Meet the newest member of my Canon family

70 - 200 mm F2.8, an effective 320 mm on the Rebel XSi - though it's on my old film EOS 3.

looks expensive

that looks like it could do it's job quite finely.


but does it do 3d?
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/fujifilm-unveils-3d-digital-camera-20090722-dtiq.html

honor man wrote:looks expensive

It was, quite.

Ascona wrote:that looks like it could do it's job quite finely.


but does it do 3d?
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/fujifilm-unveils-3d-digital-camera-20090722-dtiq.html

It does not do 3D, no.

Jealous.

Take some pics with it and post.

Oh and happy birthday. Whenever it is!

xtine wrote:Jealous.

Take some pics with it and post.

Oh and happy birthday. Whenever it is!

Oh absolutely. Hopefully I can try something today, but, if not I'll be taking it to Banff on the weekend - plenty of things to photograph there!! Holy shit I'm looking forward to this.

Next purchase is definitely going to be the 2X teleconverter, 400 mm 5.6 lens is incredible, the fact that it would in fact be an effective 640 mm f. 5.6 makes me splooge my pants - repeatedly.

thewalrus wrote:

honor man wrote:looks expensive

It was, quite.

What'd it run if you don't mind my asking. I just bought a 150-300mm for my Olympus a few months ago...

Talon wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

honor man wrote:looks expensive

It was, quite.

What'd it run if you don't mind my asking. I just bought a 150-300mm for my Olympus a few months ago...

After tax and the UV filter it came to $1700 CND.

But, I was fortuante enough to not have to front that, since the S/O made this my birthday present.

Nice lens Wally. I'm happy to see that you put a filter on it too. I'm sorry but I talk all too often with shooters who like to slam protective filters. I've used filters on all my camera lenses going back to my first ones in the 80's and as a pro making a living off my work and have no issues with the images. Yes, there is a slight chance some flair may affect an image, a slight chance I say, under the right lighting but if you are shooting in tricky lighting you want to keep the lens hood on too. But, but, but they say if you have a lens hood on you protect the lens. Um only a little bit. You still can damage the front if you are not careful or have an accident by maybe falling and the lens hitting some object or branch etc. You still can get some damaging liquid splashed on it or dust to scratch the front element if it's a wet and/or a windy day. Nope buy a good name brand coated filter either UV or Sky1a and you will get an ability to still get nice image quality shots and a feeling of care that if something hits, or otherwise affects the front of the lens at worse you may have to replaced the filter and that is usually less than $100 as opposed to $1,700 in your case for that lens.

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:Nice lens Wally. I'm happy to see that you put a filter on it too. I'm sorry but I talk all too often with shooters who like to slam protective filters. I've used filters on all my camera lenses going back to my first ones in the 80's and as a pro making a living off my work and have no issues with the images. Yes, there is a slight chance some flair may affect an image, a slight chance I say, under the right lighting but if you are shooting in tricky lighting you want to keep the lens hood on too. But, but, but they say if you have a lens hood on you protect the lens. Um only a little bit. You still can damage the front if you are not careful or have an accident by maybe falling and the lens hitting some object or branch etc. You still can get some damaging liquid splashed on it or dust to scratch the front element if it's a wet and/or a windy day. Nope buy a good name brand coated filter either UV or Sky1a and you will get an ability to still get nice image quality shots and a feeling of care that if something hits, or otherwise affects the front of the lens at worse you may have to replaced the filter and that is usually less than $100 as opposed to $1,700 in your case for that lens.

Yeah, wasn't even a question for me. I've always done a lot of nature and wildlife photography, so going out into the bush without something protecting your lens is asking for trouble. I was little shocked at the price of a 77mm UV filter (and more shocked that they just didn't 'throw it in'), but it's well worth it.

A good quality coated filter can have as much R and D and manufacturing techniques put into it as any one piece of lens element in that new lens of yours. Yes, a filter can at first shock you for price as it looks merely as a trim metal ring and glass plate but again it's not so simple and even if it costs a bit more than you think it's still way cheaper than the lens it goes on.

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:A good quality coated filter can have as much R and D and manufacturing techniques put into it as any one piece of lens element in that new lens of yours. Yes, a filter can at first shock you for price as it looks merely as a trim metal ring and glass plate but again it's not so simple and even if it costs a bit more than you think it's still way cheaper than the lens it goes on.

Well yeah. It wasn't an option, and the fact that it came in under $100 is still good.

I should have asked if they'd throw it in though - surprisingly the lens did come with a number of expensive accessories for free though - lens hood, lens case, strap, tripod bracket, etc.

Yeah one can always try to ask for a freebie but yep the L line of lenses that size include those other Canon accessories. You just need to get (if you don't have) a good tripod and maybe a monopod for the time when such will come in handy. You will need one or both if/when you buy that 2x converter for the setup. It will become too hard to hand hold and get steady tele shots once you get to the effective focal range it will give on your DSLR.

Oh and if you have yet to buy one DO NOT BUY A CHEAPIE TRIPOD! Trust me I have bought a few cheapies over the years and they are as the Scots say CRAP! My first pro-calibre tripod was one my dad bagged used for me and about 1/3rd the new price. It had pneumatic, heavy duty legs, and a heavy duty pan/tilt head. It has over the years taken a beating and even fallen over due to pressure and timing of a hectic wedding shoot many moons ago. It's seen better days and now sits as a back up. I bought a good Manfrotto a few years ago and even though its not the highest end range it is pro calibre. I did buy a $90 Sunpak with a shitty pan and tilt head but again recently my dad came to its rescue, he picked up a used but nice SLIK pan and tilt head for like $5 that ironically had its female tread mount match exactly the thread bolt of the cheap Sunpak. It's still a shitty set up legs-wise but it now has a pro-quality head on it.

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:Yeah one can always try to ask for a freebie but yep the L line of lenses that size include those other Canon accessories. You just need to get (if you don't have) a good tripod and maybe a monopod for the time when such will come in handy. You will need one or both if/when you buy that 2x converter for the setup. It will become too hard to hand hold and get steady tele shots once you get to the effective focal range it will give on your DSLR.

Oh and if you have yet to buy one DO NOT BUY A CHEAPIE TRIPOD! Trust me I have bought a few cheapies over the years and they are as the Scots say CRAP! My first pro-calibre tripod was one my dad bagged used for me and about 1/3rd the new price. It had pneumatic, heavy duty legs, and a heavy duty pan/tilt head. It has over the years taken a beating and even fallen over due to pressure and timing of a hectic wedding shoot many moons ago. It's seen better days and now sits as a back up. I bought a good Manfrotto a few years ago and even though its not the highest end range it is pro calibre. I did buy a $90 Sunpak with a shitty pan and tilt head but again recently my dad came to its rescue, he picked up a used but nice SLIK pan and tilt head for like $5 that ironically had its female tread mount match exactly the thread bolt of the cheap Sunpak. It's still a shitty set up legs-wise but it now has a pro-quality head on it.

Yeah, I've got a decent Manfrotto tripod right now - seen faithful service for a long time. Might want to invest in a Monopod simply because it would probably easier to lug one around on hikes.

I'm not too concerned with running out and grabbing a 2X converter since I've still got the same effective range that I had with my 300 mm on my film body, but it'll almost certainly be my next "major" photography purchase.

holy fuck that's huge.

i know nothing about cameras.

indeed, ry.

the built in foot is the real winnner.

that thing is like a foot long!

pics?

what, no follow up from wally?

ever since he got that new job, he's got no focus.

I shutter to think about what could have happened.

This lens is awesome guys. I got some great shots (posted already) from the August long weekend in Banff, and I've taken probably 500 shots of my friends new baby (all turned out excellent), and I've been going through my LA pics today... good stuff so far.