So much for my prosumer camera theory!

[DavidPisback]

Actually, that has primes and zooms in it.

And, actually, they aren't ALL mine. This was from a year or two ago. I was up in Dallas visiting Jason and Olga and we were doing some serious lens testing.

I think that represented one of each of all the lenses that we all owned at the time (for some lenses, 2 or 3 of us each owned our own copy).

My current collection is "only" this list:

15/2.8 fisheye
24/1.4
35/1.4
50/1.0
85/1.2 Mk-I (soon to be sold, once I confirm I like Mk-II better)
85/1.2 Mk-II
135/2
200/1.8
300/2.8 IS
400/4 DO IS
500/4 IS
16-35/2.8 Mk-II
24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8 IS
24-105/4 IS
1.4x-II TC
2x-II TC

I have the 5D and am awaiting two 1D-III's (sold both my 1D-II's).

I used to own the 500/4.5 and 70-200/2.8 non-IS and 16-35/2.8 Mk-I, as well.

Let's see, I also have the 12mm and 25mm extension tubes, as well as the 580-EX-II flash (sold the 550-EX). Sold two 1D's, sold a D30. Have an ST-E2.

Probably forgotten a thing or two, as well. LOL

 

[Don Finch]

YOU are SOOOOOOOOOOO sick!! LOL
--
Happy Shooting
regards,
def
http://www.pbase.com/definchdds

 

[DavidPisback]

How could I forget. I also owned the 28-135 IS and 100-400 IS for a while . . sold both those to my brother. I also had the 50/1.4 that I sold.

 

[Bill Robinson]

Reckon those fellas in front of you at the basket ball will be asking you to join them any minute. )
PA ? Photographers Anon ?

I'll be the bloke at the end of the row with the three p&s's, the 20D, 5D and a few lens's.
If you find the cure, let me know !!! lol
cheers
Bill

Gotta believe in something....believe I'll take another photo...

http://billrobinson.potd.com.au
http://www.pbase.com/widesreenque

 

[J A K]

Take up golf; this is the ONLY antidote and every avid golfer out there knows exactly what I mean.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia/original



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

 

[FMPhoto]

Gary, as I read this post I sat and thought, Oh My God....its me.....! I can relate to everything you have written in this post. The only place we differ slightly is I had to make a choice, the 300 2.8 or the Mark III and since I got the email today that my Mark III is sitting at the store, well, on comes the Mark III. Besides I have a 70-200 IS and a 1.4 TC which although is not quite as sharp, will suit me just fine for a while. Thanks for the post and thanks for the laugh. Its now off to the Sony Forum where things are a little tense tonight;> !

--
Robb
http://fmphoto.smugmug.com/




Why is it that the best picture you could ever take is always the image right before you press the shutter release?!?!?!
NAPP Member
H Series Duck Club Member
WSSA Member #76

 

[TimR32225]

I'll give you one word of advice....

If you don't to spend $4K on a lens, then DO NOT try out the 300 f2.8.

Because if you try it out, you're buying it - Guaranteed!

Remember the day I told you this.

I wouldn't lie.

I have that lens and it's awesome for sports. I don't think Canon makes a finer super telephoto.
--

Gallery at: http://www.pbase.com/tim32225

 

[Kanga]

Hi Gary,

My absolute compassion goes out to you! Knew I had to have the 5d when I saw the damn pictures for the first time, tried to talk myself out of it - Arrggg to no avail., didn't realize the dilemma of the lenses that was to follow!!!! well I did logically but gggrrrrrr....... just not how deep............

Well we just have to face facts, I suppose.

1. The driving desire behind all of this 5 years ago for you. When you wanted the best IQ (the camera and the lens). So, no point in fighting it, you're amongst kindred spirit here on this forum. Let's face it, we have all got this disease for life! As harrowing as it may be over the "which ruddy lens debate". "where's the money"?

On a more serious note, your driving desire was always to get better sport's pics. Having seen the superb quality of the 400 5.6 in the hands of "Daniella", it's a lot cheaper than the 300 2.8, the AF doesn't seem to let her down. IQ looks superb. I wonder how it would go for sports etc, is the AF fast enough, wide enough aperture for those situations. Just a thought!!!!

Here's Daniella's link.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=23298836


Very kind regards,
Joanne

--
5D and me..........happy as can be.....
For when I'm ninety and singing the blues, accurately!

 

[Kanga]

OMG ---.............I'm doomed.......................

I actually innocently thought if I could just get the low light, the reach and the street lens, I'd be set. Seems I'm just beginning on this perilous trail. Will I be like you....... never happy, have to just get one more lens, every year until eternity........

Very kind regards
Joanne
--
5D and me..........happy as can be.....
For when I'm ninety and singing the blues, accurately!

 

[gary stepic]

Joanne,

I do a lot of night sports photography so the 2.8 is important. For more reach I can use the 1.4 converter so I would have a still pretty fast lens, and with the Mark III perhaps files using 4.0 and 3200 iso just as clean as 1600 iso with 2.8 on my Mark II.

I probably will wait until next summer though as I have to recover from my many recent purchases.

Gary
--
http://www.expecttowinphotos.com

 

[gary stepic]

Wila,

Thank you for the very kind words! I peeked at your galleries and I am impressed with your photos so you need to give yourself more credit and me less. I really feel I have a long way to go before I feel I am meeting my standards.

Then again maybe this is part of the disease - we are rarely satisfied with our work and always feel we can do better!

Gary
--
http://www.expecttowinphotos.com

 

[gary stepic]

I have no doubt I will get this lens. At one time I thought I would never spend near four thousand bucks on a lens but I never thought I would spend over that amount on a body either!

Gary
--
http://www.expecttowinphotos.com

 

[Steven Noyes]

--
---
Spring 2007 (Paria Plateau):
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_spring_2007

2006 White Sands and Bisti Workshop
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/white_sands_and_bisti

 

[gary stepic]

Heaven help me!

Gary
--
http://www.expecttowinphotos.com

 

[gary stepic]

I may end up buying another prosumer camera as there are times when this type of camera is more suited to carry around than our dslr. I just came back from a vacation to disneyland with my wife and 7 year old granddaughter and I learned quickly to leave my bag in our room and just take the 5D. Three people and even two in many of the rides with a camera bag were a bit much at times.

Then there were all the rides where there was risk of getting the camera wet. Needless to say I passed on those as I was not about to risk ruining a $2,000 + camera for an amusement park ride. I brought along a video camera but never used it, so the film clip capablity of prosumer cameras are really nice at amusement parks.

I agree with some comments about the Sony 828 still being a very nice camera. Someone posted the Sony forum is in an uproar and I wonder if it is because of Phil's recent review. I still prefer something a little more portable and being water resistant would be nice. My wife and I will be going to Hawaii in November and I may pick up a prosumer camera before that trip, either that or a video camera. Uusally for vacations a small clip is all I really want to preserve the sound of the ocean or listening to a nice band while sipping on a pina colada. A prosumer camera also would come in handy for those times when a little pop up flash is all that is really needed.

Gary

--
http://www.expecttowinphotos.com

 

[gary stepic]

Since I am somewhat of an audiofile I understand what you are saying. The one big difference though is we can make money from our camera gear while our stereo systems are typically just for our enjoyment.

But you have given me something to tell my wife. Along with the "I could be doing drugs, or gampling, or other vices" we tell spouses after buying our expensive gear I can add "I could be wanting to upgrade our music system but I won't and look what we are saving!".

By the way a great shot and I do miss that camera. It was one of the best prosumers I ever owned.

Gary
--
http://www.expecttowinphotos.com

 

[Mark56519]

I'm surprised that people sell off their Nikon stuff even after they move to Canon. I've heard nothing but praise for their 18-200mm VR, and they're the only ones with a 200/f2 VR. I love my 5D and 35L, and I'm not jumping ship, but I'd consider buying a Nikon body just for those 2 lenses. Actually if I was in the market for that 200/f2, I would buy a Nikon body just to go with it. Ah, to wish...

 

[Mark56519]

...the low-light fixation pretty much confined me to primes, so you can stumble on a self-limiting obsession. Also, I'm lazy, oh so lazy. I want the 70-200/2.8 IS, in theory, but when I go into the store and pick it up, I know there's no way I'll carry it around. Too heavy, too large, too obtrusive for me. So yes, I do want a few more lenses, but thankfully the big white ones don't interest me all that much.

The 135L and 200/2.8L are on my list, as is the 15mm fisheye. But there's nothing else I really lust after. I keep looking at the 24-105/f4, but I've played with it in the store and it didn't do it for me. I keep looking at Sigma's 12-24mm, but truthfully I'm fine using PTtools for anything wider than my 35L. I want the 15mm fisheye just because I love the Peleng fisheye on the crop cameras but I don't like it so much on the 5D. I miss that field of view.

But I heartily recommend developing a fixation on low-light non-flash photography. Yes, there's the 85/1.2 lurking to lure you in, but if you're lazy like me (a nice backup defense mechanism) then that lens is too much heavier than the 85/1.8 to justify it. But the 35L, 85/1.8, and 135L combo is pretty good, and doesn't scream "I can't say no!" One might even call the combination portable. Even adding in the 200/2.8L doesn't break the bank account or spinal column.

And you thought the "I only use primes" lens snobs were just being uppity--no, they were just being LAZY. We don't want to carry those big zooms.

 

[gary stepic]

Mark,

I came very close to keeping my 18-200 and D80. The lens was really a very good lens and came close to giving me what the prosumer camera gave me (convienence). I had buyers before I even decided to sell so I gave in and sold that combo because I needed the bucks to buy my Canon stuff.

Nikon does have strengths, I just decided it was too cumbersome using two systems. I know there are many on this forums that still use both and I can understand why.

I probably will get a prosumer camera again because there are times when the built in flash, movie clip capability, zoom range, and small size in one tool come in handy. There are many times when just preserving the memory is my main objective and the utimate image quality is not an important factor.

Gary
--
http://www.expecttowinphotos.com

 

[gary stepic]

If you read some of her other posts the grey's bug her and she would love nothing more to simply paint them black. Now if there was an easy way to shrink the lenses!

Gary
--
http://www.expecttowinphotos.com