<![CDATA[The sexiest ass at HIN]]>legacy image

Here are the rest of the pics, they suck. Hand held long exposures with no IS isn't a whole lot of fun. I am definitely in need of a flash.

legacy image
legacy image
legacy image
legacy image
legacy image
legacy image
legacy image

]]>https://fargostreet.com/topic/12015/the-sexiest-ass-at-hinRSS for NodeThu, 28 May 2026 03:35:46 GMTSat, 29 Sep 2007 03:57:30 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:43:57 GMT]]>i was refering to the non IS version of the f4 70-200. it is about 600 iirc.
definitely heard some great stuff on the 17-40. it is like the 85 1.8. always good heard about it never any bad.

Monty

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/178290https://fargostreet.com/post/178290Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:43:57 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:29:41 GMT]]>

musthavemuzk;189027 wrote:
well i hear that about alot of canon lenses. the 70-200 4 for being the cheapest and best L lens. the 85 1.8 that i have for being mislabled. saying it should be an L.
i just need something with length. as i have no long lens. then again i have no monies either. coincidence? prolly not.

Monty

Well with IS it was $1100. I don't know that I'd call that cheap haha.

I absolutely love my Canon 17-40f/4L as well. L glass rocks.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/178288https://fargostreet.com/post/178288Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:29:41 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:52:06 GMT]]>well i hear that about alot of canon lenses. the 70-200 4 for being the cheapest and best L lens. the 85 1.8 that i have for being mislabled. saying it should be an L.
i just need something with length. as i have no long lens. then again i have no monies either. coincidence? prolly not.

Monty

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/178283https://fargostreet.com/post/178283Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:52:06 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:13:27 GMT]]>70-200 f/4L IS is probably one of the sharpest lenses that canon has. It has been absolutely amazing so far.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/178173https://fargostreet.com/post/178173Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:13:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 12:14:40 GMT]]>besides low light the extra stop is nice if you add a TC. tis why i am wanting the 2.8IS.
curiousity how is that f4IS? heard some mixed about it. then again i heard mixed about the 24-105 as well. tried a friends and was not too impressed with it. love the range though.

Monty

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/178149https://fargostreet.com/post/178149Sat, 06 Oct 2007 12:14:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:35:18 GMT]]>I have a d2oiuhnas239 lens on my sony DSC 899987q6234968yhf73. Me>you.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/178050https://fargostreet.com/post/178050Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:35:18 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:13:38 GMT]]>

musthavemuzk;188743 wrote:
that is definitely a problem with the s lenses.

the problem with fast lenses is the price. as i so want the 70-200 2.8IS but thatis way too much cash for me.

Monty

I just picked up a 70-200 F/4L IS because I don't shoot enough low light to justify the extra stop or the extra weight of the lens.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/178049https://fargostreet.com/post/178049Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:13:38 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:28:36 GMT]]>that is definitely a problem with the s lenses.

the problem with fast lenses is the price. as i so want the 70-200 2.8IS but thatis way too much cash for me.

Monty

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/178009https://fargostreet.com/post/178009Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:28:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:39:40 GMT]]>One of the problems I'm having w/ going wider is the Canon 10-22 is an EF-S lens as well. ;(

I wish they had a 10-22 f/2.8L but they do not. It's only a 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 EF-S, which means Rebel XT,Rebel XTI,10d,20d,30d,40d only. ;( If I go full frame the lens is no good. ;(

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/177800https://fargostreet.com/post/177800Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:39:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:17:50 GMT]]>one of the ways. tis why i borrowed the 12-24 so i had better chance to keep car level in the shot. as i have heard many a person complain about tilting their head to look through some pics.
not trying to be the butt here Nick. just love the fact there is someone else around here that has a clue about the technical aspects of photography.

Monty

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/177795https://fargostreet.com/post/177795Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:17:50 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:13:35 GMT]]>Its one of the only ways to get an entire vehicle into the frame when in close quarters.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/177793https://fargostreet.com/post/177793Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:13:35 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:55:36 GMT]]>is one of your legs shorter than the other one? All of your pictures are off-angle...just thinking that if one was shorter than the other, it would not only explain these pictures, but your track times 😛

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/177789https://fargostreet.com/post/177789Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:55:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:53:42 GMT]]>i agree 17-40 is good for most situations...i borrowed a friends tokina 12-24 the last two years for HIN Chicago and was i grateful. with all the traffic in the hall i so needed width to get the whole car as i was pretty close at times.and with all the traffic if i stepped away people walked in front of me.
yes a full frame is more money. i know if i had the money i would already have one. but i do not so my 20d will have to work for awhile longer.

Monty

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/177788https://fargostreet.com/post/177788Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:53:42 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:30:04 GMT]]>17-40 is plenty wide for most situations. To wind up with a full frame sensor I'd need to spend quite a bit more and I am not ready for that yet.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/177782https://fargostreet.com/post/177782Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:30:04 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:26:15 GMT]]>while it may make it faster to get around to take more pics, great pics can be had with a tripod and long shutters as well. only problem is carrying around the legs.
might also want to consider a wider lens or a full frame sensor. so you can get closer.

Monty

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/177781https://fargostreet.com/post/177781Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:26:15 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:10:08 GMT]]>Shutter speed was sub 1 second still but not by much. 1/13, 1/20, etc.

lens was a Canon 17-40 f/4L, ISO was 1000, all hand held no tripod.

I'll buy a real flash setup before I ever attempt to shoot a dark car show again.

And Aston Martin ass = sex.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/177325https://fargostreet.com/post/177325Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:10:08 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:49:37 GMT]]>definitely a letdown on the sexiest ass.

how slow are you talking for a shutter speed?
what lens?

in chicago i had to go with several second shutter at times to get the shot. as it was dark as hell in there for tripod shots with no flash.

i broke my flash at P10 so now i can go for a real flash and hopefully get better results. as i was never happy with my flash shots.
i shoot with a 20d and a sigma ef 500dg super flash. either i did not know how to use it or there were other issues.

Monty

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/177274https://fargostreet.com/post/177274Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:49:37 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:45:13 GMT]]>Love the bimmer! :icon_cyclops_ani: now i miss mine :icon_shaking: lol

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/177128https://fargostreet.com/post/177128Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:45:13 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:23:37 GMT]]>I was expecting a "where's schells ass" picture

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/177114https://fargostreet.com/post/177114Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:23:37 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to The sexiest ass at HIN on Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:50:14 GMT]]>so wheres the sexy ass? arrg what a let down

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/177111https://fargostreet.com/post/177111Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:50:14 GMT