[blue]

I'm borrowing a Canon 135mm f/2L for the weekend. This lens wins a big prize...screw that 70-200 crap, this and a 50mm f/1.8 would keep me quite covered in the longer-reach dept. I rarely go all the way out to 200 as I don't shoot sports, and the almost full stop slower max 2.8 aperture makes for some interesting low-light work with an older crop body like a 20D. The 135 f/2 is fast, sharp, cheaper than a zoom, and lighter than a zoom. Win. All. Over.

On a related tangent, Newegg.com fvcking rules. I bought a 4gb CF card from them awhile back (8 months or so?), one that received rave reviews. Anyway, about a week ago, as I posted on here, it pretty much sh!t the bed in regards to recording .RAW files off of my camera. I looked at the Newegg website and it said they have a year replacement RMA policy. I decided to give it a go with the card, and didn't really think they'd do anything favorable when they got it. To my pleasant surprise, they've sent me a brand new one! It rules when a company stands behind the product they sell, especially when it's an online discounter like Newegg.

oh yes, missah narlus, critique these from earlier tonight, the good ones are on page 2:
http://flickr.com/photos/blaudonner/

winelub!

 

[stevew]

going by egay prices, 700-1000 is cheap?

nice pictures.

 

[MikeD]

Prime lenses are the best. Zooms are, IMHO, mostly just a substitute for carrying a huge array of primes with you. Sometimes they're the best way to pack for a situation, sometimes they're not.

When I taught, I'd insist that newbs use a prime lens, or at very least choose a zoom setting and leave it, because too many people think that using a "powerful" lens is best, and/or that zooming in is the same as moving closer.

Just got a hold of a Leica with a 50mm and am planning on seeing what I can do with that alone, instead of succumbing to the temptation (and inordinate cost) of buying some other lenses for it.

In a way, primes are the singlespeeds of the photographic world.

 

[Toshi]

i agree with you on the 135/2L, as you well know . just for the record f/2.0 and f/2.8 aren't separated by "almost a full stop", but instead by precisely one full stop.

stevew, $750ish is cheap when compared to a 70-200/2.8IS...

 

[blue]

i agree with you on the 135/2L, as you well know . just for the record f/2.0 and f/2.8 aren't separated by "almost a full stop", but instead by precisely one full stop.

stevew, $750ish is cheap when compared to a 70-200/2.8IS...

Yeh...The 70-200 f/2.8 goes for $1500 used, generally considered the holy grail of tele zooms for both Canon and Nikon.

The 135 is also quite small for what it is. Drawing attention to yourself with a huge white appendage hanging off the front of your camera sucks. :biggrin:

these guys rocked, btw: