IT'S HERE !!!
Question:
Actually, I don’t even have a dog. Annika does, so you may reply to her. However, I can find plenty to gag over.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <<Add a good portrait lens like the 100mm f/2 and I’d be totally moist! Gag !!! Isn’t making you moist your ugly dog’s job?
Response:
Anyway, what would you guys consider to be your ultimate lens arsenal?
My lens arsenal is the TS-E 24L, 28-135 IS, 200 2.8L, 300 2.8L IS and EF2X and EF12 ext tube.. I’m pretty much set. Ken Cravillion Photography: Fine Art Landscape and Nature Photography http://www.kgcphoto.com
Response:
The FEDEX man got a big hug today. Bet the poor guy is still throwing up. If he did throw up, you can be sure Annika took a snap of it as it was gurgling out… …even if he wasn’t a dog.
LTIPONAJTAPOM! ("LAUGHING TILL I PUKE, OH NO ANNIKA JUST TOOK A PICTURE OF ME!") 
Lewis I’ve set (anti-spam) controls to allow in only people on my list. If you want to be on my list contact me through the newsgroup. I regret the inconvenience. Thanks. Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Response:
Hello Mark Morgan Eastern Time), you wrote about "IT’S HERE !!!" as follows:- The FEDEX man got a big hug today. Bet the poor guy is still throwing up. If he did throw up, you can be sure Annika took a snap of it as it was gurgling out… …even if he wasn’t a dog.
Dog got to eat the vomit. — Regards, John Phillips HTML mail auto dumped from isp. Windows would look better with curtains.
Response:
<<Add a good portrait lens like the 100mm f/2 and I’d be totally moist! Gag !!! Isn’t making you moist your ugly dog’s job?
Response:
Annika… I would keep the 28-135 IS – it is probably the best handheld zoom you’re ever going to find. YEah, it repeats the 70-200L, and that is a sharper piece of glass, but not without a monopod or better yet a tripod. There is a reason there are so many lenses with overlapping ranges, and that is because they have different uses. I use the 28-135 a lot, but in certain situations it makes more sense to use an 80-200L. As far as a portrait lens goes, I switch between an 85, a 100, and a 135 all the time. Maybe shoot a bunch of portraits with your 28-135 and see what zoom setting you are using the most, or what zoom setting you like the best and then buy that. Also, bear in mind that when you start using a prime like an 85 f1.8 the sharpness is going to be so staggering that you might find it almost hostile to people – i regularly use a soft focus on my portrait lenses because these things can be so brutal in terms of skin flaws, wrinkles, etc that you can’t believe it.
Response:
An interesting point is that I recall Annika claiming that film was dead, and digital cameras ruled when *it* obtained a digital camera a while back. Whatever *it* buys, "rulez", at least until the next purchase. Pathetic really when you stop and think about it.
Well Buttslurp, that’s easy enough to explain. ANNIKA RULES !!!
Response:
The FEDEX man got a big hug today. Bet the poor guy is still throwing up.
If he did throw up, you can be sure Annika took a snap of it as it was gurgling out… …even if he wasn’t a dog.
Response:
I would call it the totally underutilized xxx lens. Since you’ll likely take a good shot with it, the name fits. But, using the 10,000 monkeys typing for 10,000 years theory, you might produce a real photo after enough time. If nothing else, you may produce technically perfect snapshots. Something I’ve mastered with my own 80-200 zoom.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The FEDEX man got a big hug today when he showed up with the package from B&H containing the 70-200 f/2-point-8 USM lens. He even waited around to watch me open it as he was somewhat of a photography buff himself. In fact, he said he fell asleep last night reading the B&H catalog (it DOES make for some pretty boring reading). Btw, I ordered the lens on Wednesday night and had it today …. nice goin, B&H. Anyway, this thing is a lot heavier than I expected. I can see that my monopod is gonna get some serious use now. The 70-200 USM functioned perfectly and quietly, quickly attaining focus on any target I chose. It also worked flawlessly with my "Vivitar Series 1" 2x teleconverter. I even let a few other people try their hand at shooting with the combination of the fabulous EOS-1V and the soon-to-be-named 70-200 USM. I had some slide film loaded (Fuji Astia) so it’ll take me a few days to see the results since my slide lab isn’t open on weekends. Stay tuned for more great EOS-1V shots! One thing is still troubling me (besides figuring out how I’m gonna pay for the darn thing). My current arsenal includes the Fast 50, the Incredible 28-135 the 70-200 is sharper than the 28-135 throughout their common ranges (70-135). At over twice the price, it oughta be. Maybe the wise thing to do would be to sell the Incredible 28-135 and start saving for something like the 28-70 f/2.8 L USM? I don’t do a lot of landscape shooting which would require a wide lens so I probably wouldn’t even miss it. I could still use the Fast 50 in a pinch, I guess. Or I could start saving towards a Canon D30, which would turn my 70-200 lens into a 112-320 telephoto. That would be cool. The price of the D30 is less than the price of a f/2.8 300mm lens by itself. The downside is that a 28mm lens suddenly becomes a 44.8mm lens when used with the digital D30. Anyway, what would you guys consider to be your ultimate lens arsenal? I figure I would be happy with maybe a 14mm, a 28-70, 70-200, and the most splendiforous 400mm f/2.8 L. Add a good portrait lens like the 100mm f/2 and I’d be totally moist!
Response:
The FEDEX man got a big hug today.
Bet the poor guy is still throwing up.
Response:
Maybe you should sell all your expensive gear and get something more in tune with your photo taking skills. Like a 10 buck disposable.
big hug today when he showed up with the package from B&H – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – containing the 70-200 f/2-point-8 USM lens. He even waited around to watch me open it as he was somewhat of a photography buff himself. In fact, he said he fell asleep last night reading the B&H catalog (it DOES make for some pretty boring reading). Btw, I ordered the lens on Wednesday night and had it today …. nice goin, B&H. Anyway, this thing is a lot heavier than I expected. I can see that my monopod is gonna get some serious use now. The 70-200 USM functioned perfectly and quietly, quickly attaining focus on any target I chose. It also worked flawlessly with my "Vivitar Series 1" 2x teleconverter. I even let a few other people try their hand at shooting with the combination of the fabulous EOS-1V and the soon-to-be-named 70-200 USM. I had some slide film loaded (Fuji Astia) so it’ll take me a few days to see the results since my slide lab isn’t open on weekends. Stay tuned for more great EOS-1V shots! One thing is still troubling me (besides figuring out how I’m gonna pay for the darn thing). My current arsenal includes the Fast 50, the Incredible 28-135 the 70-200 is sharper than the 28-135 throughout their common ranges (70-135). At over twice the price, it oughta be. Maybe the wise thing to do would be to sell the Incredible 28-135 and start saving for something like the 28-70 f/2.8 L USM? I don’t do a lot of landscape shooting which would require a wide lens so I probably wouldn’t even miss it. I could still use the Fast 50 in a pinch, I guess. Or I could start saving towards a Canon D30, which would turn my 70-200 lens into a 112-320 telephoto. That would be cool. The price of the D30 is less than the price of a f/2.8 300mm lens by itself. The downside is that a 28mm lens suddenly becomes a 44.8mm lens when used with the digital D30. Anyway, what would you guys consider to be your ultimate lens arsenal? I figure I would be happy with maybe a 14mm, a 28-70, 70-200, and the most splendiforous 400mm f/2.8 L. Add a good portrait lens like the 100mm f/2 and I’d be totally moist!
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… Is Annika1980 showing a little slacking in antagonism. If so it’s a welcome improvement. Also little hints of feminism. Will this dispel the rumors of Annika1980 being of the male gender as many here believe. No. It was merely an intentional "drop" of false information to lead you to that conclusion. *He* was "outed" as being a transvestite yet naturally male on some of the audio newsgroups a LONG time ago, so he came over here to troll instead after becoming universally despised and killfiled there. He’s well on his way to doing the same thing here it would seem. An interesting point is that I recall Annika claiming that film was dead, and digital cameras ruled when *it* obtained a digital camera a while back. Whatever *it* buys, "rulez", at least until the next purchase. Pathetic really when you stop and think about it. —
Thanks, I guess the FEDEX guy really needs a heads-up on this. He wouldn’t want people to think it was an ongoing roll with the troll….
Response:
The fabulous 70-200 f/2-point-8 USM lens What else would you call it? Now you have the fabulous fabulous 70-200 f/2-point-8 USM lens EOS-1V! I only have one zoom, and it’s for my girlfriend. Get the best fixed focal length lenses you or whoever can afford, and leave the zooms at the store.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The FEDEX man got a big hug today when he showed up with the package from B&H containing the 70-200 f/2-point-8 USM lens. He even waited around to watch me open it as he was somewhat of a photography buff himself. In fact, he said he fell asleep last night reading the B&H catalog (it DOES make for some pretty boring reading). Btw, I ordered the lens on Wednesday night and had it today …. nice goin, B&H. Anyway, this thing is a lot heavier than I expected. I can see that my monopod is gonna get some serious use now. The 70-200 USM functioned perfectly and quietly, quickly attaining focus on any target I chose. It also worked flawlessly with my "Vivitar Series 1" 2x teleconverter. I even let a few other people try their hand at shooting with the combination of the fabulous EOS-1V and the soon-to-be-named 70-200 USM. I had some slide film loaded (Fuji Astia) so it’ll take me a few days to see the results since my slide lab isn’t open on weekends. Stay tuned for more great EOS-1V shots! One thing is still troubling me (besides figuring out how I’m gonna pay for the darn thing). My current arsenal includes the Fast 50, the Incredible 28-135 the 70-200 is sharper than the 28-135 throughout their common ranges (70-135). At over twice the price, it oughta be. Maybe the wise thing to do would be to sell the Incredible 28-135 and start saving for something like the 28-70 f/2.8 L USM? I don’t do a lot of landscape shooting which would require a wide lens so I probably wouldn’t even miss it. I could still use the Fast 50 in a pinch, I guess. Or I could start saving towards a Canon D30, which would turn my 70-200 lens into a 112-320 telephoto. That would be cool. The price of the D30 is less than the price of a f/2.8 300mm lens by itself. The downside is that a 28mm lens suddenly becomes a 44.8mm lens when used with the digital D30. Anyway, what would you guys consider to be your ultimate lens arsenal? I figure I would be happy with maybe a 14mm, a 28-70, 70-200, and the most splendiforous 400mm f/2.8 L. Add a good portrait lens like the 100mm f/2 and I’d be totally moist!
Response:
The FEDEX man got a big hug today when he showed up with the package from B&H Add a good portrait lens like the 100mm f/2 and I’d be totally moist!
Is Annika1980 showing a little slacking in antagonism. If so it’s a welcome improvement. Also little hints of feminism. Will this dispel the rumors of Annika1980 being of the male gender as many here believe. Mayby coming out of the closet will further improve her standing as females are generally treated nicer here. Tune in next week for more Adventures of Annnika1980 PS. Enjoy your new lens.
Response:
says… Is Annika1980 showing a little slacking in antagonism. If so it’s a welcome improvement. Also little hints of feminism. Will this dispel the rumors of Annika1980 being of the male gender as many here believe.
No. It was merely an intentional "drop" of false information to lead you to that conclusion. *He* was "outed" as being a transvestite yet naturally male on some of the audio newsgroups a LONG time ago, so he came over here to troll instead after becoming universally despised and killfiled there. He’s well on his way to doing the same thing here it would seem. An interesting point is that I recall Annika claiming that film was dead, and digital cameras ruled when *it* obtained a digital camera a while back. Whatever *it* buys, "rulez", at least until the next purchase. Pathetic really when you stop and think about it. — Check out the Theta Digital forum! "The world will not be this way within the reach of my arm." — Thomas Harris
Response:
says… The FEDEX man got a big hug today
Poor man, he’ll probably be in therapy for years. Hope you are going to use some of daddy’s money to help fund that for him. It’s the least you can do after traumatizing the poor guy. One thing is still troubling me (besides figuring out how I’m gonna pay for the darn thing). My current arsenal includes the Fast 50, the Incredible 28-135 70-200 is sharper than the 28-135 throughout their common ranges (70-135). At over twice the price, it oughta be. Maybe the wise thing to do would be to sell the Incredible 28-135 and start saving for something like the 28-70 f/2.8 L USM?
The wise thing would probably be to use it some and shoot some comparison shots of the same subject with both lenses before selling one of them. Either way, wouldn’t a 17-35 let you get more extreme shots of that hideously ugly dog and its exposed genitalia? I don’t do a lot of landscape shooting which would require a wide lens so I probably wouldn’t even miss it. I could still use the Fast 50 in a pinch, I guess.
A lot of people use wide lenses for things other than landscape shooting. But, they are photographers. You probably don’t know any of them. Anyway, what would you guys consider to be your ultimate lens arsenal?
A bunch of fixed focal length lenses, and few, if any zooms except perhaps the 80-200 AF-S and 17-35 AF-S. Apart from that, a 300, 400, 500, 600, and various macro and portrait lenses. Nothing with VR would be remotely interesting to me (or IS if you prefer). I’d be very interested in a filter collection suitable for what I own before obtaining a bunch of new lenses without suitable attachments. I’d be totally moist!
From drooling on yourself in the funny farm? Gag. —
Response:
The FEDEX man got a big hug today when he showed up with the package from B&H containing the 70-200 f/2-point-8 USM lens. He even waited around to watch me open it as he was somewhat of a photography buff himself. In fact, he said he fell asleep last night reading the B&H catalog (it DOES make for some pretty boring reading). Btw, I ordered the lens on Wednesday night and had it today …. nice goin, B&H. Anyway, this thing is a lot heavier than I expected. I can see that my monopod is gonna get some serious use now. The 70-200 USM functioned perfectly and quietly, quickly attaining focus on any target I chose. It also worked flawlessly with my "Vivitar Series 1" 2x teleconverter. I even let a few other people try their hand at shooting with the combination of the fabulous EOS-1V and the soon-to-be-named 70-200 USM. I had some slide film loaded (Fuji Astia) so it’ll take me a few days to see the results since my slide lab isn’t open on weekends. Stay tuned for more great EOS-1V shots! One thing is still troubling me (besides figuring out how I’m gonna pay for the darn thing). My current arsenal includes the Fast 50, the Incredible 28-135 70-200 is sharper than the 28-135 throughout their common ranges (70-135). At over twice the price, it oughta be. Maybe the wise thing to do would be to sell the Incredible 28-135 and start saving for something like the 28-70 f/2.8 L USM? I don’t do a lot of landscape shooting which would require a wide lens so I probably wouldn’t even miss it. I could still use the Fast 50 in a pinch, I guess. Or I could start saving towards a Canon D30, which would turn my 70-200 lens into a 112-320 telephoto. That would be cool. The price of the D30 is less than the price of a f/2.8 300mm lens by itself. The downside is that a 28mm lens suddenly becomes a 44.8mm lens when used with the digital D30. Anyway, what would you guys consider to be your ultimate lens arsenal? I figure I would be happy with maybe a 14mm, a 28-70, 70-200, and the most splendiforous 400mm f/2.8 L. Add a good portrait lens like the 100mm f/2 and I’d be totally moist!
Response:
Filed under: Feminism
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.