Welcome to the IHoP v.2

[///M5 2,833]

IQ is better on the 4 though.  

[///M5 2,833]

In particular in sharpness

[///M5 2,833]

Which yes I realize isn't needed

[///M5 2,833]

I just don't want to carry that big ass 2.8

[///M5 2,833]

Playing with my 50 didn't it make you want to step back a few feet?

[dem beats 1,223]

I just don't want to carry that big ass 2.8

THAT

and that alone is a good reason to not go with it.

[dem beats 1,223]

Playing with my 50 didn't it make you want to step back a few feet?

Ok... sooo... this is what I learned from the 50. It is awesome and the best reason to get on the 1.x tip is to have amazing image isolation. Makes pretty Bokeh too. I took a picture of a cup of soup and made the little sprinkle of bacon in the middle sharp, but 1 inch away it was blur. I also had fun doing OOF shots with transparent things. A glass with condensation on it was magic.

What it did make me realise, is if I need to do closer shots(like I had to do with my Grandfather because we were stuck inside)the 50 worked great, but the surprise was.... I fell more in love with the speed light. The next few days I used it as a slave. My t4i has a flash so I can use that as a dim fill and then set the speedlight up on the side for effect. Or behind and REALLY isolate the subject. So with that flash I can do more composed portraits than I could with the 1.4. So I will get the speedlight before the prime.... and the awesome low f prime for cool shots later. A budy of mine showed me a move he filmed in 1.8 and it was awesome. His neborn son. Wicked cool.

My imediate needs are this though... in July I need to start collecting media for the non profit I run. So it will be millions of kids running around. I hope outside, but if not the 2.8 will help. I will be doing a few portraits for our web page too. After that we will be having 2 aquatenial tyle community events where we have booths and I will need to get media there too.

The 2.8 70-200L is arguably the best portrait lens unless you are really up close or can afford several primes. The higher zoom is more flattering and isolates better. More zoom also allows for more OOF blur. Doesn't change the DOF so much, but isolates the subject.

So with the 17-135mm, albeit slow, will be great when up close for people. A real flash, would really be like having 2 flashes for me, and thus a better value than a new lens in that range. The 70-200 is a god of lenses for everything else. It is heavy. Good reason for me to loose weight and get to the gym. At least I won't miss my wifes graduation for her Masters degree though.

:-)

[dem beats 1,223]

Seriously. My wife walking was probably one of the hardest things for her, as she hates being in front of a group.

Even if it wasn't my "job" I kind of failed. The photographer who took pics for the graduation took them from below the students on stage. That was flattering. She may not have cared even though she hates the pic from the school, but a good shot, even if I had to crop it, would have made her day, and her moms too.

So she overcame her fear to walk for her mom, and they don't even have a good pic of her on the podium. They don't see it as me failing, but I feel that way for sure. So maybe I am just way more motivated to make sure I have the best chance next time.

[dem beats 1,223]

IQ is better on the 4 though.

The other thing the vii has is a panning IS mode. If you ever used IS while panning, you know it doesn't work out so well. The new ii disables horizontal IS so you can pan and still stop vertical vibration buying you more stoppy stoppy.

It has less lens flare etc etc etc. Better elements, blah blah blah.

I will try both the vi and the vii side by side and make my decision.

[///M5 2,833]

IQ is better on the 4 though.

The other thing the vii has is a panning IS mode. If you ever used IS while panning, you know it doesn't work out so well. The new ii disables horizontal IS so you can pan and still stop vertical vibration buying you more stoppy stoppy.

It has less lens flare etc etc etc. Better elements, blah blah blah.

I will try both the vi and the vii side by side and make my decision.

Is IS even helpful while panning?  Normally you pan for fast objects which require a faster shutter defeating any advantage IS would give.  I am sure I have overlooked something major.

[///M5 2,833]

Ha, don't try them side by side unless you want to spend $2k on the VII.

[dem beats 1,223]

So... It looks like the f4 buys you a pound and a half of weight, and an inch in length. Half inch in girth, but that is kind of a non issue.

What I am reading is that the f4 and the f2.8 when both are at f4 the cheeper one once up with darker images. I saw a blog with such a huge difference that it made me think he was a moron and tested incorrectly or something else changed.

[///M5 2,833]

How shady is buying something like this?

http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/hnp/mob/3872957039.html

My wife is going to kill me if I don't get her a cell phone, but finding what I feel is an honest busness to flash a swappa S3 isn't easy.  Doing myself I don't want to learn.

[///M5 2,833]

So... It looks like the f4 buys you a pound and a half of weight, and an inch in length. Half inch in girth, but that is kind of a non issue.

What I am reading is that the f4 and the f2.8 when both are at f4 the cheeper one once up with darker images. I saw a blog with such a huge difference that it made me think he was a moron and tested incorrectly or something else changed.

The big deal for me is that it isn't an everyday lens so you have to carry it.  It almost requires its own bag because it is so big where the f4 is teeny feeling in comparison.  

 

And yes you fucker I am trying to rationalize saving some money.

[///M5 2,833]

Glad I lent you the speedlight, sorry for spending your dough

[///M5 2,833]

At least the 70-200, 11-16, and 17-55 share the same filters

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

too much photography mumbo jumbo, not enough boobies.

 

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

[///M5 2,833]

too much photography mumbo jumbo, not enough boobies.

 

Nice, so you post a picture.

[Penguin4x4 1,761]

Cute. Shitty car, but cute.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0dkjtQdJzI

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

Would be funny to drive the Brabus one.

[dem beats 1,223]

So... It looks like the f4 buys you a pound and a half of weight, and an inch in length. Half inch in girth, but that is kind of a non issue.

What I am reading is that the f4 and the f2.8 when both are at f4 the cheeper one once up with darker images. I saw a blog with such a huge difference that it made me think he was a moron and tested incorrectly or something else changed.

The big deal for me is that it isn't an everyday lens so you have to carry it. It almost requires its own bag because it is so big where the f4 is teeny feeling in comparison.

And yes you fucker I am trying to rationalize saving some money.

HA! Yeah, saving money is good. For me the 2.8 buys me the ISO that I could get with a 5Dmkii. So once again, for the extra few clams it is worth it. You saw how close my little stupid t4i is in quality to the big FF cameras. Buying better glass in this case makes my body relevant for more years.

As another bonus, I don't know if you care, but the new 2.8 works with the new extenders faster/better. So there again spending a little bit more buys me more over time. If I have learned anything from your preaching it's about buying the best in the things you will hold onto and going less on the parts that change.

1.5 pounds is a big deal, but an inch longer and .5 thicker isn't anything. I won't buy that rationalization buddy!

[dem beats 1,223]

Ha, don't try them side by side unless you want to spend $2k on the VII.

I have it set aside for it. I am just hoping I won't notice a difference and can justify spending less. I am 99.99999% certain I won't though.

[dem beats 1,223]

Glad I lent you the speedlight, sorry for spending your dough

It is great actually. I hated flashes, now I know how to use them and love it.

[///M5 2,833]

 

So... It looks like the f4 buys you a pound and a half of weight, and an inch in length. Half inch in girth, but that is kind of a non issue.

What I am reading is that the f4 and the f2.8 when both are at f4 the cheeper one once up with darker images. I saw a blog with such a huge difference that it made me think he was a moron and tested incorrectly or something else changed.

The big deal for me is that it isn't an everyday lens so you have to carry it. It almost requires its own bag because it is so big where the f4 is teeny feeling in comparison.

And yes you fucker I am trying to rationalize saving some money.

HA! Yeah, saving money is good. For me the 2.8 buys me the ISO that I could get with a 5Dmkii. So once again, for the extra few clams it is worth it. You saw how close my little stupid t4i is in quality to the big FF cameras. Buying better glass in this case makes my body relevant for more years.

As another bonus, I don't know if you care, but the new 2.8 works with the new extenders faster/better. So there again spending a little bit more buys me more over time. If I have learned anything from your preaching it's about buying the best in the things you will hold onto and going less on the parts that change.

1.5 pounds is a big deal, but an inch longer and .5 thicker isn't anything. I won't buy that rationalization buddy!

I'll let my wife worry about the inch longer and thicker