Mt.Sac - I like the last 2 the best. The one with the chick getting felt up and all you see are like 4 different hands totally looks like some anti rape ad or something.
The last one with the chick walking away tells a crazy story also. Like everyone is making fun of her as she walks away. Really powerful image for some reason.
Keep up the work!
Derek Daniels
Damn guys. A lot of these photos are incredible. Iām moved by a lot of them. The talent that srk members have, will no longer surprise me.
new shit
aint nothing wrong with a little chocolate folksā¦
random folks on melrose ( i shot these two guys and they ended up being some up and coming rappersā¦i got offered a paid gig on the spotā¦dreams do come true folks!)
I know some of you guys would like some lighting tips so heres a couple
itās like theyāre not even outside with that light. crazy!
very nice MTsac:tup:
Iām sure you know but just as a heads up - you can see you and the camera in the reflection in this one. Which isnāt necessarily a bad thing.
The 2 random dudes came out really well.
Derek Daniels
Some new shit I took at the Getty over the weekend.
Anyone have an EF 28-135? Thinking about picking one up and just seeing if anyone has used one before.
I feel like I really need to stop taking photographs of flowers. Flowers are like A-Ken in A3 or something - so fucking common.
Derek Daniels
28-135 is that the 4.0 L?
thats a good lens
from wide to super tele
youre covered
The instructor for my photo one class wouldnāt except pictures of flowers or sunsets for any assignment during the entire semester, because he knew that was the first thing people would think of when theyāre minds went blank on ideas for assignments.
how do you like that gary fong diffuser?
I like it well enough, but unless you have a full frame camera, you are better off going with the EF-S 17-85mm, as that gives the same zoom range on a 1.5 crop as a 28-135 gives you on a full frame camera.
The lens I would purchase if I were using a camera with a crop factor is the EF-S 17-55, because I keep falling back in love with my nikkor 28-85 as a general utility/workhorse lens, and the EFS 17-55 is the most similar lens to that after you factor in the 1.5 crop.
I also have worked with several photographers that use the 17-55, and they like it because it has a higher depth of field than the 28-135 at f/22, and since the 17-55 can go to f/2.8 and the 28-135 only goes to 3.5, the 17-55 can also get a shallower depth of field than the 28-135.
Again, take that for what it is worth, because that isnāt what I actually use. On canon, my lens of choice is 28-105, and I shoot full frame. You have to figure out what you need and go from there, because not every lens is useful to everyone.
Rei - once again you are a fountain of knowledge. Iām still rocking my XTi which isnāt full frame so Iāll take a look into the 17-85 and the 17-55.
Thanks!
Derek
The 17-85mm isnāt much better than the 17-55mm quality-wise. The only advantage that the 17-85mm has it really the larger range. Also, I hear that there are some minor issues with the 17-85mm like slight optical distortion. But I donāt exactly know how widespread this is. The range is definitely useful for someone shooting with a digital body. However, I think that having the 17-55mm at f/2.8 is much better than a similar zoom, 17-85mm at f/4. I definitely like faster lenses as they give you a little more freedom. Certainly you could always push up the ISO on digital bodies easier than on film, but even still, it all depends on the body you have and how much noise you get at the higher ISO ratings.
Just my 2 cents.
Donāt listen to the Measurbators. The truth is that all the lenses available in a EF mount (or nikkor lenses for that matter) are better than the lenses that were available to ansel adams, yet all the people that worry about pincushion, barrel distortion, or whatever canāt do what ansel adams did. Funny that.
Comparing the 17-85 to the 17-55 is comparing cars to trucks. One has a faster f/stop and one has a longer range. They fill different needs. If you shoot low light or shallow depth of field, the 17-55 is your bag of tea. However, if you need longer range, then the 17-85 is what you need.
Hey guys just an update i purchased a 40d with 17-85 and 50mm lense.
Hasnt arrived yet, but looking forward to buying a 135 mm for some wide angleāish zoom shots.
thanks for the help in the previous posts.
Make sure that you give omni a review on your 17-85.
Well, yeah. Thatās what I meant by when I said the 17-85 isnāt much better than the 17-55 except for the range. I was just voicing an opinion rather than a fact.
been a while since i contributed. hers a mega post to make it up.
just a few snap shots from recent outings.
heres a few of my favorite from the zoo i got from today.
i wish i could get some animal planet type shotsā¦ but most of them were boring and most likely tamed so nothing exciting happened.
Amazing stuff everyone.
What are some of you guysā favorite photographers? Anyone who particularly influences you?
Anyone whose work is a must see?
Please, let me know.
Peace.