blocking" that is still apparent after I scale up the image (either in PS or Perfect Resize 7)?

You will probably say there is no way, but it seems like there ought to be.

Tgara, it already went back to the shop, so I could not check your assumption.

By the way, just to mention that before returning the faulty 5D MkIII I had to send for replacement also the 24-70 f2.8 II. There was a little artifact, either on the inner side of the front element or within the glass of the front element. Could have been a dust speck which got in during manufacturing. Opened the box, saw it, packed it and sent it back. The replacement seems fine.

Thank you, SIR, Dear Mr. Pi.
Wow, Wow, Wow-----Just First try and great Photos like that---Wow.
I must take a time to learn to use this Lens---May be a long time to get the Goods one like your.
THANKS.
Surapon

Add away! I'm always happy to see other peoples work!

jrista said:

TexPhoto said:

In general 300mm and 400mm f2.8s are for sports first, wildlife 2nd.

500, 600, 800 are for wildlife first, and sports/other applications 2nd.

I have a 400mm f2.8 IS (the first one) and a 300mm f4, plus both vIII extenders. This gets me a wide range of telephoto options, from 300mm to 1280 (equiv. on the 7D)

The 600mm f4 II looks astonishing, but waaaay past my budjet.

Click to expand...

I actually like the 300/2.8 II for wildlife, especially deer and other ungulates. During this time of year especially, the males seem pretty docile. With as little as tan pants and a tan/light greenish camo shirt, they seem fearless enough to let me get well within 300mm range...even as close as 100mm range for a head shot. The weight and balance of the 300mm is a lot better, IMO, for your average walk-around wildlife photography than the 600mm (not that the 600mm isn't a great lens for that as well when you have more stationary or dangerous wildlife subjects.)

Click to expand...

I agree, and you can stalk football players, baseball players, track and field athletes as well. You don't even have to worry about camo. 300mm easier to carry than 600mm? Now that's just crazy.

CR00 said:

I'm glad I bought my 6D brand new with 24-105L at the end of June from an authorized dealer when Canon had their instant rebate. The dealer also had 15% off plus $50 store credit that weekend which brought the price down to ~$1,990.00. I think it's all about timing and be ready to buy when you see the right price.

Click to expand...

Wow, that's a terrific deal! I was an early 6D buyer, so paid $100 more for just the body... I knew I could save several hundred dollars by waiting 6 months or so, but was anxious to get a full format camera before the Christmas holidays.

Very nice. Thanks for sharing.

Hi I am regular visitor of the Mara. As said above, beware the max weight of luggages allowed (15 kgs). Everything in excess and you'll pay extra taxes and/or you'll have to leave some things at Wilson airport. Also use Soft luggages : easier to put in smaller airplanes.
I would go for 70-200 2.8 !
Every focal lengths are needed : from 16 to 800 ! Animals might be from very close to very far !
Beanbags are usually available in such camps, but you may come with an empty one and they'll fill it.

cnardo said:

Surapon...

Thanks so much for re-posting your tables. I shoot a lot of jegs and these tables can help me get the best photos possible. And thanks for sharing your pictures. They were excellent !

Click to expand...

Dear Cnardo.
Thank you SIR, for your great Words---You make my days. I am the Fan of this great Website for many years, but Just start to post last week, as the Newbee. But I have learn from every one in this Post, Difference Brain, Difference Heart, Difference Ability = Difference IDEAS. But My Main Goal in my Life are try to improve my love Hobby/ Photography, Plus share the New trick that I have learn to all of my friends. If you have Facebook acc., Please be my Friend on FB.----THANKS.
PS. I use that chart and setting in my 4 Canon DSLR cameras since 4-5 years, and It's work for me , when I just want POINT AND SHOOT as fast as possible= with out worry, when I just want the RECORDED PHOTOS in all of my Trips.

Used this lens as my standard zoom on the 5D Mark 1, and film camera's before that. Replaced it with the 24-105mm when I purchased the 5D Mark 2. Have noticed little benefit optically.

nice pics good pp.

the only thing that is kinda not cool is that her full name is in the file name. i wouldn't be posting that if i were you, she is most likely a minor and you should be extra careful about revealing her identity.

looking in utube
looks interesting
thanks

My shutter count is about 30-40,000 and noise seems to be increasing in my images...what used to be noise at ISO 800 is now present at ISO 400.
Just spoke to customer service and was told that it could be because I PP in LR4 and to try using DPP, have not done that yet.

Two questions: what in LR might be aggravating the noise and, if it isn't LR caused, what may cause the problem?

Maybe I am doing something wrong, but I am so sick of trying to keep a softbox from swaying back and forth and up and down on a lightstand.

I use a Manfrotto Umbrella Swivel Adapter, which is very solid, but the problem seems to come in with the softbox bracket and strobe holder just not being very secure.

What do others use?

I stumbled across this photo posted by CanonWatch. What do you all think? Does it look legit? I don't know much about Sigma other than they're completely changing the lens game and I'll probably pounce on this lens like a fat kid on a cupcake!

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-et-voila-first-picture-of-the-sigma-24-70mm-f2-0-full-frame-lens/

.
"Practical" applications seem hard to come up with. Since there is no control over the "decisive moment," let's say, you'd never be sure what you're getting.

Based on my experience this past weekend, I'd say a funeral may be a useful application. The funeral is the one instance where I've never been able to bring myself to pull out the camera and take pictures. I can't intrude on such emotions, yet the images are as valid and necessary as any other family function. We have pictures of every other family event, yet when someone dies all we have is a tombstone -- and usually no picture of that.

On a lighter not, maybe the drunks would find it a useful replacement for lost memory! "Damn, I was hittin' on that dog!!"

Thank you, Sir, Mr, Sdsr.
Thanks for your Great Infor. Yes, I learn some thing new in every day, If I do not Know, JUST ASK the PRO.
Surapon

Derrick said:

Huge lightning over Sandton, Johannesburg. Canon 1Ds, 70-200mm f4 (45 second exposure)

Click to expand...

Amazing shot..wow!

Didn't the fuji s5 pro have a similar design with a big pixel and a little pixel? It worked then, could it work now?