///M5

My problem with the slower lenses and adjustable stops are that the image quality on all of them blow donkey in comparison. They never focus for shit and you miss too many shots. I've tried a bunch of 3.5-5.6 lenses and even ones with an L aren't worth using IMO. Doesn't mean you can't grab a great shot with a piece of shit cell phone, but it is SO MUCH easier to get what you are after with glass that responds right. For those reasons though I don't see any benefit in the 1.2/1.4 50mm as compared to the L glass 2.8's. For DOF of course they can be huge.

In reality with kids you don't get to set the F stop as you have to choose the shutter speed. I regularly do both, but if you aren't uber aware all the time that means you just missed the shot. You have NO time to plan as they are not planned in their actions. Once they are 8 or so perhaps, but it is the expressions they naturally give that you want to catch, not the cheesy smiles they give when they try.

And I could rip into EVERYTHING I just posted as pics even more than that. I find the 'small' screen on the camera to completely be frustrating. Things look SO different once you blow them up.

Depth of field is all too short in these. I get dizzy looking at them. Could use that short I think if you changed them so it wasn't the center of the picture that is in focus. I am by no means an artist and only talking out my ass, but what you have shot there is exactly what frustrated me completely about the 1.4 50mm that made me nearly throw it away (to ebay). Most of Aidan's baby pictures have one eye in focus and nothing else DOF is a great tool for telling a story, but you have to get the whole subject in focus and off center.

This is about as wide as 17 gets All you get with 11 And here is 11 not being wide enough

F stop isn't available in video mode (or perhaps I need to read the manual) Also not so sure a short FOV is what I'd want in a video of the kids. They move so fast it isn't easy to keep anything in focus the way it is.

Time for a wideband

Time for a german freezer

Nah, the 2.8 isn't really necessary when shooting wide. I almost always have the Fstop at 11-16. This is where the Tokina shines. The Tokina also CANNOT be used on a full frame Canon as it is crop only. Nikon lets you do that with built in vignetting. 18 isn't anywhere near wide enough either. Not even close. I'd like more than the 11 regularly...

<-been too cheap to grab the 70-200

I love mine. They can be had with about a half a dozen different combos of lens as a package for about the same as just the body. i will most likely pick up the 200 lens you suggested, for the wife, for indoor, low light. BUT being i can score another lens for next to nothing with the body, what would you suggest for a good landscape lens? I personally am WAY more interested in photographing geological sites than anything else. The 200 has no zoom. In an ideal world, with that camera I would have: Tokina 11-16 2.8 Canon 17-55 2.8 IS Canon 50mm 1.2 (1.4 acceptable) Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II Everything else is a compromise. 17-55 is the lens I would get with it. Otherwise whatever else you get is disposable.

I love mine.

Had to paint the console and my sled mounts so I figured I'd snag some cheap ugly painted furniture and fix it.

Near free furniture ftmfw

Blew 1/2gal of Rustoleum flat black through my el cheapo HVLP

Have fun!

And the Bridgewater era starts

Skol

I figured you'd add cock to that list

Photo fail! Moved all my shit in photobucket, wanted to see how that worked without actually looking at it first which then shows the picture. Figured that would happen, but fuck it I am not using imageshack anymore and folders trump random.

For what?

So I'll take that as a "no one has invented" a good inline fuse yet then?

The price is piece

I'd rather have the 70-200 L glass on the XS than the 75-300 on a 7D II. I have an XSi and it still shoots well. Helped a ton putting a real lens on it. That being said it does suck compared to the 70d though.