photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
Wm. Bates | all galleries >> Galleries >> Picture a Day for a Year of Wanda Gallery > Wanda03_27_05e.jpg
previous | next
27-MAR-2005

Wanda03_27_05e.jpg

Just trying out a new lens the Canon EF 300f/2.8L IS that Wanda got me for my birthday. It is really sweet. It seems nice and sharp wide open at f/2.8 and the out focus area is butter smooth. It really helps pop the subject out from the background.

Here are a couple just playing around today


Canon EOS 20D ,Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
1/500s f/2.8 at 300.0mm iso200 full exif

other sizes: small medium large original auto
comment | share
Wm. Bates07-Aug-2005 04:50
Bill had a great time following us around the yard just testing out his new lens. It was fun to through in a handful of our "everyday life" images into the project. Although there isn't an image of Me on this site that doesn't reflect some facet of My very complex personality. (s)

Wanda
Wm. Bates29-Mar-2005 00:55
Richard,
What you get for $3900 is one big honk'n piece of glass that is lighting fast. It is super fast focusing. That max aperture of f/2.8 is good for 4 times the shutter speed you can get at f/5.6 with most 300mm lenses. All that extra light means being able to take photos with much less available light. So you can work much earlier in the morning and much later in the evening. This lens also has image stabilization so you can hand hold two to three stops faster than a non IS lens. Combine that IS with an f/2.8 aperture and were talking about a great low light lens.

One other nice thing is the 300f/2.8L IS lens is the sharpest lens Canon makes. I would say it was money very well spent. Plus I have both Canons 1.4x and 2x extender. That makes for a 420mmf/4 and a 600mmf/5.6 lenses with image stabilization that are still super sharp. So that is three great lenses in one package for a little over $4000.
Guest 29-Mar-2005 00:00
$3,900 for a lens! I hate to be one of those "I could take real good pictures if only I had better equipment," guys(a lot of golfers are like that), but I just have to wonder what you get for $3,900 that isn't in my $300 Vivitar lens. I know I'm not getting anywhere near the quality of skin texture you are, and I've been blaming it on focus, film, and whatever, but I'm now questioning if $3,600 lens difference is a factor. Thoughts? Anyone?

Thanks,
Guest 28-Mar-2005 15:39
To put it down simple...
BEAUTIFUL SHOT !
Gary Blanchette28-Mar-2005 13:56
Great investment!
Wm. Bates28-Mar-2005 13:43
Todd, your right about the skin tones. Things are a bit yellow??? I didn't do anything different but the light was horrible and white balance was way off...totally my fault.
Wesley Aston28-Mar-2005 12:08
I wish I got something like that for my birthday. I got a case of beef jerky, and $25. I guess there is always next year. :)
zadokshmuel28-Mar-2005 11:37
Congrats Bill , very nice shot and ... I will continue to dream on this lens....
Ray Akey28-Mar-2005 09:13
Oh man. A $3900.00 (USD) lens! Can I be Wanda's boy toy (or slave) for a day or three so she will buy me one? ;)

Congrats Bill, on the fast new lens!

Wanda, you're officially in the Sweetheart Club for that gift.

Oh, and nice photo too. :)
Guest 28-Mar-2005 07:25
This is a nice shot Bill but the flesh tones look a little off. It's yellowish and kinda pastey (best I can describe it.) Did you do something different in your processing? This one doesn't have the same "punch" that your pics usually have. Just an observation...
Guest 28-Mar-2005 06:54
Agree, that backround is pretty smooth, subject's, well, just pretty!
Guest 28-Mar-2005 04:10
Great DOF!