I am out of breath I am so excited! My 17-55, 70-200 and 200 f/2 just came in the mail. The 17-55 looks brand new. The 70-200 shows a little wear, but seems to work just fine...here is a quickie from the front yard (I gotta take my time and burn a little better...)...anyway,
HERE COMES THE PICKLE!!! http://traceylong.smugmug.com/photos/303573340_hHGp2-L.jpg
I unpacked the 17-55 and 70-200 first...I just got back in from ripping off about 20 shots with the 200. The shot above is with the 70-200 at 2.8. I have had really high expectations for the 200 due to its price tag, so I prepared myself to be disappointed. I am just now looking at the first few shots and I am impressed...I'll post a few in a couple minutes...
Hi guys...Keep in mind there is a learning curve associated with switching bodies...I don't have a foggy clue the best method to process these yet. I took them into PS, did a light NN sharpen, auto levels, crop and stroke.
These are two more from the 70-200 2.8 at 2.8 (obviously I converted one of these to B&W). Don't look at my dirty window.
Drum roll, please! The 200 f/2. So far I have learned that I can hand hold it, but only for very short periods. The DOF at f/2 is incredibly thin...I won't be using that a lot for sports. In the photo below, I focused used the center point to focus on Emma's belly. Her shirt is knife-sharp. Her face is acceptable, but definitely not as sharp as her shirt. But check out the bokeh...I can't even tell you how much junk is behind her! http://traceylong.smugmug.com/photos/303599561_56JyX-L.jpg
This is the first shot with it...I picked it up and clicked! I see her head, but where did the rest of my dog go?
you said it - to each his own. The 35 on a crop body amounts to about a 50 or so. Maybe a little warped but for the effect - usable. Sometimes you just gotta use things to find out how they are best used - its all a learning experience. A very enjoyable learning experience.
Look at Tracey - she is giddy with excitement and rightfully so. She has the experience and the chops to go out and shoot a new platform and get great results. We should all be so gifted.
JB - Guess you don't remember the days of walking around where the only lens you had was a 50...I sure do remember taking sweet portraits back then.
Matter of fact my two favorite lens (of a FF of course) was the 50 and the 135. I tried the 50 1.4 and didn't like it...so this 35 1.4 should be just....about perfect.
I also did a lot of looking trough my pics before I bought the 135 and I tend to be on the end of the 200 (70-200) so it is all good.
I personally don't think there is a "portriat" lens...well other than the lens I happen to have on my camera....I always seem to make "it" work.
It is fun breaking the rules....
Mark - It is really too bad the Canon can't make a decent 200 F2 that isn't 6K. The more I play with Nikon...the more I think I am wasting my time not having a D3....I will probably have to settle for the 5DII or the IDmkIIIN......to get a decent Canon body.....the Nikon glass is catching up if not passing the Canon as well.....
When I got into digital I had a 1,000 budget and a desire for a Nikon. The d70 entry level kit was 1200 so I got a d-reb for $999. In the end it worked out well as I got roped (not raped) into doing sports photography by this strange girl living in Atlanta. All I can say is her husband had a big gun and I was scared...
I could see me possibly upgrading to a MK3n but not when they first come out. The 5D2 would have to be exceptional as I am pretty good friends with my 5 and we are getting along just fine...
Anyway, a lot of the Nikon stuff looks good now but I am pretty heavily invested in Canon. Tracey has shown that you can switch around if you are a good shopper but I think I will stay where I am. I am 101% sure I'm not pushing the limits of what the cameras I own can do. When I get there I will look around and see what's up.
I REALLY hope after the Olympics is over that some of the pricing craziness we are seeing will stop. I'm hoping that some used stuff hits the market. I think the 200 is $1,000 high (at a minimum) I think once the pressure eases on the pipeline that the prices will start falling.
I don't really NEED a 200, I just WANT one badly...
mmm, another defection on the way? Yo be such a fickle lot!
Sushi & iced sake tonight, 'ritas tomorrow night, not sure what's up this weekend.
I went to the Hooters swimsuit contest at Cumberland. Had a terrible position facing the lights. I took 200 crappy shots but I did learn one thing (other than to get a better position). I learned that I should trust the metering on my camera. Chimping showed shots that looked a bit over exposed, so I dialed in -0.3 & -0.7. Results on computer screen was slight to moderate under exposure. So now I know that I must turn down the brightness on the LCD monitor on the camera and/or just trust the metering.
Jon, a wide angle bends things a little that a true 50 won't. So its a compromise at best and distorts faces a bit more than most subjects like. I'm not arguing with your right to break the rules or your choice in which lens to use.
I'm just stating many years of conventional wisdom by photographers from ... everywhere - with more experience and knowledge than you and me put together. It seems to prove a point - you're bucking them and throwing it in my face. Man - i don't need this. I ain't gonna suck up and be nice just cause you are showing some attitude. You said it - to each his own. Do it your way - its really Ok by me - its none of my business. You're doing fine all on your own. I have said i like your results - what more do you want? For me to kiss the ground you walk on? It ain't happening my friend. None of us here in FMville is that good.
I think I figured it out.....I took it out of ETTL mode and set it to manual mode...seems to fire in sync now. Must be too much light in here in ETTL mode?
? We want to know.....well I do anyway.
