My oh my, Lide, you do have a magic touch when it comes to portrait and female beauty. Hard to say which one I like best, but the third one from the top is kinda unique because it conveys beauty in a very simple and elementary, colourless way.
PetKal wrote:
My oh my, Lide, you do have a magic touch when it comes to portrait and female beauty. Hard to say which one I like best, but the third one from the top is kinda unique because it conveys beauty in very simple and elementary, colourless way.
Thanks for the nice words.
The young girl is very beautiful for sure, actually she came along with her older sister for her sister's portfolio shoot, but I was more interested at her though
My 24-70 is my most used lens. It's my go to. It's sharp throughout the range. Nice and wide on my 5D, and 70mm works for some portraits for me on the 5D. On the 40D, I get a little more "reach" in the filling of the frame department. Focus is fast, and accurate.
When I get a 7D, it'll pair up nicely for lower level MMA events, where a 70-200 is too long.
My 24-70 in tandem with my 70-200 2.8IS can cover any event I need. The lens has produced *(well lens and camera) award winning images for me, and images my clients buy.
I cannot complain about it. If the people who won't stop crying about it not having IS, get their way, and it gets IS, I hope Canon does what Nikon does. Offer an IS and a non-IS version, because I'd buy another if I needed in a heartbeat. With the way prices are increasing, I can see an IS version adding a couple hundred bucks to the premium. While I think they could produce a stellar lens, in the focal length cheaper (think 17-55) and make the build more robust (think current 24-70), Canon won't do it.
Why charge the 1200 or 1300 (what does a 24-70 cost now? I bought mine for 1269 or something last year) for a 24-70 f/2.8IS, when you can charge 1800? That's Canon's brain power.
I will elaborate on what I said, because I don't think it's clear.
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8IS is like 999. It's sharp, fast focusing and accurate..oh f/2.8, IS, and a 3.23X zoom
EF 24-70 f/2.8 non IS is like 1200+. It's all of the above, except a 2.91X zoom, no IS and a little bit more robust. The price point isn't that much different.
I understand that the EF-S never mounts to FF, but MOST users of the 24-70 are 1.3 or 1.0 crop. So the focal lengths are even closer when you compare an XXD with 17-55, and an XD (well where X doesn't =7) with a 24-70.
So if you add IS, what's Canon going to do? Go, oh, it's going to be the same price as the 24-70 f/2.8 non IS. Okay, so whyw ould anyone buy the 17-55 anymore? (so we know Canon wouldn't do this). The only logical explanation is, the price goes UP!
Think of what the 70-200 f/2.8IS goes for...Would you pay that for the 24-70 with IS?
My 24-70 is my most used lens. It's my go to. It's sharp throughout the range. Nice and wide on my 5D, and 70mm works for some portraits for me on the 5D. On the 40D, I get a little more "reach" in the filling of the frame department. Focus is fast, and accurate.
When I get a 7D, it'll pair up nicely for lower level MMA events, where a 70-200 is too long.
My 24-70 in tandem with my 70-200 2.8IS can cover any event I need. The lens has produced *(well lens and camera) award winning images for me, and images my clients buy.
I cannot complain about it. If the people who won't stop crying about it not having IS, get their way, and it gets IS, I hope Canon does what Nikon does. Offer an IS and a non-IS version, because I'd buy another if I needed in a heartbeat. With the way prices are increasing, I can see an IS version adding a couple hundred bucks to the premium. While I think they could produce a stellar lens, in the focal length cheaper (think 17-55) and make the build more robust (think current 24-70), Canon won't do it.
Why charge the 1200 or 1300 (what does a 24-70 cost now? I bought mine for 1269 or something last year) for a 24-70 f/2.8IS, when you can charge 1800? That's Canon's brain power....Show more →
+1 Absolutely agree. I know quite a few people want this lens in IS version and yes perhaps I would get a few more keepers. But this lens balances out and holds so nice I don't think IS is needed.
I have a concept that haven't explored yet beyond a few initial "sketches" with the 24-70L. The idea is to try to work with the traditional Chinese format of silk / rice paper paintings and ink graphics. They are rolled into scrolls, and both short ends secured into pieces of wood mouldings/bars. Probably folks like Lide are very familiar with them.
The challenge is to see and camera/lens-build a scene into the described format which is extremely vertical, as opposed to doing it by cropping as an afterthought.
PetKal wrote:
I have a concept that haven't explored yet beyond a few initial "sketches" with the 24-70L. The idea is to try to work with the traditional Chinese format of silk / rice paper paintings and ink graphics. They are rolled into scrolls, and both short ends secured into pieces of wood mouldings/bars. Probably folks like Lide are very familiar with them.
The challenge is to see and camera/lens-build a scene into the described format which is extremely vertical, as opposed to doing it by cropping as an afterthought.
RobertLynn wrote:
... If the people who won't stop crying about it not having IS, get their way, and it gets IS, I hope Canon does what Nikon does. Offer an IS and a non-IS version, because I'd buy another if I needed in a heartbeat.
