Quake3World

Dave wrote:/me is about to acquire a Canon 200 F2L for $2000. pwned.

How in the hell is that going to happen?

Holy shit. daev lives.

Duffman took some awesome photos at one of my games.

DAT ARMOR

That babeh looks extremely unsure of you.

werldhed wrote:Holy shit. daev lives.

Oh look, it's Daev.

tnf wrote:

Dave wrote:/me is about to acquire a Canon 200 F2L for $2000. pwned.

How in the hell is that going to happen?

It was going to be used -trade in equipment -10% keh loyalty bonus, but I decided to go for the 1.8 when I saw it was $1400 less. Now it's only going to cost me $600. Couldn't see spending $4600 in cash and equipment on a $5300 lens with no warranty. I'll probably sell if off after gymnastics season and buy a proper new 2.0 next December.

Without further ado...

Dark Metal wrote:Oh look, it's Daev.

What 1D series body are you shooting with there?

BTW - I want that lens for shooting basketball this season.

It's a mk II. I had a mk IIn, but I sold it. I don't use the LCD for checking shots and picture styles are a waste. I thought about the IV, but wanted the lens more. I can't see spending full price for a body when I can get great glass and a decent used body for the same price. I did break down and go with the 7D this season to check out the video features. So far I'm impressed with both the still and video performance. I impulse bought a shit 40D a couple of years back and expected the same level of shit this time. I'll have a better idea tomorrow, but so far so good.

Not sure if the 200 will be worth it for basketball, honestly. A 300 works better if you have ~200mm available in another lens--especially if you want to shoot cross court. I'm not an expert on basketball, but if a D1 court is the same size as HS, 200 is a little short on the far end and a little tight up close.

The new IS MkII supers might open up a good used market for the old versions, although I doubt it. If I had a MkIV (and the high ISO performance), I'd go for a 300 IS Mk1 + 135 f/2 and 85 1.8 primes or 70-200 2.8 for basketball in a heartbeat. I haven't checked prices, but you can probably get both of those new for about the cost of a new 200 f/2. The main reason I went with the 200 is our gymnastics team competes in a horribly lit gym this year and I didn't want to upgrade the 1D mkII.

Here's a shot off that 135 f/2 wide open on a 5D and decently cropped. It's clear as bell--I barely sharpened it. The 5D is a miracle worker, but the lens is also a gem. The manual focus on mine busted, but the AF still works. I'll have to ship it off to Canon service one of these days. It'll be easier to part with now that I have the 200. It's definitely one of Canon's best lenses and for sure the price/performance leader out of all of them.

Dave wrote:It's a mk II. I had a mk IIn, but I sold it. I don't use the LCD for checking shots and picture styles are a waste. I thought about the IV, but wanted the lens more. I can't see spending full price for a body when I can get great glass and a decent used body for the same price. I did break down and go with the 7D this season to check out the video features. So far I'm impressed with both the still and video performance. I impulse bought a shit 40D a couple of years back and expected the same level of shit this time. I'll have a better idea tomorrow, but so far so good.

Not sure if the 200 will be worth it for basketball, honestly. A 300 works better if you have ~200mm available in another lens--especially if you want to shoot cross court. I'm not an expert on basketball, but if a D1 court is the same size as HS, 200 is a little short on the far end and a little tight up close.

The new IS MkII supers might open up a good used market for the old versions, although I doubt it. If I had a MkIV (and the high ISO performance), I'd go for a 300 IS Mk1 + 135 f/2 and 85 1.8 primes or 70-200 2.8 for basketball in a heartbeat. I haven't checked prices, but you can probably get both of those new for about the cost of a new 200 f/2. The main reason I went with the 200 is our gymnastics team competes in a horribly lit gym this year and I didn't want to upgrade the 1D mkII.

I've got the MkIV because I wanted to incorporate sports photography into my business - there is a market for it here that I am trying to establish - providing parents with hi-quality images of their kids during football, basketball, etc. I've got a 100-400 IS, and even though the aperture sucks, the high ISO capacity of the IV allows me to use it with decent results, but I'm going to be using a 70-200 F2.8, my 85 F.18 and from time to time the 24-70 F2.8.

Also have the 5DMkII but I don't find it as adept for action stuff. Love the camera though.

I'm not saying you shouldn't get/have gotten a 1D iV.. I could see myself doing that if the finances were in place. I just think 200 is an awkward length for basketball. The upside is you can get a 1.4x extender to get almost 300 @ 2.8 in one lens if you did get the 200. That 135 is a great fill in lens if you needed more light than your zoom provides and found more value in the 300 2.8.

Dave wrote:I'm not saying you shouldn't get/have gotten a 1D iV.. I could see myself doing that if the finances were in place. I just think 200 is an awkward length for basketball. The upside is you can get a 1.4x extender to get almost 300 @ 2.8 in one lens if you did get the 200. That 135 is a great fill in lens if you needed more light than your zoom provides and found more value in the 300 2.8.

Heh I think you misinterpreted my post - I was just saying that the reason I got one in the first place was because I wanted the sports/action to be something I could emphasize in my business. Do you have a 300 2.8 also?

Bigger:
http://i.imgur.com/AvBq4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/xuk7j.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/hbfQy.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/AjAob.jpg

Love the sky in the last one!

Plenty of 'em here. I'll try and get some better shots over Christmas.

Bigger: http://imgur.com/vSwo8

tnf wrote:

Dave wrote:I'm not saying you shouldn't get/have gotten a 1D iV.. I could see myself doing that if the finances were in place. I just think 200 is an awkward length for basketball. The upside is you can get a 1.4x extender to get almost 300 @ 2.8 in one lens if you did get the 200. That 135 is a great fill in lens if you needed more light than your zoom provides and found more value in the 300 2.8.

Heh I think you misinterpreted my post - I was just saying that the reason I got one in the first place was because I wanted the sports/action to be something I could emphasize in my business. Do you have a 300 2.8 also?

I had a 300 f/4 when I shot some basketball a couple of years ago. The guys from the papers had the 2.8 and one guy with a 400 usually sat up in the stands.

I learned today that the 200 is a hard bitch to shoot. There is definitely a learning curve. 1/500 3200 f/1.8 on the 1D. I'll have to put it on the 5D or 7D next time. The 1D II focuses pretty bad in low light. I've always had more luck with the 5D in those situations.

Was out shooting Bald Eagles this morning when I walked up on this little guy - these are hard to find when they hide in the trees and the are so damn quick that tracking them in flight is very tricky. I wish I could have been closer and that I had better light available.

Awesome tnf. That looks like a screech owl. GG spotting one -- and getting some nice shots of it.