 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / August 2007CHEAP BOKEH SHOTS LOVE THE 20D !
Just another cheap bokeh shot taken with the 85 f/1.2L II before the UPS man has to pry it out of my fingers. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452/original > Just another cheap bokeh shot taken with the 85 f/1.2L II before the > UPS man has to pry it out of my fingers. > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452/original Why call it cheap bokeh? I think it's lovely and creamy. It accents the the delicate flower beautifully. Helen > Just another cheap bokeh shot taken with the 85 f/1.2L II before the > UPS man has to pry it out of my fingers. > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452/original Not so cheap when you think on the cost of the lens. hehe Very nicely done. But, the head in the background seems to fight with the flower subject. It is just enough differant color to make it jump up out of the background with its strong circular shape. I like the way the background does go OOF in such a smooth and pleasant way. The main subject is a bit bright but that might be my monitor and I ain't re-setting it. But it is very sharp and well placed in the frame. Your collection in the Reflection Riding are some of the best I have seen in quite a while. Are you going to enter the contest with any of your work? I think you should. Even if you are not a "full time" nature photog, I think you could win. If not then place very high. GO for IT! Draco Getting even isn't good enough. Doing better does. >Just another cheap bokeh shot taken with the 85 f/1.2L II before the >UPS man has to pry it out of my fingers. > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452/original Probably one of the very best shots you have ever taken. Simply exquisite. > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452/original > > Probably one of the very best shots you have ever taken. > > Simply exquisite. You really think so? I agree with Draco that the flower is a bit bright, but I guess I can Photoshop the hell out of it. > > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452/original > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I agree with Draco that the flower is a bit bright, but I guess I can > Photoshop the hell out of it. Nice. Bokeh is quite stunning.Nice color contrast between the flower and BG. Try just "burning in" the flower instead of massive PS work, that might be enough. Tell your wife about your xmas list, you might get lucky, I mean the lens! >>>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452/original >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I agree with Draco that the flower is a bit bright, but I guess I can > Photoshop the hell out of it. I don't think that's the best shot (biased on plant portraits myself) but I do think you should buy that lens, not just rent it. You took some great shots with that lens! I want a fast 85. Are you gonna get one?  SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com > I don't think that's the best shot (biased on plant portraits myself) > but I do think you should buy that lens, not just rent it. You took some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Are you gonna get one? Sadly, no. > > I don't think that's the best shot (biased on plant portraits myself) > > but I do think you should buy that lens, not just rent it. You took some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sadly, no. At over $1,700.00 I would say it's more than just sad. It's a damn crying shame! Helen >>>I don't think that's the best shot (biased on plant portraits myself) >>>but I do think you should buy that lens, not just rent it. You took some [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > crying shame! > Helen Understandable at that price. How about the 1.4 or whatever? I've been having fun with my antique 135 f/2 & Alan has got some sweet shots from his shiny new 135 f/1.7. BIG difference between the 135 f/2 & the 70-200 f/2.8, maybe your 400 f/5.6 is comparable, I'd guess. 'Zoom with the feet' does indeed work. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com >> I don't think that's the best shot (biased on plant portraits myself) >> but I do think you should buy that lens, not just rent it. You took some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Sadly, no. How about a Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 and an adapter? You could buy a used example in Contax mount, or a brand new one in M42, plus the appropriate converter. You would be using it wide open most of the time so the stopped down metering should not be a concern. > >> Are you gonna get one? > > >Sadly, no. > > How about a Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 and an adapter? No, I've already got the Canon 85 f/1.8 which is a great lens in its own right. The only Zeiss lens I'd like to have is the 21mm Distagon, reputedly the best 35mm wide-angle lens out there. Have you ever owned one of those? >> >> Are you gonna get one? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >reputedly the best 35mm wide-angle lens out there. >Have you ever owned one of those? The short answer is No. I have the 18mm Distagon in my Canon 5D outfit. I also have a 20mm f/2.8 Zeiss (Jena) Flektogon in M42 mount. I tested a 21mm Distagon a few years ago but at the time I used Nikon gear so had no interest in buying one. It has an excellent reputation and is much sought after by Canon full-frame users, so much so that the prices being achieved are extremely high. The reason I suggested the Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 is that it is optically outstanding yet costs a lot less than the Canon f/1.2. Both are very different lenses to your f/1.8. > The reason I suggested the Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 is that it is > optically outstanding yet costs a lot less than the Canon f/1.2. Truthfully, I think both of them would be wasted on the 20D. If I were ever lucky enough to own a full-frame like the 1DsMKII those lenses would really shine. >> The reason I suggested the Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 is that it is >> optically outstanding yet costs a lot less than the Canon f/1.2. > >Truthfully, I think both of them would be wasted on the 20D. >If I were ever lucky enough to own a full-frame like the 1DsMKII those >lenses would really shine. If you had a full frame DSLR I have no doubt that you would make the very best use of it. After Canon introduces its successor, I expect that used prices of the 1Ds MkII will drop. Also, prices of the 5D will drop as that will also be replaced. At some point after that happens, you might find one or the other quite affordable. >> The reason I suggested the Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 is that it is >> optically outstanding yet costs a lot less than the Canon f/1.2. > > Truthfully, I think both of them would be wasted on the 20D. > If I were ever lucky enough to own a full-frame like the 1DsMKII those > lenses would really shine. It's a shame the Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 is not available for the Canon's. I think you would enjoy that as well. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6195464&size=lg http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6249647&size=lg http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6249631&size=lg As to 'wasted on' don't forget you will be upgrading from your 20D to something at higher resolution one day so the 85 f/1.4 would not be wasted at all. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > How about a Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 and an adapter? The only lens that will unleash Bret's creativity is the 85/1.4 Nikkor. Screwing around with a crappy Zeiss lens is like stepping backwards and putting a cheap kit lens on the old 20D. Rita > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452/original > > Probably one of the very best shots you have ever taken. > > Simply exquisite. Stop it, Helen! I know it's you. > > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452/original > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Stop it, Helen! I know it's you. LOL! >> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452/original >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Stop it, Helen! I know it's you. Ooh, Bret, that image is SIMPLY GORGEOUS!!! And GUESS WHAT, Bret baby - I know that you shot it ALL FOR ME!!!!!!! Gush, gush gush ... You are the MASTER of your EQUIPMENT!!! Geddit ?!?!?!?!? Helen XXXXXXXXXXX >>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452/original >>> Probably one of the very best shots you have ever taken. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Helen XXXXXXXXXXX Here are some of Tony Polson's MASTERFULLY done, WONDERFUL, SIMPLY GORGEOUS images!!! http://www.pbase.com/paris_polson/examples Geddit? > >> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452/original > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Helen XXXXXXXXXXX Hey Tony... Seriously mate. Just one photo and Shut up the loony from Canada once and for all. If you don't feel like using one of your own, let me know and I'll get my mate in Chattanooga to steal one for you. Whatever, just one photo, Please? >Hey Tony... Seriously mate. Just one photo and Shut up the loony from >Canada once and for all. If you think "just one photo" would silence the Canadian retard, then you're even more stupid than I realised. Kill-filing Browne has worked well for me for a couple of years now. If someone else is stupid enough to reply to him, I sometimes see another example of the complete nonsense he writes, but very few people ever reply to him, and we all know why that is. >> Hey Tony... Seriously mate. Just one photo and Shut up the loony from >> Canada once and for all. > > If you think "just one photo" would silence the Canadian retard, then > you're even more stupid than I realised. Just one Tony and I'll shut up. Well, at least one better than: http://www.pbase.com/paris_polson/examples > Kill-filing Browne has worked well for me for a couple of years now. > If someone else is stupid enough to reply to him, I sometimes see > another example of the complete nonsense he writes, but very few > people ever reply to him, and we all know why that is. Imagine how many would reply to you if you were civil. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Just another cheap bokeh shot taken with the 85 f/1.2L II before the >> UPS man has to pry it out of my fingers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Simply exquisite. A bit blown out on the flower. Better done under overcast. But you're right Tony, a LOT better than: http://www.pbase.com/paris_polson/examples On Aug 3, 9:16 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > >> Just another cheap bokeh shot taken with the 85 f/1.2L II before the > >> UPS man has to pry it out of my fingers. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/paris_polson/examples ?? This from the man who criticises personal attacks? At least I don't *pretend* to walk the high road. > On Aug 3, 9:16 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > This from the man who criticises personal attacks? At least I don't > *pretend* to walk the high road. I never did "pretend" to walk the high road. Tony continues his snide attacks on me and yet has never shown a single photo. As long as he dishes, I dish back. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. On Aug 3, 11:49 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Aug 3, 9:16 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > -- [SI] gallery & rulz:http://www.pbase.com/shootin > -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Well... I can see how you might think: > Probably one of the very best shots you have ever taken. > Simply exquisite. is in fact an attack on you... Umm, I think.. My attitude is simply this: - responding to attacks is fine *where they happen* - but it is not fine on other, unrelated threads where there is no provocation (that is the road I am trying to walk with the unmentionable one) So why not try to keep your "dishing back" on the threads where it happens. And so will I. Otherwise - you can see what happens.. (look who magically appeared above, using the same tactics to further soil the thread..) But whatever happens, all's fair in love, war and usenet, I guess! mt >On Aug 3, 11:49 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >is in fact an attack on you... Umm, I think.. It goes back years, Mark. The Canadian retard takes it personally because *he* never gets any praise from anyone. And he is extremely jealous when anyone else's work gets praised. As anyone who has subscribed to this group for any length of time knows, Bret (Annika1980) has worked extremely hard at his photography over the last few years. He has reached a very high standard as a result of his hard work and perseverance, without having a large budget to spend on equipment. Bret makes the very best of what he has, and produces results that always impress, and sometimes even take the breath away. Meanwhile, the Canadian retard is producing the same mind-numbingly mediocre snapshots, year after year. They don't get any better, in fact they are now probably worse than before, because as he gets more consistent, there is less and less chance of him taking a good photo by accident. Recently I praised Matt Clara as "an accomplished photographer". Matt has worked hard, like Bret, and he also achieves a lot without having a large equipment budget. He has progressed, like Bret, through hard work and determination to succeed. Either of them could make a living as a professional photographer, if that is what they chose to do. The Canadian retard was **outraged** when I praised Matt's efforts, just as he is now outraged that I praised Bret's. Look back in the archives if you are interested. He just seems to go off the rails if anyone else gets praise for making an effort to improve, when he himself makes no effort to learn what he is doing wrong, doesn't improve and gets no praise at all. The Aussie retard now gets all the blame for ruining this newsgroup, but his Canadian retard cousin has been doing exactly the same for years. But just as the Canadian retard's photographic ability has been totally eclipsed by that of others on here, his ability to render this newsgroup worthless has been totally eclipsed by the "Technoaussie". He doesn't even argue with D-Mac now, because Doug has had the better of him on here far too many times. The only option he has left is to lash out at me. But he's in my kill file, so he can say say all he wants. I'm just not interested in what Browne thinks, when there are so many more people around who can actually shoot decent pictures. What really riles him is that he knows as well as I do that he cannot take a decent photo, and that he probably never will. Bret and Matt have left him standing, and looking very foolish indeed. > As anyone who has subscribed to this group for any length of time > knows, Bret (Annika1980) has worked extremely hard at his photography [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > has, and produces results that always impress, and sometimes even take > the breath away. Helen, is that you? OK Polson, you're now off my sh.t list. > > As anyone who has subscribed to this group for any length of time > > knows, Bret (Annika1980) has worked extremely hard at his photography [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > OK Polson, you're now off my sh.t list. Good. Now that you're all palsy-walsy, maybe you can get him off my back. Helen > What really riles him <Browne> is that he knows as well as I do that he cannot > take a decent photo, and that he probably never will. Bret and Matt > have left him standing, and looking very foolish indeed. Sure Polson. And while I post: http://www.photo.net/photos/Alan%20Browne You post: http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000a.jpg http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000b.jpg http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000c.jpg http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000d.jpg I think my train shots are a wee bit better than yours... and so does everyone else. We have never seen your claimed Paris Match cover. Does it really exist? You know claiming to have a cover on Paris Match is a BIG claim. And BIG claims need to be backed up with BIG deeds. Where's your Paris Match cover photo, Polson? We have never seen a _single_ decent photo from you. Does one exist? Your attacks on me are very sad. Makes you look quite pathetic. And no, I do not resent Bret and I praise his photos quite often. I'll agree with you that Bret has, since his salad days here, improved more than anyone else including myself. But you? All you can post is the crap above? And yes, your saying that Matt was "now" an accomplished photographer was nothing but an insult to him, even though he took your "compliment" graciously. The fact is Polson, I have called you on your rudeness and your claims and you have never, not once, backed up your claims with a decent photo. And because of that, like the perfect coward you are, you yap and attack. You don't bother me at all ... there is only one way for you to get respect as a photographer. And it ain't with the photos you posted at railfan.net. ;-) Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> On Aug 3, 11:49 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > has, and produces results that always impress, and sometimes even take > the breath away. Absolutely right. > Meanwhile, the Canadian retard is producing the same mind-numbingly > mediocre snapshots, year after year. http://www.photo.net/photos/Alan%20Browne Really? Whereso? And where are your great photos Polson? Where, oh where is that Paris Match cover? Does it exist? What photos have you produced that give you any grounds to criticize mine? Prove what you can do and I'll happily praise your _abilities_ if you can put up the proof. http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000a.jpg http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000c.jpg http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000b.jpg http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000d.jpg Do not give you any grounds to criticize any of my photos at: http://www.photo.net/photos/Alan%20Browne And I've never claimed to be a great photographer, but I've never shied from posting either. They don't get any better, in > fact they are now probably worse than before, because as he gets more > consistent, there is less and less chance of him taking a good photo [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > work and determination to succeed. Either of them could make a living > as a professional photographer, if that is what they chose to do. I agree that Bret has progressed immensely and I've always praised his good work. Matt has always posted very good work and has also progressed. You have never posted any good work. See the pattern Polson? Where is your claimed Paris Match photo, anyway. > Alan was **outraged** when I praised Matt's efforts, No. I was perplexed that you would say: "Matt, you are _now_ an accomplished photographer." I felt badly for Matt because Matt has always been an accomplished photographer in the time that I've known him here. > just as he is now outraged that I praised Bret's. Look back in the > archives if you are interested. He just seems to go off the rails if > anyone else gets praise for making an effort to improve, when he > himself makes no effort to learn what he is doing wrong, doesn't > improve and gets no praise at all. > I'm just not interested in what > Browne thinks, when there are so many more people around who can > actually shoot decent pictures. How about yours Polson? Where are your "decent" pictures? Please post. > What really riles him is that he knows as well as I do that he cannot > take a decent photo, and that he probably never will. I think my postes photo record stands for itself. Where is your posted record Polson? > Bret and Matt > have left him standing, and looking very foolish indeed. Divide and conquer, eh? Well I know where I stand with both of these gentlemen. Again, Matt has been an accomplished photog since I first "met" him here in about 2001 or 2002. In a longer period than that, I've never seen a single competent photo from you. Not one. Esp. not your claimed Paris Match photo from the 1970s. Geddit? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Well... I can see how you might think: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > fine on other, unrelated threads where there is no provocation (that > is the road I am trying to walk with the unmentionable one) Well, if you bother to look around (and I don't advise you waste your time doing so) you will find Polson doing exactly the same thing ... in a thread in which I'm not even participating he will bomb me with an insult or some misinformation. Polson is really after my guts for the simple reason that I have called him out: where is his photographic capability shown? Where is his Paris Match cover that he claimed? He does have very good equipment information in some areas; but his implied photographic prowess is nowhere to be seen. http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000a.jpg Just does not cut it. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Just another cheap bokeh shot taken with the 85 f/1.2L II before the > UPS man has to pry it out of my fingers. > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452/original You really need to stop wasting money renting lenses. You would be better off buying it and getting full enjoyment from it. Rita On Aug 3, 5:36 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452/original > > You really need to stop wasting money renting lenses. You would be better > off buying it and getting full enjoyment from it. I'll never be able to afford that lens. And who knows how much I'd use it anyway if I owned it. At least this way, I am forced to concentrate on one focal length for a week. That in itself is an interesting exercise. >>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83251452/original >> You really need to stop wasting money renting lenses. You would be better [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > concentrate on one focal length for a week. That in itself is an > interesting exercise. I would bet you could sell enough photography to pay for such a lens (or whatever other lens you really wanted or needed ... maybe not the 1200 f/5.6) Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. On Aug 4, 5:06 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > I would bet you could sell enough photography to pay for such a lens (or > whatever other lens you really wanted or needed ... maybe not the 1200 > f/5.6) So buy me the 85 f/1.2L II and we'll see. Sounds like a good bet to me. >On Aug 4, 5:06 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >So buy me the 85 f/1.2L II and we'll see. >Sounds like a good bet to me. Bret, This might interest you, but probably not to buy. I didn't know that an 85mm f/1.2 had ever been made in this brand: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110153388905 > Bret, > > This might interest you, but probably not to buy. I didn't know that > an 85mm f/1.2 had ever been made in this brand: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110153388905 Yes, that interests me in the same way a $450,000 Mercedes SLR interests me. >> Bret, >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Yes, that interests me in the same way a $450,000 Mercedes SLR >interests me. We can but dream. >> You really need to stop wasting money renting lenses. You would be >> better off buying it and getting full enjoyment from it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > concentrate on one focal length for a week. That in itself is an > interesting exercise. Nonsense! Buying good glass is an investment and you should be able to sell it for more than what you paid for it after two years of use. Oh, I forgot you are not buying Nikkors. My bad! Rita On Aug 5, 7:10 am, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > Nonsense! Buying good glass is an investment and you should be able to sell > it for more than what you paid for it after two years of use. Oh, I forgot > you are not buying Nikkors. My bad! I don't buy lenses as investments. I buy them to take pictures. You are starting to sound like the Leicaphiles who sit around the coffee shops sipping their lattes and saying, "Oh yes, Reginald, I have the M6 with the 50mm Summicron at home back at the estate. I chose the teak case with the velvet lining and I have a nice display case built for it." >> Nonsense! Buying good glass is an investment and you should be able >> to sell it for more than what you paid for it after two years of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > chose the teak case with the velvet lining and I have a nice display > case built for it." LOL! Who said anything about not using it? You were the one crying poverty. I suggested that you buy good glass, Nikon, and use the living crap out of it and sell it for more than what you paid for it two years down the road. Make money while enjoying your hobby. There's simply no excuse for not buying the very best glass and getting the most out of it. But I do agree with you that there are very few Canon lenses that appreciate in value so this might not be your best strategy. Rita |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.