*OFFICIAL* Snapshot of the Day (one image per post please) #1

[The1]

Originally Posted by remmib

Wish I had a macro lens to shot my watch like that.

as mentioned by dave, I've heard the extension tubes are fantastic.

however, it is nice to have a 100mm prime lens too

I'm curious how the 100mm F2.8 compares to the 100mm F2.8L

I'm thinking at such a short range you're really paying the extra for the Image stabilizer. Which in all honesty, would be a nice addition. I think the IS would help a lot, with macro you basically always need to be on a tripod. It would open up mobility considerably.

I also don't find many situations where I want to use my macro, so that's one big point in favor of the extension tubes Dave was recommending and only a fraction of the investment.

[The1]

Originally Posted by dcstep

If you have to MF it's not the end of the world in macro, because you usually focus by setting the camera and then moving the whole shebang in and out fromt he subject. My Canon will AF with my Canon lenses and bodies, which does help some, but I often have to override the AF and go manual to get the right part of the subject in focus.

Dave

This is how I focus, I find it a pain trying to use the auto focus. On macro lenses it's so precise that it can be a pain in the ass.

I usually use the auto to find the object in front of me, then I just tip my whole body towards or away from the object after I've turned auto off.

I also will switch on the live view function if I want to get really anal about it (just setting you up Chewy) and zoom in 10x just to see exactly where i'm pointing the camera and get as precise as I can, but I'm pretty much still using my body to fine tune my focus.

[The1]

Calibre 1887

these shots are coming because I have 2 umbrellas now, so shooting macro has gotten a lot more entertaining...

and you don't have to talk a watch into sitting still for you to do a photoshoot

[MaximusJ]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I'm using Canon, but I've heard nothing but great things about Kinko. Make certain that the model you buy still allows for comunication between the body and lens and transmission of EXIF data. I think you're talking around 100-bucks. You can buy a "set" for more, but 25mm is versatile enough for your first experiments with macro.

If you have to MF it's not the end of the world in macro, because you usually focus by setting the camera and then moving the whole shebang in and out fromt he subject. My Canon will AF with my Canon lenses and bodies, which does help some, but I often have to override the AF and go manual to get the right part of the subject in focus.

Dave

I know it'll be a sharpening difference between the prime macro lens and this option; but I have a hard time justifying such an expense (105mm macro) for the use I would make of it.

Since they have no optics, I wonder what the Kenko set does that the noname $10 set does not?

Is it all about AF? I couldnt care more about having to manual focus while in Macro; I always do anyway!

What do you think about those? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Macro-Extens...item3357ec7ad2

I know I took the worse possible example, but I took those just to get your point fully.

[The1]

the EXIF data is really just personal preference, same with manual focusing. The autofocus is almost useless on the macro as it is unless you're just trying to shoot it as a normal prime lens, like taking peoples portraits.

you don't need anything fancy, but the canon one is nice so you can go back to a photo and have a reference point from a picture you took previously.

[The1]

more internals.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by MaximusJ

I know it'll be a sharpening difference between the prime macro lens and this option; but I have a hard time justifying such an expense (105mm macro) for the use I would make of it.

Since they have no optics, I wonder what the Kenko set does that the noname $10 set does not?

Is it all about AF? I couldnt care more about having to manual focus while in Macro; I always do anyway!

What do you think about those? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Macro-Extens...item3357ec7ad2

I know I took the worse possible example, but I took those just to get your point fully.

The sharpness using ETs is dependent on the sharpness of the lens you're using. Both my 70-200mm and 500mm are extremely sharp lenses. The ET is a hollow tube with electronics so that the lens can comunicate with the body.

DOF is very shallow, so focus is critical for macro. Shooting moving things, like bees, I keep the AF on. If your camera has various AF tracking modes, make sure is in Servo Tracking mode (the Canon name) so that it's correcting and anticipating change in the AF. The ability to keep up varies quite a bit from body to body. For things that don't move, go to MF and single-shot mode.

I'm a big believer in zooms. Some are big into primes, but I consider that a bow to the old film days. Why I'd want a 105mm prime in my bag when I've got a great 70-200mm zoom is hard for me to imagine. I carry all of my lenses almost all of the time (including a 500mm) so an extra piece that I'll hardly use seems crazy. If you work in a study and have them lined up on a shelf, then that's a different matter. Trudging around with an ET and a TC in a couple of vest pockets is more my style.

I don't understand why you'd MF all the time. Do you mainly shoot scenics? Have you changed the view screen in your prism so that MF is easier? I briefly thought of a MF Zeiss lens for scenics, but then it conflicted with my "if you own it, carry it" rule.

Dave

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by The1

more internals.

Focused on the T, I see.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Why I'd want a 105mm prime in my bag when I've got a great 70-200mm zoom is hard for me to imagine. I carry all of my lenses almost all of the time (including a 500mm) so an extra piece that I'll hardly use seems crazy.

Weight, physical size, sometimes price. Can you imagine carrying around a 70-200mm f/2.8L II with you all around the city instead of a 135mm f/2L? Sure, you lose the some flexibility in reach, but the weight savings alone on a day-long walking trip is invaluable. You can also take the 50mm or 85mm, etc instead.

That being said, the 70-200mm has it's own distinct advantages, but there are many reasonable explanations of why people would choose to bring a prime or two instead of that beast.

A prime cannot replace a zoom if all you're concerned with is your reach versatility, but you can also argue that a zoom sometimes (or many times depending on your style) cannot replace a prime.

[The1]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Focused on the T, I see.

yes, however, i think i was shooting about F13 or so, but it was my main objective.

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Weight, physical size, sometimes price. Can you imagine carrying around a 70-200mm f/2.8L II with you all around the city instead of a 135mm f/2L? Sure, you lose the some flexibility in reach, but the weight savings alone on a day-long walking trip is invaluable. You can also take the 50mm or 85mm, etc instead.

That being said, the 70-200mm has it's own distinct advantages, but there are many reasonable explanations of why people would choose to bring a prime or two instead of that beast.

A prime cannot replace a zoom if all you're concerned with is your reach versatility, but you can also argue that a zoom sometimes (or many times depending on your style) cannot replace a prime.

I do carry my 70-200 F2.8L everywhere I used to always carry my 100-400, but the 70-200 takes up so much room, I had to sacrifice. I also carry 2 bodies about 90% of the time.

I do this mainly because i'm travelling somewhere. If I know i'm going to be shooting something specific, I'll clear out part of my bag. Like for example, shooting in the evening or at night, I don't bother to pack the 7D. Shooting it at 3200ISO is painful. And a lot of cleaning up is required after.

I often have 2 flashes as well. (not sure why, i hardly touch them unless I'm indoors. I should really work on getting them on my camera more often when I'm outside for fill light.

I see what you're saying about using a prime to save weight, and I agree, but I also agree along the lines of what Dave is saying. when i have my 70-200 F2.8 on, I don't really see much of a sacrifice happening when comparing similar images to my 135L Yes there's some things noticable, but enough to sacrifice flexibility?

I'll use my 135L and my 100 macro shooting portraits indoors to get a nice DOF, but beyond that, I have trouble justifying using them day to day outside. (that being said, I'll put a prime on one camera, and a zoom on the other, and where one lacks, the other will solve the issue. I did this at my buddies wedding and for a business shoot for another friend)

[The1]

I have said "I" way too much today.... I need to get out more

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Weight, physical size, sometimes price. Can you imagine carrying around a 70-200mm f/2.8L II with you all around the city instead of a 135mm f/2L? Sure, you lose the some flexibility in reach, but the weight savings alone on a day-long walking trip is invaluable. You can also take the 50mm or 85mm, etc instead.

That being said, the 70-200mm has it's own distinct advantages, but there are many reasonable explanations of why people would choose to bring a prime or two instead of that beast.

A prime cannot replace a zoom if all you're concerned with is your reach versatility, but you can also argue that a zoom sometimes (or many times depending on your style) cannot replace a prime.

I go for hours every weekend with my 70-200mm on the 5D2 around my neck and the 500mm in my right or left hand. The 24-105mm is a vest pocket and the TC and ET have their own pockets. You'll not hear me crying anymore about the shot I missed because all I had was my 105mm.

Oh, in fairness, I should mention that my 70-200mm is f/4. If I were a wedding photog it'd be a 2.8, but I didn't see the point of the extra weight.

Dave

[The1]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I go for hours every weekend with my 70-200mm on the 5D2 around my neck and the 500mm in my right or left hand. The 24-105mm is a vest pocket and the TC and ET have their own pockets. You'll not hear me crying anymore about the shot I missed because all I had was my 105mm.

Oh, in fairness, I should mention that my 70-200mm is f/4. If I were a wedding photog it'd be a 2.8, but I didn't see the point of the extra weight.

Dave

comparing the 70-200 F4 to the 2.8 is hard, but I've noticed (it seems) that i get more contrast out of the 2.8. There's also considerably more vignetting and just being able to get that extra bukeh with ease is nice. And not to mention, 20 more minutes of shooting time in the evening

but overall, it is a very cumbersome lens. I don't really mind as the weight on my shoulders isn't too bad, but that being said, I put it on the black rapid strap, so the weight is spread a whole lot better.

The 70-200 F4, I would recommend in a heartbeat. But, just as strongly as the 2.8 Both are incredible, but the flexibility of the 2.8 won the day for me and that's why I parted with my F4.

[dcstep]

I've got ISO 6400 and/or a tripod when it gets dark. f/4 serves my current needs. Still, if I were a wedding photog, I'd go with the f/2.8 because of the indoor lighting issues.

[UdubBadger]

Hello from California...

[M_Six]

Note to self: NEVER think you won't need your camera. There may be an awesome sunset and you'll be stuck with a P&S.

Oh well.

[The1]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

Hello from California...

you finally got the sex change???



















are their more photos of her?

[UdubBadger]

there are, and another day scheduled later this week.

my host photog has me editing video right now, when thats done i'll get more done of her.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

there are, and another day scheduled later this week.

my host photog has me editing video right now, when thats done i'll get more done of her.

quit stalling... if this was some guy's full frontal nude, you'd have posted at least a dozen pics by now.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

quit stalling... if this was some guy's full frontal nude, you'd have posted at least a dozen pics by now.

[M_Six]

She's sporting more ink than The Boston Globe.

[The1]

Ink can be fun.... but i think that was a different time in my life when I found those girls acceptable... Still nice to look at.