Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

L Glass w/ a Classy A**

efoto said:
Last I looked the 50 f/1.4 was $300+, you talking about the f/1.8 or you mix up your prices? :confused:

I went the opposite road as you, starting with 24-70 and hopefully attaining the 70-200 in the not-so-distant-yet-not-so-far-away future :rolleyes: :D Pair that with a 1.4x tele-converter and you have 24-280 focal L range (effectively 38.4-448 with then 1.6x FOV). Pretty sweet, I know that's my goal....
Click to expand...

I'm an idiot - I meant the f/1.8.

I was going to ask you how you liked the 24-70. Is it odd getting used to it being sort of "reversed" in that the lens is longest at it's shortest focal length?

Got any images you care to share that you've snapped?

I'm in the same boat - cutting silly expenses where I can, just so I can get closer to that 24-70......
 
Mike Teezie said:
I'm an idiot - I meant the f/1.8.

I was going to ask you how you liked the 24-70. Is it odd getting used to it being sort of "reversed" in that the lens is longest at it's shortest focal length?

Got any images you care to share that you've snapped?

I'm in the same boat - cutting silly expenses where I can, just so I can get closer to that 24-70......
Click to expand...

I figured you meant the f/1.8, had me scared I missed a fabulous deal on the f/1.4 at $80 :eek:

The hardest thing for me getting used to is that Canon is reversed from Nikon in zoom. Canons are (at least this 24-70 is :p) counter-clockwise to telephoto, clockwise to wide which is opposite all the Nikon stuff I had. Are all their lenses like this? This particular lens going out for 24 and in for 70 doesn't make a lick of difference to me, just a bit funny, especially when you are trying to take a picture of someone and they tell you to zoom out because they don't want a face-splat picture and you tell them you are zoomed out, the lens goes out when it's wide :rolleyes: :D

I haven't even uploaded any to my computer yet, today was the first day I was able to test-shoot the camera and the lens. I can throw some up once I get a few more things figured out.
 
I only have my 18-55mm kit lens besides the prime, and it is the same as your 24-70 - counter-clockwise to telephoto.

Can't wait to see those shots you took....
 
efoto said:
I kind of like the white color, the transition from a black body to a white lens....I think it looks neat. They certainly broke the mold a while back, everyone knows what a white lens means, even if they aren't into photography at all. When you see pictures of the picture-takers at sporting events it's always a crowd of massive white lenses :p
Click to expand...

Not quite so true, Nikon has also started offering white telephoto lenses... :eek:

efoto said:
The red ring is what the real shooters look for, that's where the L is at ;)....white just makes that stand out, or negates your requirement to look for it because you know white means L too. Oh well, it's how it is and I still want one :D
Click to expand...

What the real shooters look for are the golden rings for ED glass ;)

[Beware: lame cheap bragging ahead :p]
I sure love the golden ring on my AF Nikkor 300 1:2.8 :D :D
Don't care for the weight though...
(it's old, worn and focuses slow, but as all Nikon 300/2.8 it's optically brilliant)
 
efoto said:
I hate you for having ordered a 70-200 L lenses (and for having a girlfriend :rolleyes: )
Click to expand...
That makes two of us then! Hahaha, I'm stuck with a HP PhotoSmart 435 (3mp)...*sigh*, I might get a new camera soon....but, then I want a new intel Mac......or that perdy girl in that picture :D decisions... decisions...:rolleyes: :p
 
I told my girlfriend about this thread today. She laughed and said she would pose with the camera/lens.

Now I have to start thinking about what this shot needs to look like.....
 
LimeiBook86 said:
That makes two of us then! Hahaha, I'm stuck with a HP PhotoSmart 435 (3mp)...*sigh*, I might get a new camera soon....but, then I want a new intel Mac......or that perdy girl in that picture :D decisions... decisions...:rolleyes: :p
Click to expand...

Make that three of us ;)

I'm going to sell my 28-135 IS lens...not happy with it. I think I'm going to spend the extra buckage and go with an "L" of some sort; not sure which yet.
 
Mike Teezie said:
I told my girlfriend about this thread today. She laughed and said she would pose with the camera/lens.

Now I have to start thinking about what this shot needs to look like.....
Click to expand...

I think we all know what it needs to look like....it's pretty obvious it needs to be better than the first post ;) If it's necessary that you email it to me instead of posting it, that's fine, I'll PM my address :rolleyes: :D

MattG said:
Make that three of us ;)

I'm going to sell my 28-135 IS lens...not happy with it. I think I'm going to spend the extra buckage and go with an "L" of some sort; not sure which yet.
Click to expand...

The f/4 L's are quite nice, much more cost effective than the f/2.8's but obviously brighter and faster ;). I almost purchased the 17-40 L but the focal length was just a bit too short in my opinion. The 70-200 f/4 L gets awesome reviews in every way in comparison to the f/2.8 (IS) versions, so that's always an option too. L is definitely sweet, I love the build quality of this 24-70 L, feels plain awesome but f/2.8 is freakin' huge!!! :eek: 77mm filters, doesn't even fit into the bag I had before due to diameter :)/:(
 
MattG said:
Make that three of us ;)

I'm going to sell my 28-135 IS lens...not happy with it. I think I'm going to spend the extra buckage and go with an "L" of some sort; not sure which yet.
Click to expand...

What weren't you happy about, if you don't mind me asking?
 
efoto said:
I think we all know what it needs to look like....it's pretty obvious it needs to be better than the first post ;) If it's necessary that you email it to me instead of posting it, that's fine, I'll PM my address :rolleyes: :D



The f/4 L's are quite nice, much more cost effective than the f/2.8's but obviously brighter and faster ;). I almost purchased the 17-40 L but the focal length was just a bit too short in my opinion. The 70-200 f/4 L gets awesome reviews in every way in comparison to the f/2.8 (IS) versions, so that's always an option too. L is definitely sweet, I love the build quality of this 24-70 L, feels plain awesome but f/2.8 is freakin' huge!!! :eek: 77mm filters, doesn't even fit into the bag I had before due to diameter :)/:(
Click to expand...

I love you efoto!!
A girl that knows her photography equipment = gold :D

Anyways I love my 24-70 L and the f/2.8 is nice but sheesh the lens is rather large and beefy as is, cant imagine trying to shove some 77mm filters into my bag or case with the limited room both have now trying to squeeze a Mk II n and the lens in. I must admit I have been looking for some extra reach and I've almost settled down for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS to give me some extra reach over the 24-70. I'm debating between a 28-300L a 70-200L and a 100-400L at this point to give me some reach over the 70mm and maybe to avoid frequent lens swapping.

Have fun!
MacNoobie
 
MacNoobie said:
I love you efoto!!
A girl that knows her photography equipment = gold :D

Anyways I love my 24-70 L and the f/2.8 is nice but sheesh the lens is rather large and beefy as is, cant imagine trying to shove some 77mm filters into my bag or case with the limited room both have now trying to squeeze a Mk II n and the lens in. I must admit I have been looking for some extra reach and I've almost settled down for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS to give me some extra reach over the 24-70. I'm debating between a 28-300L a 70-200L and a 100-400L at this point to give me some reach over the 70mm and maybe to avoid frequent lens swapping.

Have fun!
MacNoobie
Click to expand...

HAHAHA ROFL :p :D....I'm hot :rolleyes: I'm an outty-genital (man)! The 'tar strikes again! Muhuhaha ;)

Look at the 70-200 f/2.8 (IS) and a 1.4x tele-converter, gives awesome reach for the times you want but not the added size and cost of a much larger lens (300/400/500 prime). In addition, the 1.4x tc only losses one stop, effectively making it a f/4 (IS) which is pretty sweet considering your new focal length (98-280 before 1.6x FOVCF from camera). Although if you think you're going to have the tele-converter on there all the time, you may as well at the 100-400 to save you some swapping.

I love the 24-70 thus far, but I'm somewhat financially stuck at the moment, so despite my mass wanting for that 70-200, I'll have to wait for a little while.
 
MattG said:
Make that three of us ;)

I'm going to sell my 28-135 IS lens...not happy with it. I think I'm going to spend the extra buckage and go with an "L" of some sort; not sure which yet.
Click to expand...

It's a great lens for aerial photography with the range and IS, just not so great with regular stuff, IMO.

My 24-70L sucks ass for aerials. Awesome for tripod landscape, creative and product shots, though.
 
Moxiemike said:
it's true.

rail thin = hurts like h-e-double hockey sticks.

Especially when... ah nevermind.
Click to expand...

Oh man, this thread is getting closed :p

It turns out there aren't many hotties holding nice glass (back OT) that I could find. I found a few around/near camera equipment, but most of those shots were quite old and not worth sharing.

This isn't 'L glass' but it's certainly an 'a**', though I'm not convinced of the aforementioned a**'s class:

canon_maria_sharapova.jpg


If you watch your tennis, you know who that is ;)
 
efoto said:
Oh man, this thread is getting closed :p

It turns out there aren't many hotties holding nice glass (back OT) that I could find. I found a few around/near camera equipment, but most of those shots were quite old and not worth sharing.

This isn't 'L glass' but it's certainly an 'a**', though I'm not convinced of the aforementioned a**'s class:

canon_maria_sharapova.jpg


If you watch your tennis, you know who that is ;)
Click to expand...

there's a few female pj's in my town who are as beautiful as they are talented. it's always fun working the crowds and chattering with 'em. :)

they know their ****.
 
efoto said:
HAHAHA ROFL :p :D....I'm hot :rolleyes: I'm an outty-genital (man)! The 'tar strikes again! Muhuhaha ;)

Look at the 70-200 f/2.8 (IS) and a 1.4x tele-converter, gives awesome reach for the times you want but not the added size and cost of a much larger lens (300/400/500 prime). In addition, the 1.4x tc only losses one stop, effectively making it a f/4 (IS) which is pretty sweet considering your new focal length (98-280 before 1.6x FOVCF from camera). Although if you think you're going to have the tele-converter on there all the time, you may as well at the 100-400 to save you some swapping.

I love the 24-70 thus far, but I'm somewhat financially stuck at the moment, so despite my mass wanting for that 70-200, I'll have to wait for a little while.
Click to expand...

LMAO I've been following the thread for a while and figured I'd chime in at ohh ~4 am when I'm tired. :cool:

I wouldn’t mind the 70-200 just for the fast f/2.8 aperture but I know when I get a 1.4x converter it brings it down to f/4 so that’s still pretty good but kind of defeats the purpose of having the fast aperture. I might have to find out when my dads friend gets back here and try out his 100-400 L and see how dark it is because I liked the lens but the view finder on his 20D was small it was hard to do any decent photos in doors and get em sharp. I might invest in a prime like a 50mm or 135mm for portraits and things like that but a long zoom lens is a priority to get closer to wild life and things like that. I went ahead and got a first time dSLR (1D Mk II n) with a 1.3x crop factor so the lens end up being 36-260 without the 1.4x converter and ~76-540 with, pretty good for loosing a stop with the 1.4x tc at that focal length and still having IS. I could go with a 100-400 and have it 130-520 and that’s what half a stop worse then the 70-200 combo.

I must say I'm a sucker for beautiful women though, mostly the girl next-door types as oppose to the makeup'd models I commonly see. Anna kournikova is no exception, that’s a ohhhh sooooo nice photo of her I like the shot. The Nikon girl aside from the token Nikon yellow has nice skin tone, the girl with the Canon and niiice L glass from the OP is nice but too makeup'd on.

BTW efoto who's the girl in the Avatar shes nice!
 
MacNoobie said:
I must say I'm a sucker for beautiful women though, mostly the girl next-door types as oppose to the makeup'd models I commonly see. Anna kournikova is no exception, that’s a ohhhh sooooo nice photo of her I like the shot. The Nikon girl aside from the token Nikon yellow has nice skin tone, the girl with the Canon and niiice L glass from the OP is nice but too makeup'd on.

BTW efoto who's the girl in the Avatar shes nice!
Click to expand...

the canon girl looks too plasticky and while the nikon girl is cute i hear she's noisy as all get out.
 
iGary said:
It's a great lens for aerial photography with the range and IS, just not so great with regular stuff, IMO.

My 24-70L sucks ass for aerials. Awesome for tripod landscape, creative and product shots, though.
Click to expand...


shouldn't you be using a t/s lens for product shots? shame on you if you aren't. ;)
 
Moxiemike said:
the canon girl looks too plasticky and while the nikon girl is cute i hear she's noisy as all get out.
Click to expand...

I agree, like I said I ABSOLUTELY HATE models that have a plasticy or hollow look to em, too much make up on em anyways. The Nikon girl just has nice skin especially on her stomach, very natural and nice, the Canon girl is attractive dont get me wrong but just the makeup is caked on and the way shes holding the camera seems like she's either never held a camera before or she's never held a Canon that large before.
 
MacNoobie said:
I agree, like I said I ABSOLUTELY HATE models that have a plasticy or hollow look to em, too much make up on em anyways. The Nikon girl just has nice skin especially on her stomach, very natural and nice, the Canon girl is attractive dont get me wrong but just the makeup is caked on and the way shes holding the camera seems like she's either never held a camera before or she's never held a Canon that large before.
Click to expand...


i was saying that more to do the ol' comparison between nikon and canon camerasssss.

haha

that said, have you ever been to a PMA or fotokina show? they're ALL about scantily clad bimb...weereee... i mean women hawking the latest digitoys
 
Mike Teezie said:
What weren't you happy about, if you don't mind me asking?
Click to expand...

It's just not as sharp as I had hoped it would be. I get very mixed results from it, I guess depending on the focal length being used. The 24-70L I used to have (back when I used a Canon 35mm SLR) was tack sharp, but also 2x the price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back