With that type of ride, you have to be happy with just usable..... You not only got the exposure, but even more surprisingly, you totally nailed the focus.
Photo sharing: High ISO
- Thread starter havoc315
- Start date
With that type of ride, you have to be happy with just usable..... You not only got the exposure, but even more surprisingly, you totally nailed the focus.
mom2rtk
Invented the term "Characterpalooza"
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
Thanks. I've been after that dang Yeti for a long time. I was happy to finally capture him.
elmoandzoey
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
Mom2rkt, love your shot of the Yeti! How much noise reduction did you do on that one? Or is that straight out of the camera?
mom2rtk
Invented the term "Characterpalooza"
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
Thanks. I did use some noise reduction in LR. Just checked and the slider was at 60 after importing my RAW image.
elmoandzoey
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
Dang. If my lenses were compatible to the 6D, I think I'd already own one.
mom2rtk
Invented the term "Characterpalooza"
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
I started with no lenses compatible with FF either. But it was time to upgrade my body, and I figured I'd end up doing it sometime. The good news is that good glass holds its value pretty well, so I was able to sell some of my EF-S lenses to get started on an EF collection.
There are some great deals every now and then on the 6D. I took the Yeti shot with the f/4 "kit" lens.
I love shooting full frame. At the same time... Sometimes I realize how expensive this hobby has become, and how I might have saved a lot of money sticking with aps-c. When it's gotten to the point where I see a $1,000 lens as "cheap"... When I used to try to avoid spending more than $300 on a lens.... Eeks.
elmoandzoey
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
FF just isn't in my budget right now 
I'd need the 70-200 f4, the 28-70 and and and and... This makes my head spin just thinking about it!
I think my lenses plus the 40D would pay for the 6D only if I intend to sell... Which would leave me with two bodies (my 60D) and a nifty fifty XD Sadly I can't sell the 60D on top cause it's just leased from my company....
Right now I really want a 70-200 2.8.
I'd need the 70-200 f4, the 28-70 and and and and... This makes my head spin just thinking about it! I think my lenses plus the 40D would pay for the 6D only if I intend to sell... Which would leave me with two bodies (my 60D) and a nifty fifty XD Sadly I can't sell the 60D on top cause it's just leased from my company....
Right now I really want a 70-200 2.8.
FF just isn't in my budget right now
I think my lenses plus the 40D would pay for the 6D only if I intend to sell... Which would leave me with two bodies (my 60D) and a nifty fifty XD Sadly I can't sell the 60D on top cause it's just leased from my company....
Right now I really want a 70-200 2.8.
Full frame doesn't HAVE to cost an arm and a leg. There are affordable full frame lenses. Even just sticking with a nifty fifty, it can be an awfully impressive camera. Problem is, once you get a camera capable of such fantastic results... as your eye becomes more and more discriminating, it becomes harder and harder to accept "compromise" gear. Sure.. the $2,000 lens is not 10 times better than the $200 lens... many people might not even notice a difference in the final images at all. But you will notice. And you will lust for that $2,000 lens.. the $200 lens will always look soft to you in comparison.
Right now, I'm lusting for the new Nikon 300/4.... But I've never spent $2,000 on a lens before *gulp.* My wife thinks I should just rent it for our Alaska vacation.. but I want it..... My kids don't really *need* braces more than I need the lens, right?
elmoandzoey
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
That would be me, too. That's why I am really not trying to get into FF any time soon because I know I will want to spend money on better equipment when I really shouldn't.
Like with the 70-200 2.8 that I really really want. Would renting it when I need it do? Most definitely. But I really really want to own it and not just rent it XD
Like with the 70-200 2.8 that I really really want. Would renting it when I need it do? Most definitely. But I really really want to own it and not just rent it XD
I've had no trouble resisting that one. While I don't pine for a small mirrorless system, I also have no desire to carry around a huge 70-200/2.8. In this thread, you see the low light results I got with the 70-200/4. Would the 70-200/2.8 yield even better results? Probably... but my back would be so sore after handholding it for a couple hours.
When I shot Sony, I had the Minolta 200/2.8 prime -- That lens was a DREAM. IQ even better than a 70-200/2.8, with the weight of a kit telephoto lens. I guess that's why I'm lusting for the Nikon 300/4, though I doubt it's anywhere close to my old Minolta 200. Fractal, if you're listening, you better be taking care of my baby (he bought my lens when I left Sony).
mom2rtk
Invented the term "Characterpalooza"
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
I did rent the 70-200 f/2.8 for each of my sons' high school graduations. I was really glad I had. It changed my thoughts on wanting to own one. Once I went to the camera shop and picked up the f/4, I knew instantly that's the direction I would be going.
Geoff_M
DIS Veteran, DVC Member, "Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2000
I'd recommend a good used 300 f2.8 AF-I lens. I picked one up on eBay from a dealer for $1600 with a case. I can put Nikon's great 2x on it and had a very good 600mm f5.6 that will still auto-focus.
elmoandzoey
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
I'm actually looking at the Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di VC. My brother owns it. It's lighter than the Canon version (about the same as the Canon f4), has a fast AF and takes really sharp photos even wide open. It doesn't miss much to the Canon except that it's lighter and about half the price of the Canon.
I had the Sigma 70-200 2.8 once and it just wasn't worth it even though it's really cheap compared to the Canon. Or maybe because it is.
I had the Sigma 70-200 2.8 once and it just wasn't worth it even though it's really cheap compared to the Canon. Or maybe because it is.
That defeats the whole purpose for me --- light weight. The 300/2.8 is massive. I want something I can handhold for hours at a time.
You sure about the weight? I just double checked... The Tamron 70-200/2.8 is double the weight of the Canon f4.
elmoandzoey
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
You are right. I don't know what they were telling me in the shop. I've never owned the f4 but the guy in the shop told me the Tamron is about the same weight. I was a bit surprised because I do know what the Tamron weighs and thinking that the Canon f2.8 would be even heavier...
mom2rtk
Invented the term "Characterpalooza"
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
I had the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. Well, technically I still have it. Because I'm hesitant to give it up even though it's just for APS-C. Very small, very light. I highly recommend it. I did have some issues with it back focusing but I sent it in for calibration and was very happy with it after that. Sharp as a tack, beautiful colors. It's not in production any more, but used copies are still around.
Actually, the Canon and Tamron weigh the same: The Canon 70-200/2.8 II is 1490 grams. The Tamron 70-200/2.8 is 1470 grams. So practically identical. (Simple physics... a 70-200/2.8 lens has to be large). A bit over 3 pounds. That would make the camera body + lens, over 5 pounds. The heaviest set-up I usually use, is between 3.5 and 4.5 pounds. We all have a different personal threshold of where it gets to be too much. I'm at 3.7 pounds or so with D750 + 70-200/4. Pushes it up to almost 4.5 with a 2x teleconverter I use sometimes. At 3.7... I can handhold for a long period, but my arm and shoulder does feel crampy after a couple of hours. At 4.5... I can do it for a little while, but it really does get uncomfortable for any long stretch.
If I owned the 70-200/2.8, I suspect I'd constantly be torn about whether it is worth carrying. I'd want the better IQ, but I think I'd only drag it out of the closet for "special occasions." But there certainly are others who find the weight to be a non-issue, and carry it everywhere.
Share this page
GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE
Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.
Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!
Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.
Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!
