[punosion]

Originally Posted by z-lite

Hey, lets swim with sharks with no cage! That's what happens when you mess with nature and wild animals

No doubt...mess wit' 'da bull you get 'da horns!

The last pic, the thumbs-up still with the bloody tank top on...gave me a bit of a chuckle.

[black300zx]

The gallery linked at the bottom has some more pretty awesome pictures of a dude up close with lions, hyenas, etc

[z-lite]

After I purchase my 50mm 1.8, I'm seriously considering starting my L collection starting with the 24-70 2.8L. The 17-55 IS 2.8 ($1k) is very comparable to the 2.8L ($1.2K) but I get a better overall lens with the L lens so I'm going to get that

[punosion]

Originally Posted by z-lite

After I purchase my 50mm 1.8, I'm seriously considering starting my L collection starting with the 24-70 2.8L. The 17-55 IS 2.8 ($1k) is very comparable to the 2.8L ($1.2K) but I get a better overall lens with the L lens so I'm going to get that

What's the L series? Canon's mack-daddy series?

Is that 17-55 full-frame?

[z-lite]

L = Luxury. 17-55 uses the EF-S mount which is compatible with xxD and Rebel series bodies, but not compatible with higher end bodies. The 24-70 is EF and works on EF and EF-S mount bodies like my Rebel. The L lenses also offer weather-proof seal in the front element, all-metal construction for better resistance to abuse, and optically better glass than non-L lenses.

[luvdeftonz]

Eric, you know all those white lenses you see at sporting events (on tv or in mags)? Yep, those are L series lenses which, for the most part, cost an arm, leg, and your first born...not that I'm not looking keenly at the 70-200 f/4 which is a bargain at just over $500...and about a $1k for the IS version or the 2.8 non IS version. The 70-200 f/2.8IS would really be nice, but not $1500-$1600 nice.

Just remember the 24-70 on a (1.6) crop body has an effective FOV of 38.5mm. For some that's fine, but for that kind of cash, I'd like a little more on the wide end (unless a full frame body, like the 5d, is in your future). Also note that L glass weighs a ton. On the xt/xti bodies, it might be a little "front heavy", and therefore hard to hold still. Of course, a lot of L glass has a "regular" version and a 2.8 version...and there's also the regular version with IS and the 2.8 with IS. Depends on how much cashola you have burning a hole in your pocket.

[z-lite]

The 70-200 2.8L is my future zoom lens which will be the last lens to purchase of my L collection

[black300zx]

Apparently the Goodwill a few miles from me has a couple lenses in their front case for $30 each. Gonna head down tomorrow or Wednesday and see if I find a bargain

[Tom C.]

Originally Posted by z-lite

L = Luxury. 17-55 uses the EF-S mount which is compatible with xxD and Rebel series bodies, but not compatible with higher end bodies. The 24-70 is EF and works on EF and EF-S mount bodies like my Rebel. The L lenses also offer weather-proof seal in the front element, all-metal construction for better resistance to abuse, and optically better glass than non-L lenses.

That is why I like Nikon, their bodies and lenses have been compatible/not changed for YEARS!!!!

[scott dodge]

Originally Posted by z-lite

The 70-200 2.8L is my future zoom lens which will be the last lens to purchase of my L collection

Eaaaaaaasssyyyy there renzo... get out and take some shots first!

[z-lite]

Originally Posted by Tom C.

That is why I like Nikon, their bodies and lenses have been compatible/not changed for YEARS!!!!

The build quality on the EF-S lens is not the greatest but they are great performers and cheaper than EF lenses but only work on limited bodies. The EF mount lenses which I'll assume has been out for years too is compatible with every Canon DSLR body AFAIK

[z-lite]

Originally Posted by scott dodge

Eaaaaaaasssyyyy there renzo... get out and take some shots first!

I'm saving up every dollar I make this week to go toward a 50mm 1.8 and hopefully have that by next week

[punosion]

Originally Posted by Tom C.

That is why I like Nikon, their bodies and lenses have been compatible/not changed for YEARS!!!!

Nikon has the same thing going on. Their DX lenses are specifically designed for digital bodies, just like Canon's EF-S mount. The "digital" EF-S lenses won't make a full-frame image on a 35mm EF body, and they are designed so that they will not physically attach to EF bodies (because...what's the point?).

Like Nikon's non-DX lenses, their EF lenses will go on an EF-S camera no problem, since the lens has more than enough imaging area to cover the smaller sensor.

[z-lite]

50mm 1.8 with hood ordered I hope Adorama doesn't hold all items in the order until everything is in stock because the hood is OOS but on its way to Adorama and I would like to get that lens ASAP. Perfect timing for SBN

[PHXSkinsFan]

My crappy Quantaray 70-210 f3.5-5.6 just broke so I was forced to do some research on a suitable replacement. First stop www.keh.com for some used lenses. There were some Nikon based ones for around 150 or so. One of guys I work with lent me his 75-300 and I liked the additional distance to 300mm, but I didn't like the fact that the thing is a beast.

So I started looking at what Nikon had to offer in that range. Low and behold a cheap 50-200 with VR to boot. Ken Rockwell

After reading a couple of reviews, I hope this lens will tide me over until I can gather the cashflow to pull the 70-200 f2.8.

The guy that loaned me his 50-300 just bought the 70-200 2.8 so I'm definitely going to be doing some "pepsi challenges" with these two.

[z-lite]

Originally Posted by PHXSkinsFan

My crappy Quantaray 70-210 f3.5-5.6 just broke so I was forced to do some research on a suitable replacement. First stop www.keh.com for some used lenses. There were some Nikon based ones for around 150 or so. One of guys I work with lent me his 75-300 and I liked the additional distance to 300mm, but I didn't like the fact that the thing is a beast.

So I started looking at what Nikon had to offer in that range. Low and behold a cheap 50-200 with VR to boot. Ken Rockwell

After reading a couple of reviews, I hope this lens will tide me over until I can gather the cashflow to pull the 70-200 f2.8.

The guy that loaned me his 50-300 just bought the 70-200 2.8 so I'm definitely going to be doing some "pepsi challenges" with these two.

John, are you refering to the Canon 70-200 2.8L or is there a Nikon 70-200 2.8

Edit: I see that Nikon offers a 70-200 2.8 lens priced similarly to the Canon 70-200 2.8L

Edit 2: I hope to see some pics with the new lens

[punosion]

Originally Posted by PHXSkinsFan

So I started looking at what Nikon had to offer in that range. Low and behold a cheap 50-200 with VR to boot. Ken Rockwell

That's a great deal right there...never really looked at that one before. Thing I like about Ken's reviews is he seems to be picky about ergonomics and the feel of a lens. If he has problems with the movement or focus or anything, he'll mention it. Doesn't have much to say in that department other than "It's very well made" and "It zooms easily and precisely. The zoom range is well spaced, and VR works great. It focuses reasonably fast. It doesn't offer instant manual focus override: you have to move a switch, but hey, for the price, I'm not complaining."

[scott dodge]

Originally Posted by z-lite

50mm 1.8 with hood ordered I hope Adorama doesn't hold all items in the order until everything is in stock because the hood is OOS but on its way to Adorama and I would like to get that lens ASAP. Perfect timing for SBN

Nice. Be prepared to zoom with your feet... it's an odd focal length - equivalent to 75mm on full frame.

[punosion]

Wellcome Image Awards 2008

Not really "photography," more "images" per se...still freakin' cool.

[z-lite]

Originally Posted by scott dodge

Nice. Be prepared to zoom with your feet... it's an odd focal length - equivalent to 75mm on full frame.

~80 on my 1.6x crop body but I'm ready for it