dem beats

Thicker crust, lower heat. Don't foil them, it will take away so much.

2 months of my new meds!I shall now value everything in the cost of medication. LoL 4k in two months, still cheap compared to some. The W does that in Remi alone. Me And Phil Michelson(sp). Well, at least I'll be helping to make his Porsche payments.

At least you get some money back now!!!!

Guess who forgot his tripod after reminding himself 2 times.

Also, shooting motorcycles is tough!

2 months of my new meds! I shall now value everything in the cost of medication. LoL

Doc says my case is aggressive. Wants to skip methotrexate and go right to biologics.

Hope the link works.... I'm trying to shop from my phone.

^-------sales ereywhur!

https://www.google.com/search?q=2.8+70-200+is&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&hl=en-US&source=android-browser-type&source=univ&tbm=shop&sa=X&ei=HDx2U5PCOMuSyATzioHYAg&ved=0CCQQsxg&biw=640&bih=335&dpr=3#spd=806793869659627546

I want to make desk speakers too, but I am so terrible at making time for those projects.... It's sad really.

Want the reach of the crop and the 70d is really pretty amazing.lYou make my point even better. 2.8 IS mki is your lens. Go forth and purchase.

Ha, caffeine doesn't really affect me.You don't notice the shake. But the camera will at the long end of 200mm. I didn't believe it until I started shooting pistols regularly. Your natural pulse causes shake. It's pretty logic, but amusing, how close shooting a gun and a camera are.

One overcast day, or one indoor game, and you will be PISSED. Not like buying a Cadillac instead of the chilli pepper. Cannot supercharge the lens, unless you take all that money you saved and buy a FF body. :-)

That is the truest truth ever. All the 70-200s are sharp as a razor. If I were you, with your depreciat ion hatred I would get the 2.8 mki IS. You will really want the 2.8 and the IS.

And the sharpness, from what I have read, is chromatic aberration that can be corrected, less lens flare, and slightly better colors. The actual "sharpness" is so small you will never know. The rest of the white lenses are not nearly as fast to focus and don't have the phenomenal IS. Its seriously incredible to me how well is just works. The f4 was not as fast to focus, and IS feels lethargic. As in the gyro or whatever takes time to spool up. I feel this on the Tamron. I would still rather have it than not. The non IS 2.8 might be the sharpest, and you could use faster speeds for sure. If it's all well lit like daytime, you should be ok. But you are one cup of coffee away from enough shake to make it a poor choice to hand hold.

You can sell a used ISii for $300 less than MSRP. Check eBay or adorama used. The Canon rebate right now is $200 off. That's a $100 loss and you will have something that walks all the rest in the park. The IS 2.8 MKi is close, but doesn't focus as fast and the IS is not as refined. The new one is sharper by some 25% or whatever BS it is. Will you see that ever? Only if you blow it up billboard size.

When I got mine the one I saw local was $100 less than MSRP with a filter. Canon had a $200-$300 rebate. I made the guy at camera exchange give me a filter and some $ off a few batteries I was going to buy anyway. Saved about $400 bucks from local and about $100 from online if I factor taxes.

Still not bad! I should have sent you a text when I stumbled on it.

Presidents love getting ripped.

With the rebate and package I got, New was less than used FWIW.No brainer.For this trip, I was really thinking of grabbing an IS F/4. Find one of those used and see how I deal with it, but then I realized a non-IS 2.8 is about the same price and not much different in weight size as the IS is a big chunk of that. Figure it is better glass so as a temporary try it out solution it'd be good. Lens authority had an ISii 2.8 for 1500 or so. Used, but a several day return guarantee.

With the rebate and package I got, New was less than used FWIW.

Interestingly enough, I liked the Tamron 24-70 the best, with its 2.8 and IS function it more than made up or the slightly slower focus. The wider angle makes me care way less about the angle and it actually took better looking images(from the back of the camera). IS makes a huge difference for someone like me who likes coffee. It also saved me enough to "justify" the absurd but sexy 1.2.

I am also, of course, defending my purchase. I made the decision while stressed and upset. I wanted to make sure I had a lens of that category for my granfathers funeral. Being able to hang back and unobtrusively collect images of my family being happy made it worth everything. Canon also has a mail in rebate, but maybe Singapore prices would be better? If you really just hate paying that much, as I do, you could always go with the 2.8 is first version. You lose some of the focus speed and the panning IS. Those are real and you can feel the difference. You also lose the image refinement that the 2 would get you, but you won't notice it in pictures. It's more glass and heavier. Just like I fell in love with the 1.2 50mm, I tried the white lenses side by side and fell in love with the 2.