Photography Shoutbox

[fastflyinaccord]

Yea I'm realizing that now, most of places ship Fedex 2 day (I guess this limits the amount of time the equipment is stuck in transit).

I figure I'll be doing some panning, probably more so than not. Eh oh well, as much as I want too, I don't really need to spend another $100 for the weekend. Maybe next time.

You won't get any of the cars in focus if you don't pan


Have fun Alex! Nothing is better than a great day at the races

 

[98ExAccordwv]

You won't get any of the cars in focus if you don't pan


Have fun Alex! Nothing is better than a great day at the races

I love racing...which is another reason I don't want to rent a lens, I'd rather be focused on the racing then looking through a view finder the whole time

 

[fastflyinaccord]

I love racing...which is another reason I don't want to rent a lens, I'd rather be focused on the racing then looking through a view finder the whole time

I have this problem...

 

[ryan s]

But a Tele lens is like carrying around binoculars that can take pictures

 

[dharding413]

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/31/canons-drool-worthy-gear-room-at-the-london-olympics/

 

[Sketch o5]

well damn.​

 

[dharding413]

Anyone here have experience with the Canon 80-200mm 2.8L (Magic Drainpipe)? One popped up on CL near me and for $700 OBO. I'm considering it is an alternative to the newer 70-200 2.8L, mainly because of price. I've been in the market for one of those for awhile, I need a fast telephoto for when I shoot sports. Basically from what I've read the AF is slower and there's no IS, but other than that the two perform similarly. Thoughts?

 

[98ExAccordwv]

Only ended up taking photos on Friday during the practice rounds. Haven't even reviewed them on the computer because I'm almost positive they are awful. But oh well.

 

[Nismode]

Anyone here have experience with the Canon 80-200mm 2.8L (Magic Drainpipe)? One popped up on CL near me and for $700 OBO. I'm considering it is an alternative to the newer 70-200 2.8L, mainly because of price. I've been in the market for one of those for awhile, I need a fast telephoto for when I shoot sports. Basically from what I've read the AF is slower and there's no IS, but other than that the two perform similarly. Thoughts?

No experience w/the drainpipe, but you would be getting Canon quality. You'd be screwed if anything goes wrong as I'm pretty sure they won't service it.

I'd go with a Sigma 70-200. I had one before I got my current 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and I preferred my Sigma for a long while (lighter, easier/smoother tripod ring, less conspicuous, still decently fast AF).

 

[iHazSnail]

There is absolutely no comparison between Sigma 70-200 and Canon 70-200. I've used both only to return the sigma and kept the canon 70-200mm f4L IS