The sexiest ass at HIN
-
Love the bimmer! :icon_cyclops_ani: now i miss mine :icon_shaking: lol
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
Its one of the only ways to get an entire vehicle into the frame when in close quarters.
-
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
-
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. ;(
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
70-200 f/4L IS is probably one of the sharpest lenses that canon has. It has been absolutely amazing so far.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login