Digital photography

Chuck in an EF lens and a Manfrotto tripod, you got a mobile gym.

/Donotwant

Haha comedy lens.
Remindse of the sigma 200-500 rocket launcher-esque behemoth

cool, went to the Flickr but didn't notice the location
where is this?

It's one of the dams on the Derwent reservoir in the Peak district. A really remarkable place; the reservoirs were used to test the 'bouncing bombs' during the second world war. We were lucky to be there while the water was overflowing.

From the other side it is quite eerie how the water just disappears over the horizon

Very nice, thanks for the pics and explanations.

^Ravishing Grimness

That last one makes me feel damp and humid just looking at it. Love it.

That last one makes me feel damp just looking at it. Love it.

OOO-ERR Missus!

Ha!

^Ravishing Grimness

+1!

I picked up a Canon 50mm 1.8 for my crop sensor camera this week. Very happy with it as I can't afford the 1.4 ...Or the 1.2. Has anybody got a 1.4 or 1.2 and fancy telling me how much better it is?

1.4 will be plentiful enough.

1.2 is great but not exactly something I can use regularly at it's widest point.

"leaked" photos of the Fuji X20;

I picked up a Canon 50mm 1.8 for my crop sensor camera this week. Very happy with it as I can't afford the 1.4 ...Or the 1.2. Has anybody got a 1.4 or 1.2 and fancy telling me how much better it is?

been wondering this myself as my 50mm is my most used lens on my 5d. also looked at the macro as i always seem to need close focus but think i'd miss the 1.8

Thanks ed. 1.2 sounds great on paper, but seems a bit overkill imo.
Phil (and anybody else who knows), is it true 50mm has about the same field of view as your eyes? I wish I could use my 50mm as my main lens... But it's too tele on a crop sensor. A fast(ish) wide lens is next on my to buy list.

The 1.8 is brilliant for the price though. Not bad at at macro either considering it's not built for it.

yeah 50mm or equivalent is classed as a 'standard' lens, i used to use a 35mm on crop which is roughly the same.

maybe not as wide as you meant but i have a 28mm f2.8 i am selling

50mm being 'standard' is (I think) considered as sort of old thinking now. I think people are now feeling that 35mm is actually more representative of eyesight once you consider peripheral vision, 50mm relates more to focusing your eyesight on one particular thing maybe a portrait as opposed to say, a street scene.

I have the X100 which is 35mm equiv and a Hexar that's 35mm and I really like it, it's rarely too long (as 50mm can often be) and rarely too wide.

I find anything wider than probably 28mm is a focal length that's fun to use now and then but if you're talking primes then it's just something to sit in your pocket for 80% of the day.

I have a 40mm for my Konica slr actually and really like that.

Horses for courses I guess.

Pretty much this ^, realistically the 50mm end up having the same field of view as a portrait lens, i.e. 80-85mm (depend on whether you're using Nikon or Canon).

35mm is a great all round lens, but I'd be happy with a 40mm.

Thanks ed. 1.2 sounds great on paper, but seems a bit overkill imo.

Let says 1.2 does look great with it's extremely narrow depth of field, but there's a lots of scenario where it doesn't really work that well despite the advantage of being able to shoot in low-light situation with a lower ISO (which IMHO not quite important as most decent DSLR work brilliantly at 800 ISO).

Try picking up a 35mm f2. Fantastic little lens, bit heavier than the 50 1.8 but that's to be expected. It's my most used lens on my 5d and has almost made the 50 redundant.

Is the 5D MkII much better than the MkI? I'd like a full frame camera but don't really want to fork out a massive amount. I've looked at some shots taken on the MK1 and have been impressed but don't have any real world experience with either camera?