I didn't need the depth of field nor the speed of the 2.8 especially
at the much higher cost.



Just as I thought...you don't have a good grasp of lens properties. I'm
NOT trolling here or trying to win an arguement (for once!). The only
reason not to buy the 2.8 is if you can't afford it...and that's a fine
excuse that I have NO problem with. Not everyone is prepared to spend
big on good glass.....
So here are the MANY reasons why that 2.8 is worth the money...

1) Bokeh....the quality of out of focus elements in the for and
background. This is often considered one of the most important elements
of a good photo.

Here is a shot showing good bokeh...courtesy of my 1700 dollar 70-200VR
lens...
http://members.aol.com/bobsprit/images/asianaw.jpg

2) Sharpness....All optics sharpen up around F8, but the Canon 2.8 is
nearly tack sharp wide open! You can have your cake and eat it too with
this lens. Your F4 is not terribly good until you get past 5.6.

3) Action....ever shoot moving objects? F-2.8 also allows for faster
shutter speeds in ALL conditions

4) DOF....well, anyone who says this is not a key element of
photography is really full of it. Fast glass means more control over
COA (center of attention) in your shots.

5) Build....the 2.8 is built better, and has better resale value. It's
"worth" buying if you can afford it. Otherwise anything less is just
cheating yourself.

6) You do realize that the 70-200 2.8 is an IS lens? This means sharper
shots at slower shutter speeds with less light (2-3 stops!)! While not
quite as good as my 70-200VR it's still an amazing hunk of glass. Get a
good deal on one and you can ebay it for just about what you paid.

Ozzy, you have a good camera, with so-so lenses. If you owned that 2.8
you'd quickly learn that the F4 was a waste of money. Do you own any
fast glass?


RB
35s5
NY

Oh **** Nutsy,

Most of what I know of Photography I've learned listening to you. Even I
know those poles should be vertical, not slanted. You told Ozzy to level
his Camera. Why in the hell don't you practise what you preach?

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Most of what I know of Photography I've learned listening to you. Even
I
know those poles should be vertical, not slanted. You told Ozzy to
level
his Camera. Why in the hell don't you practise what you preach?


Ozzy's shot is a scenic, in spite of what he'd "like" to call it. Even
with a false horizon, you should level off for those. Best example
would be a group of people on the beach with visible ocean and horizon.

But for a shot of a child, the rule is often broken with nice results.
This little girl was repeatedly dangling from the green rail and I
leveled for her and not the playset. This is effective composition. If
she was "swinging" I would have leveled off the playset to build on
that aspect of the scene. Static portrait composition does not always
require leveling off, as in the hard angles I employ shooting down on
Thomas. And sometimes, especially with child portraits, you simply take
what comes and shoot fast, then level it in post.
Subtle errors are often a result of the subject leaning, as seen here.
In spite of framing with grid lines, Thom's movement still threw me off
slightly. It's fixable, but I'm otherwise happy with the shot.

http://members.aol.com/bobsprit/images/firemanweby.jpg

RB
35s5
NY

Nutsy,

A whole lot of words and I don't think they mean much to anyone (Not
even you) You could have just said; "I FU!" Nutsy, you know you did; In
both pictures! That Shed isn't leaning. You were careless, pure and
simple. All the glass in the world can't excuse that. Say it; "I FU!"
:^)

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage